Evolution RIP

[EarthScienceguy]

From Zumdahl Chemistry Sixth edition

Gibbs free energy equation in Chemistry indicates whether a chemical reaction will occur spontaneously or not. It is derived out of the second law of thermodynamics and takes the form.

dG = dH - TdS

dG = the change in Gibbs free energy
dH = the change in enthalpy the flow of energy reaction.
T = Temperature
dS = Change in entropy Sfinal state - Sinitial state

For evolution to occur the dS is always going to be negative because the
final state will always have a lower entropy then the initial state.

dH of a dipeptide from amino acids = 5-8 kcal/mole ,(Hutchens, Handbook
of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

dh for a macromolecule in a living system = 16.4 cal/gm (Morowitz,
Energy flow in Biology.


Zumdauhl Chemistry sixth edition

When dS is negative and dH is positive the Process is not spontaneous at
any temperature. The reverse process is spontaneous at all temperatures.

The implications are that evolution could not have happen now or in the past. genes could not have been added to the cytoplasm of the cell along with producing any gene's in the first.

Production of information or complexity by any chemical process using a polymer of amino acids is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. If any proteins were formed by chance they would immediately break apart.

Evolution Cannot Happen.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 140 by Donray]

if you ask a little more politely, I'd be happy to!

[Donray]

[Replying to post 141 by Guy Threepwood]

Please supply all the information you have tp prove that many (in the thousands) do not support evolution by natural selection. Provide the list of names that can researched through the internet.

Could also please describe your theory that would replace evolution and match your theory to know fossil records,

Please.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 142 by Donray]

I'm simply agreeing with current secular understanding at the highest levels (not necessarily high school biologists or pop-science tv show presenters): that developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, such as the meeting of the Royal Society:
New trends in evolutionary biology

I think there were some 300 attending this, there are some 600 signatories on 'dissent from Darwin'- I'm sure you could find more to research also- though as I believe Einstein said 'it doesn't take 1000 scientists to prove me wrong.. it takes one fact.

Could also please describe your theory that would replace evolution and match your theory to know fossil records,

Well it's beginning to look a lot like the transition from classical physics to quantum mechanics- from a Victorian age model where a handful of 'immutable laws' + lots of time space and random interaction= 'lots of jolly interesting results eventually' to a more modern information age understanding, where development is preordained by lots of very specific pre-existing information, predetermining how, when, development occurs.

re. the fossil record:

One of the tip-offs that something deeper was going on in physics, was being able to look back in time and see the staccato record of sudden appearances, explosive events, distinct and crucially timed and 'symbiotic' stages of development- which speaks more to following a specific set of instructions rather than the slow gradual progression of simple unguided laws and mechanisms. So yes, the fossil record agrees with this quite strikingly, ever more so the more we learn

[Goat]

[Replying to post 5 by ATN]

That is not the problem. The problem is creating new genes for an upward organizational movement of a species.

Creating new genes requires an increase in the complexity of the arrangement of the amino acids. The Gibbs free energy equation indicates that increase in complexity cannot happen spontaneously. And even it did it would move back to the original state spontaneously. Therefore making evolution impossible.

And this is exactly what we see in nature.

It's a problem even atheist scientists are increasingly acknowledging - random errors simply lack the creative capacity to organize new functional information in any form- be it a chimp at a typewriter or mutations in genes (which are not adequate to create new forms anyway)- it's an objective mathematical problem that we understand far better in the 21st C than in Darwin's time.


Darwinism is looking increasingly unlikely to survive the information age and now its both sides that are looking for a better explanation

The materialist version is destined to end up placing the creative capacity in the same place as it had to for physics: an infinite probability machine.. the flying spaghetti multiverse.. it already does for origins of life

You are making an error. When it comes to mutuations, there is another step you ignoring. There is a 'filter' of reproductive success. That gives non-random results.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 144 by Goat]

Natural selection is a selection process, not a creative one, it can only select from what has already been created- no way around this.

that a significantly superior design will tend to out perform, out last, & survive in greater numbers than an inferior one... goes entirely without saying. It's why we have more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos, isn't it?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 144 by Goat]

Natural selection is a selection process, not a creative one, it can only select from what has already been created- no way around this.

that a significantly superior design will tend to out perform, out last, & survive in greater numbers than an inferior one... goes entirely without saying. It's why we have more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos, isn't it?

That's right.. it's not a creative process. However, that is just one mechanism driving evolution.

Do you know what that scientific definition of biological evolution is?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 146 by Goat]

right, so that leaves only 'pure blind luck' to do the actual creative work, according to ToE. That's the mathematically problematic part

Do you know what that scientific definition of biological evolution is?

if it covers any scale of change, large or small, it's making the same mistake classical physics did. scales matter- things do work differently across them, they have to.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 143 by Guy Threepwood]

Like I thought, you have nothing. You cannot even give me the names of a dozen actual scientists that deal with evolution that say it is false. All you have are a bunch of religious fanatics that try to prove evolution wrong.

You also have no theory to replace evolution that explains the fossil records.

Like I said just blowing words out of your???

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 136 by micatala]

And yet, it happened. This also happens every time you play cards. Any given hand you have ever received playing bridge, poker, etc., was very improbable.

Every hand in poker is not improbable we can calculate the probability.

You will be dealt a 2 pair every 1 in 20 deals. So if 20 people are being dealt cards then you can expect 1 of those to be dealt a 2 pair. The event is highly probable.

The chances of a Royal straight flush being dealt to you is 1 in 649,000. So that means that if you have 649 000 people being dealt cards it is highly probable that one of them will have been dealt a royal straight flush.

Now the number of possible combinations in the genome is 1 in 10^490. So even if you have a mole of creatures 6 x 10^23. You would still have only a 1 in 10^460. Very improbable event.

Evolution only selects certain changes that occur because they provide some advantage.

This is an entirely false statement evolution cannot select anything. Unless someone believes in some sort of pantheistic evolutionary scenario. People do believe that if that is what you believe. But if you have some sort of pantheistic we are having the wrong conversation. We should be discussing if the universe is a living entity.

If that is not the case then we evolution has to be considered directionless. And it is only by random chance that a mutation even happens in a particular position in the genome and if a mutation in beneficial or neutral to the organism. Most of the time they are either neutral or destructive. And most of time a beneficial mutation is simply increasing the length of time protein is added in a particular area or whether not as much protein is added to a particular area.

Like for example the "human evolution" of becoming immune to HIV is simply the absence of a protein on the outside of a cell. Not anytype of new protein or function just the lack of a protein.

You are looking backwards at the history of life and assuming it must have unfolded the way it did and claiming it can't have been evolution because what happened was would have been wildly improbably if predicted ahead of time.

I look back in time and see the FACTS that were left behind.

There is no continuous sequence to evolution. In other words there is no such thing as a tree of life. Can you tell me is that tree based on morphology or is it based on the genome?

If you are going to base it on morphology then how is it that the evolutionary tree has man ancestor as an chimp instead of an orangutan?

If it is based on the genome then what is the continuous sequence we are to see? There is no correlation between genome size and the tree of life or between the number of chromosome and the tree of life.

But, because it has now happened, looking back, the probability is now 100%. Just like the last bridge hand played by any given player was very wildly improbable and any number of other hands could have occurred. Cards is unlike evolution in that a given hand is not 'selected' for survival.

I understand that evolutionist do not like to deal with facts. That they much rather concoct wild pantheistic tells of what life can do if given the chance. Ha,Ha a little evolutionary humor.

But the numbers just do not add up. People are free to have whatever type of religion they want to have. There are people who believe that the world moves because it is riding on turtles.

But the reason why we do not believe that is because the observations and the mathematics do not support that wild claim. Just like they do not support evolution. So evolutinist can have all there made up beliefs and pantheism. But the observations and the math simply point to a different reality not the one made up reality of the those that believe in evolution.

Thank you

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 149 by EarthScienceguy]

Now the number of possible combinations in the genome is 1 in 10^490. So even if you have a mole of creatures 6 x 10^23. You would still have only a 1 in 10^460. Very improbable event.

To what specific event does your probability apply?