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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 90 by Tcg]

Reinterpretation of passages from Gourd's Holy Word allows for the worship of Grace Kelly. Go for it.

[Bust Nak]

Not really. I really do not care whether you agree with my citations or not.

I wasn't talking about my agreement or a lack there of though, but facts. Such as whether a publication came from creationists or not. Or whether a particular claim came from a peer reviewed paper, or came from a book. Don't you care about those facts?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

Not sure what you are talking about. But I am quite sure it is a profound thought.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 83 by DrNoGods]

I can see you are struggling with the math that is ok I understand. Math is hard.

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:
I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


You don't understand science at all.

How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans. If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since you like the kinds of animals that a lot of creationist do why don't you list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Bet you cannot since you don't even understand your kind of science.

Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to sue with DNA changing? Since you like pointing out all the articles that support your science I would hope you have a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

So, your justifying everything by believing in magic? You belive in a thing that is beyond ALL of the rules of the universe and that you cannot define nor say how the thing created stuff from nothing.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 94 by EarthScienceguy]

I can see you are struggling with the math that is ok I understand. Math is hard.

What math? So far you've botched virtually all of your attempts at math and chemical equations by assigning variables to things they aren't, misusing statistics, etc. (typical creationist and anti-evolutionist tactics). There is no math in this thread that is beyond 9th grade level, but as always you get garbage out if you put garbage, in, and this is the mistake you keep making.

If you're referring to the eye evolution paper, they did not make any math mistakes or any erroneous assumptions. So I'm not sure what your comment above is referring to as there was no math being discussed from that paper other than your regurgitating something from it that the author's had written (and which you did not seem to comprehend based on your comments).

But if all you can do is make a snarky comment about understanding arithmetic, when you have repeatedly misused and/or misunderstood the chemical and mathematical relationships involved, I'll take that as a dodge of the actual debate issue and yet another attempt to move the goal posts.

Evolution does happen, it has been observed extensively, and it is consistent with all laws of mathematics, chemistry (including thermodynamics), and physics. You've presented nothing so far to show otherwise, and the apparent fact that you think you have is just further proof that you don't understand the thermodynamic principles and simple arithmetic that you are trying to use in your failed attempt to show that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is the subject of this thread, if you remember). Maybe try another approach as you've obviously ran into a dead end with this one.

[EarthScienceguy]

There is a problem with your analysis. First of all, you are assuming things are all at once, rather than accumulative. Next, you are ignoring the fact that there is the filter of 'natural selection' that is put into place in each and every generation. This gives non-random results.

But you still have in each and every generation a random mutation that can happen anywhere in the genome. Most mutations happen in hotspots, so not only does the correct mutation have to happen it at the correct point all of the mutation events have to be part of these hotspots. I did not even take into account these hotspots.

So you have a "beneficial mutation" and the species is waiting for the next "beneficial mutation". How long does before the next beneficial mutation happens? It depends on a random mutation that can happen anywhere in the genome. How many generations does there have to be before the next beneficial mutation? And remember that a mutation can happen anywhere in the genome.

A worm has around 20,000 genes. That means there are 80,000 possibilities per mutation. Now let's assume again that there are 10 ways that the genome can change to produce the desired outcome. This would give a 10/80000 possibility for a positive mutation which equals a 1 in 8000 chance.

Well that is not so bad 1 in 8000 chance per mutation. If we wanted to calculate the probability to go from a worm to a fish. We would take 1/8000 x 1/8000 X 1/8000 a hundred times. So if we take (1/8000)^100 that would be 1 / 2 x 10^390 chance.

So I am not quite sure how you say it is not random. In fact the main axiom in evolution states that it is random chance. The primary axiom in evolution is that life is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection.

[Donray]

Anyone notice that EarthScienceguy cannot defend his belief in kinds and adaptation?

He like most Christians cannot defend there beliefs and just try to say Evolution is false.

Nothing like a person that cannot really define there belive in a scientific manner like EarthScienceguy wants to pretend to use science to discredit evolution. Yet he cannot use science to describe his beliefs and then defend them in debate.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 97 by EarthScienceguy]

You keep assuming that evolution has end goals, like the worm has a 1/8000 chance of finding the perfect mutation each generation to reach it's destination. You are looking at current species and assuming that everything was travelling towards this current state with purpose.

There are an estimated 8.7 million extant species on earth, and 99% of all species that have existed are extinct. There could be as many as a trillion different microbes on earth.

So imagine the most primitive form of life ever entering a maze, and that maze has billions of dead ends and billions of exits. It's not a single worm, reproducing by itself, asexually, for millions of generations to create the most perfect worm. It's trillions of rolls of the dice, with trillions of outcomes, quadrillions of possibilities, for billions of years, with no set path or desired outcome. It's just whatever survives, survives. Most things do not survive. What you see is what's left.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 99 by DeMotts]

Trillions of species of life does not help your situation. Each coding protein has 100 to 300 amino acids. The number of different combinations is beyond comprehension. One coding protein of 100 amino acids has 10^115 possible combinations.

I do not have that much faith in nature. But you can.