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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to ATN]

I think we ain't saying the same when saying "creating new genes".
Are talking about creating a change? For example the difference of long haired dogs and short haired dogs are a mistake in copying a guanine and was read as a thymine.
Are you talking change in the length of the gene? Are you aware that it happens that a section of genes sometimes are duplicated?

Now here you have a couple of different things going on. You have the phenotype of long haired dogs and short haired dogs. The phenotype is not caused by genetic mutation but is inherited by the parents of the dog. This type of change can be shown in the Gibbs free energy equation.
dG = dH – tdS
dH would be positive
dS would be low because there would be only one way for genes to combine.

Now during a mutation.
All mutations are part of a random event. It does not matter what new genetic letter is place in the mutation event, whether it is inverted, translated, deleted, or duplicated it does not matter because it is random. This is why most mutations are deleterious mutations and of the ones that are not deleterious mutations and called positive usually have secondary traits that are not desirous.

Since it does not matter what code inverted, translated, deleted or duplicated then entropy would still be low. And allows for the mutation reaction to proceed.

Now lest say that there is an organism that is evolving from an invertebrate like a worm to a fish. A fish has around 23,000 coding genes. And we will assume that a worm has about the same number of coding genes. Then let’s say that 100 of those need to change in the correct sequence to make a worm into a fish. Now that would be 10^115 different combinations possible. Without taking into the fact that certain parts genome are more prone to mutations than others, not only do these changes need to take place they need to take place in at the correct locations. This number of possibilities drives the entropy way up. Making it an impossibility according to the second law of thermodynamics.

A Second problem is the degeneration of the genome over time. Recent experiments show the build up of deleterious mutations causes the genome to deteriorate over time.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 51 by EarthScienceguy]

This number of possibilities drives the entropy way up.

Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with probability. Entropy has to do with the amount of usable energy in a system, to give a rough and basic explanation.

And we will assume that a worm has about the same number of coding genes.

Why are you assuming things here? I thought you were dealing in the realm of numbers and equations. Didn't your teacher in school ever tell you to show your work and not simply give answers without showing step by step how you got there?

Then let’s say that 100 of those need to change in the correct sequence to make a worm into a fish.

Since a worm is a vastly different creature than a fish, one would think a lot more than 100 genes would be needed to be different between the two.

Without taking into the fact that certain parts genome are more prone to mutations than others, not only do these changes need to take place they need to take place in at the correct locations.

Only if you're looking at the 'beginning' creature and the 'end' creature, and not looking at any of the intermediate stages. Or are you of the mindset that one goes straight from worm to fish in one generation?

A Second problem is the degeneration of the genome over time. Recent experiments show the build up of deleterious mutations causes the genome to deteriorate over time.

Let me guess - your genome, your human genome, isn't degenerated?

[JoeyKnothead]

You may as well go back to arguing that the earth is at the center of creation.

Which is clearly wrong a-knowin' how much it is I am.



(Humanocentric intepretationals and all)

[ATN]

[Replying to post 51 by EarthScienceguy]

The long haired genome is passed from parents through generations. All the way back when the mutation of the first long haired dog, when a guanine was "mistaken" for a thymine.
It is still a dog, no speciation occurred, just a mutation that made long hair

Of the four types of mutation you listed: inverted, translated, deleted, or duplicated. Two don't effect the length of the genome, don't delete or add. Don't think duplicate is deleterious as it makes a double, it adding information. So we are left with one, delete, granted is deleterious. To claime that most of these types of mutation is deleterious, when only one of four is, is disingenuous.

[quote] This is why most mutations are deleterious mutations and of the ones that are not deleterious mutations and called positive usually have secondary traits that are not desirous.

I'm glad you can confess that positive non-deleterious mutation can occurre, with the drawback of not so desirous secondary traits. The secondary traits don't matter, as long as the mutated individual reproduce, the both the traits is passed on through the generations. Some will get the relevant genes from others in the group and don't get the mutated traits, others get all or some of the new traits. Now selection pressures will over time favor those with trait that higher the chance to reproduce. Not desirous traits slowly being weed out of the gene pool. To say it plainly, they die. Mutation are random, selection pressures makes a pattern out of the randomness. I don't know if worm to fish is relevant, but the hundred changes I can work with. There isn't: change, time change, time change. It's more like: change part selection, time change, part selection, time change. It seems this takes longer time, put the selection direct it, leaving only the "correct answers". (Even though it ain't any correct answers, just beneficial answer) You can't see evolution as trying to reach desired species, today's variation is just a result we got.

It is chance if the mutation is: inverted, translated, deleted, or duplicated. Only one is deleterious, selection pressures then favor degrading or increasing the genome over time. The least favoured getting weed out

[Donray]

OP has also proved that God cannot exist. How can something be created from nothing?

OP needs to explin how the equation shows that his god exits?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 54 by ATN]

It is chance if the mutation is: inverted, translated, deleted, or duplicated. Only one is deleterious, selection pressures then favor degrading or increasing the genome over time. The least favoured getting weed out

From Talk Origins (I am not sure I can get more pro evolution than that)

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lynch The paper indicates human fitness is declining at 3–5% per generation. Because of a build up of deleterious mutations.
Lynch, M., Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(3):961–968, 2010


Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite Selection, Biological Information: New Perspectives pp. 338–368; https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814508728_0014)

numerical simulation to clearly demonstrate that near-neutral deleterious mutations generally escape selective removal and lead to continuous and linear accumulation of genetic damage. Creating a evolutionary paradox.
Kondrashov, A., Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology 175(4):583–594, 1995

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 56 by EarthScienceguy]

From Talk Origins (I am not sure I can get more pro evolution than that)

If you're going to quote from Talk Origins in support of your position as an argument from authority (which honestly looks like it was designed in the 1990s and hasn't been updated in terms of look since then...), why not this from their FAQ page?

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQs and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[ATN]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

Comment overall: It get a little mudded with humans as humans have almost eliminated most selection pressures, we have no natural enemies, and we use resources to keep almost everyone alive. Partners are almost destributed equally. There is almost no reasons for one individual to reproduce any more or less than others. So of course the most usual outcome of mutations will more usual. We have created us other selection pressures, that not necessarily fawours an increase in the genome. In even human existence this haven't been true long, as selection pressures had more impact before. Even human existence is a blink of an eye in turms of evolutionary timeframe.

I don't care about the claims in "Biological Information: New Perspectives" as it is a book catalogued as a book in Engineering and Applied Science, not biology. When the publication notest they pulled it back. Probably why the link doesn't work anymore. Do you just puke up creationist propoganda?

I don't know much about the claims in the works of Kondrashov, but I know he dislike the quote mining of Sarfati, that misrepresent his work. Are you sure Sarfati isn't your source, or your sources source?

To comment Talk Origin, as I said earlier it a bit extraordinary for humans. But more broadly it doesn't matter that most mutation with significant effect is harmful because it is still weed out in selection pressures.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 52 by rikuoamero]

Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with probability. Entropy has to do with the amount of usable energy in a system, to give a rough and basic explanation.

The Boltzman equation that is written on his tombstone for goodness sake is S= k In W
k is Boltzman constant
W is the number of ways that atoms and molecules can be arranged and the kinetic and vibrational energies of those atoms.

Why are you assuming things here? I thought you were dealing in the realm of numbers and equations. Didn't your teacher in school ever tell you to show your work and not simply give answers without showing step by step how you got there?

Because they pretty much have the same number of genes.

Since a worm is a vastly different creature than a fish, one would think a lot more than 100 genes would be needed to be different between the two.

I would also think it would be more but more would just make your problem worse.

Only if you're looking at the 'beginning' creature and the 'end' creature, and not looking at any of the intermediate stages. Or are you of the mindset that one goes straight from worm to fish in one generation?

I am not sure if you understand just how big of a problem this is.

Lest everything mutates at the speed dynamite reacts. 200 x 10^-6 seconds.
That means there would be 2 x10^8 mutations per second. There are 1.5 x 10^17 secs in 5 billion years.

That means that there would be 3 x 10^25 mutations over the past 5 billion years. Now lest say that a mole of worms were mutating that fast. that means that 1.8 x 10^49 mutations would have occured in the mole of worms over the 5 billion years. That would mean that only around 1 x 10^-64%
possible arrangements had been gone through by the mole of your worms.

Evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 59 by EarthScienceguy]

Lest everything mutates at the speed dynamite reacts. 200 x 10^-6 seconds.
That means there would be 2 x10^8 mutations per second. There are 1.5 x 10^17 secs in 5 billion years.

That means that there would be 3 x 10^25 mutations over the past 5 billion years. Now lest say that a mole of worms were mutating that fast. that means that 1.8 x 10^49 mutations would have occured in the mole of worms over the 5 billion years. That would mean that only around 1 x 10^-64%
possible arrangements had been gone through by the mole of your worms.

Ignoring the misuse of the word "lest", the numbers you have above are yet another example of misusing variables or redefining them to mean something they don't, then trying to pass off the bogus result as if it proved something. But as with every attempt you've made so far at this you've completely botched it again.

First, what does the rate that dynamite reacts have to do with anything? Was this just some way to come up with a random short time for the mutation rate? Next you use that pulled-from-the-behind number to arrive at a number of mutations that would occur in 5 billion years (which also doesn't make sense as the first worms appeared less than 1 billion years ago). Then you randomly pick a mole of worms, which is 6.02 x 10^23 worms. Again ... what does that number have to do with anything at all (there have probably not been that many worms on earth in the entire history of the existence of worms). But having randomly produced an arbitrarily large number of worms, you multiply that by the random number of mutations you propose happened in 5 billion years to arrive at a total number of mutations for 6 x 10^23 worms over that time period (1.8 x 10^49). Apparently all of this was only to produce some random, large number. Finally, having created a meaningless number that has no relation to anything, you then use it to produce the tiny number you wanted (10^-64%) and suggest that it is impossible for worms to evolve into fish because not enough "arrangements have been gone through."

You don't say exactly how you arrived at 10^-64%, but what you've evidently done was to go back to a number you threw out in post 20 of 10^115 for the number of ways amino acids can combine to make a protein. Then you divided that into 1.8 x 10^49 to get 10^-66, or 10^-64% and claimed that only this tiny fraction of possible arrangements could be "gone through" by a 6 x 10^23 (1 mole) of worms in 5 billion years. It is also easy enough to work backwards from the 10^-64% number, and your pulled 1.8 x 10^49 mutations number, to get 10^115 for what you call "possible arrangements."

The fatal mistake this time is just like the others. The number of possible ways that animo acids can combine to make a protein has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the number of mutations required for a worm to evolve into a fish! You've tried this same kind of trick several times before where you equate some number to an unrelated quantity, then use that to arrive at a number you like and claim it proves a point. But it is nothing more than "garbage in, garbage out" ... there is no quantitative relationship between the number of ways amino acids can combine to make a protein, and the number of mutations required for a worm to evolve into a fish.