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.

[Goat]

And, life , being alive, decreases entropy. Evolution is merely the imperfect reproduction of life, followed by the filter of reproductive fitness.

But you do not believe that evolution is an imperfect reproduction. Because evolution has to have one change in the genome followed by another specific change in the genome.

It has to be a very specific change because as far as we know most combinations in the genome do not produce any type of change except may be death. There are more than 10^500 different combinations that the genome can have. And yet there are only a few million different species of animals.

So there are only a very few combinations that give life. So evolution has to be very directed towards life.

You are missing a step there. It is variation in reproduction , followed by the filter of natural selection. In specific, the filter is 'reproductive fitness'.

You are also , by using the argument by very large numbers, using the 'Texas sharpshooters fallacy'. You are seeing a result, and then drawing a target around it, saying 'see how improbably it is'. That is not the way things work.

Let's back up a few steps, and see if you understand what the definition of biological evolution. Can you state the scientific definition of biological evolution? I think before you build a house, you have to show that there is a proper foundation.

[Clownboat]

And, life , being alive, decreases entropy. Evolution is merely the imperfect reproduction of life, followed by the filter of reproductive fitness.

But you do not believe that evolution is an imperfect reproduction. Because evolution has to have one change in the genome followed by another specific change in the genome.

It has to be a very specific change because as far as we know most combinations in the genome do not produce any type of change except may be death. There are more than 10^500 different combinations that the genome can have. And yet there are only a few million different species of animals.

So there are only a very few combinations that give life. So evolution has to be very directed towards life.

If we use your approach to statistics, then I can prove that I will never die.

The probability that I will die and any precisely given moment of time is of the order of 10^(-30). Since it is so highly improbably that I will die at a given moment of time, I'm nearly immortal!!!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat]

I love it when evolutionist try to do math.

How in the world did you calculate 10^30? The average life span is 75 years. So the highest probability of death would be 1 to 2.36 x10^9. Since I am assuming that you were not just born the probability of your death would be much lower.

A better calculation would be the following. There are 151600 people that die each day. That means about 2 die every second. If there are 8 billion in the world today means you have a 1 in 4 x 10^9 chance of dying every second. Not quite 10^30

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 133 by EarthScienceguy]

His point holds up. If you use broad statistics and completely ignore any circumstances you can bend them to make a specious point. You may generally have a 1 in 4 x 10^9 chance of dying every second, but a person that has jumped out of a plane with no parachute has a different set of odds.

So when you state that there are "10^500 different combinations the genome can have" you're viewing it as a random assortment of genes that all pop into place and only a tiny fraction of those random assortments will perfectly match all existing species.

How about this: the earth goes through warm and cold cycles. There is a certain genetic variability in the amount of fur a creature grows. The earth enters a cooling cycle. The population of the creature that has a tendency to grow more/stronger/thicker fur survives more and passes on it's genetics. A creature with a mutation of being very furry will withstand this transition better (especially if the transition is rapid). This trend, over a long period of time, results in a creature population with thicker fur. Perhaps the other population of the creature dies off, perhaps it migrates to a warmer climate. Over millions of years this results in two different species as they each adapt to their environment.

You will say: well there is a 10^500 chance that those genes perfectly aligned to create that creature with thicker fur! I will say: the creatures with the mutation towards growing more fur stood a better chance at surviving and reproducing in the cold environment.

That is what goat is talking about with the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You're viewing the outcome as a total sum of probability rather than the likelihood of each individual step iterating on the previous.

edit: Also do you have to keep packing in the shitty attitude to every post? "I love it when evolutionists try to do math". Yeah I think Stephen Hawking was an evolutionist too, I'm sure you would have smashed him in a math contest.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 134 by DeMotts]


Moderator Warning


Profanity is absolutely forbidden on this site.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

And, life , being alive, decreases entropy. Evolution is merely the imperfect reproduction of life, followed by the filter of reproductive fitness.

But you do not believe that evolution is an imperfect reproduction. Because evolution has to have one change in the genome followed by another specific change in the genome.

Actually, that is another misperception. Evolution does not produce specific, planned changes. It selects changes that provide a small reproductive or survival advantage.

It has to be a very specific change because as far as we know most combinations in the genome do not produce any type of change except may be death. There are more than 10^500 different combinations that the genome can have. And yet there are only a few million different species of animals.

This continues the same fallacious line of reasoning. You might note that, given the large number of possible changes, every single change that does happen is wildly improbable. 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.

So there are only a very few combinations that give life. So evolution has to be very directed towards life.

As noted above, entirely false. Evolution only selects certain changes that occur because they provide some advantage. 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. 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.

[Donray]

Again, why reply to Theunscienceguy when he cannot explain his theory of "KINDS and ADAPTATION"? Lets point out how his math proves that his god not exist because of the same law that he is using to to try and undermine Evolution theory.

Lets have the unscience guy trace a kind using what fossil evidence there is to trace from a KIND to the current types that adaptation created from this kind.

Also he needs to explin the difference between evolution and adaptation and how the adaptation works.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat]

I love it when evolutionist try to do math.

If you love math, then solve for 'any precisely given moment'. Why you chose 'any given second' is lost on me.

Either way, I was illustrating how using broad statistics can allow us to arrive at erroneous conclusion. That's the point, not the math... but have at it.

[Guy Threepwood]

[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

[Donray]

[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

Could you prove what you wrote or like most Christina just blowing words out of their?

Please provide some names of accredited scientists that say Evolution is not valid. Make sure that these are published people so the we can research them. List at leat a few dozen.

Could you also give a logical explanation that replaces evolution and back up your theory with some science and proof using known fossil records.