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 post 6 by Bust Nak]

Nothing it did so well with you all I decided to open it up to anyone who wanted to take a shot at dislodging my argument.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 2 by DrNoGods]

Except, I did not write the equation. Gibb's did and all chemist use it. Or any of the rules of gibb's free energy. I simply plugged in numbers.

If you don't like laws of nature I cannot help that.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 10 by EarthScienceguy]

Creating new genes requires an increase in the complexity of the arrangement of the amino acids.

No it does not. You just made that up like most everything else you are saying in these threads.

Some genes (not all genes define a protein) define the order of animo acids in a protein via the ordering of the base pairs that make up the gene, which is just a stretch of DNA. Groups of 3 base pairs are called codons, and each codon specifies an amino acid in the protein (and some amino acids can be defined by more than one codon). The process of translation or gene expression is where the sequence of codons of the gene are "read" at the ribosome and translated into a protein, which is a specific sequence of amino acids.

There is no requirement that a new gene be any more, or any less, complex than any other gene. Therefore, there is no requirement that "new genes require an increase in complexity of the arrangement of amino acids" as you stated. Again, you just made this up and it is wrong. The gene itself is simply a defined sequence of base pairs on DNA, and rearranging the order of base pairs does not create any increase, or decrease, in complexity. So even if the resulting protein defined by the amino acid sequence were more complex than some other protein, there is no additional complexity in the gene itself as this is simply a specific sequence of base pairs on DNA.

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.

For the umteenth time ... the Gibbs free energy equation you keep presenting does not apply to the evolutionary process, or any other processes occurring in an open thermodynamic system. So no matter how many times you post it, or how many new threads you create, you can't make it apply to evolution on earth, and any conclusions you draw from misusing the relationship are simply wrong right out of the gate.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by EarthScienceguy]

Except, I did not write the equation. Gibb's did and all chemist use it. Or any of the rules of gibb's free energy. I simply plugged in numbers.

If you don't like laws of nature I cannot help that.

The problem is that you are misusing it. You are taking a relationship that only applies to thermodynamically closed systems, and trying to apply it in a thermodynamically open system, to support an anti-evolutionary argument. That does not work, and no real chemist does this because it is invalid. This is the fundamental mistake you are making, and it kills your argument completely (even without all the misuse of numbers and random, unrelated comments you are sprinkling in along the way).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 14 by DrNoGods]

This is an equation out of chemistry.

Chemists use this equation to determine whether a reaction will occur spontaneously everyday. Chemistry textbooks describe how to use this equation. You might want to read other books or websites other than your anti creation websites and books and you might learn something.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 10 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

For the umteenth time ... the Gibbs free energy equation you keep presenting does not apply to the evolutionary process, or any other processes occurring in an open thermodynamic system. So no matter how many times you post it, or how many new threads you create, you can't make it apply to evolution on earth, and any conclusions you draw from misusing the relationship are simply wrong right out of the gate.

Exactly. Ironically EarthScienceguy apparently has no understanding of the sciences at all. What does he even mean when he says "spontaneously"? That implies that two molecules just sitting around in isolation would not "spontaneously" bond to each other. And that is no doubt true.

However, that doesn't take into consideration that these molecules are not an isolated system. They are in an environment that contains many other elements, each having their own energy state. And some of them even act as catalysts in chemical reactions making reactions possible via less energy than would otherwise be required in the absence of the catalyst.

So clearly EarthScienceguy doesn't know much about chemistry. The presence of other elements, molecules and possibly even a catalyst solves his problem instantly. And these other elements are clearly available in the real world. Therefore his argument doesn't apply to the real world. It would only apply to two isolated molecules that are devoid of any additional environment.

So all you've done in this thread EarthScienceguy is display an extreme lack of knowledge of how chemistry works in the real world.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 14 by DrNoGods]

This is an equation out of chemistry.

Chemists use this equation to determine whether a reaction will occur spontaneously everyday. Chemistry textbooks describe how to use this equation. You might want to read other books or websites other than your anti creation websites and books and you might learn something.

There you go!

The keyword here is "spontaneously". This means that no other elements, molecules, or catalysts or external energy sources are required. In this case, two molecules that happen to bump into each other will simply bond immediately without any need for any other environmental factors.

But just because a reaction doesn't occur spontaneously doesn't mean that it can never occur at all.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 15 by EarthScienceguy]

You might want to read other books or websites other than your anti creation websites and books and you might learn something.

I "learned something" about this during the period 1976 to 1985 when I earned B.A.'s in Chemistry and Math, and a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry. I've spent my career as an experimental spectroscopist rather than a "wet chemist", but I still have all of my college chemistry text books for reference when I need them. I'm not getting any of my comments from anti-creation websites or books, but rather from textbooks that actually describe things properly rather than misusing and misunderstanding them as you keep doing here.

You would improve your understanding of why your argument fails if you took the time to learn something about open vs. closed thermodynamic systems, and what Gibbs free energy actually is and when it can be applied. But given your comments so far it is very clear that you don't have the basic chemistry knowledge that is needed to argue the point. So instead you are misusing equations, assigning random quantities to things like dS(life) so you can then plug a big number into someone elses equation to make it evaluate to something you like, etc. These tactics only show that you don't understand the basic chemistry and thermodynamics concepts that are needed to actually evaluate the validity of your argument, that has already been shown to be wrong many times in the past.

Here is a link to get you started, and it isn't an anti-creation website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

Scroll down to the section titled:

The second law of thermodynamics and metabolism

which states the following:

A chemical reaction will (or can) proceed spontaneously if the change in the total entropy of the universe that would be caused by the reaction is nonnegative. As discussed in the overview, if the temperature and pressure are held constant, the Gibbs free energy is a (negative) proxy for the change in total entropy of the universe. It is "negative" because S appears with a negative coefficient in the expression for G, so the Gibbs free energy moves in the opposite direction from the total entropy. Thus, a reaction with a positive Gibbs free energy will not proceed spontaneously. However, in biological systems (among others), energy inputs from other energy sources (including the Sun and exothermic chemical reactions) are "coupled" with reactions that are not entropically favored (i.e. have a Gibbs free energy above zero). Taking into account the coupled reactions, the total entropy in the universe increases. This coupling allows endergonic reactions, such as photosynthesis and DNA synthesis, to proceed without decreasing the total entropy of the universe. Thus biological systems do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

This is properly applying the equation you keep posting. Let's hear your reason for claiming that the text in green above is wrong (or anything else in this Wikipedia article ... it can be edited you know and I'm sure they'd love to get corrections if they have mistakes).

[ATN]

[Replying to post 10 by EarthScienceguy]

Tsrot doesn't impact complexity, it impact entropy of energy.

[EarthScienceguy]

Ok,

1. Let's put the whole open and closed argument to rest.

Giancoli, Physics Fifth Edition
Second Law of Thermodynamics

The total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process.

The entropy of an isolated system never decreases. It can only stay the same increase. dSsystem + dSenvironment > 0

So the very fact that dS can be negative is taking into account the open and closed system.

From your wikipedia article

This is one form of Gibbs fundamental equation.[13] In the infinitesimal expression, the term involving the chemical potential accounts for changes in Gibbs free energy resulting from an influx or outflux of particles. In other words, it holds for an open system or for a closed, chemically reacting system where the Ni are changing. For a closed, non-reacting system, this term may be dropped

2.

However, in biological systems (among others), energy inputs from other energy sources (including the Sun and exothermic chemical reactions) are "coupled" with reactions that are not entropically favored (i.e. have a Gibbs free energy above zero). Taking into account the coupled reactions, the total entropy in the universe increases. This coupling allows endergonic reactions, such as photosynthesis and DNA synthesis, to proceed without decreasing the total entropy of the universe. Thus biological systems do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

This is not talking about evolution. Biological systems do not have to create new genes to survive. There is no need. All of the systems to use the energy and nutrients is already contained in the genes of the biological system.

The reactions that are being spoken of in this are article are coupled reactions. Coupled reactions use enzymes to make the reaction precede. The reactions would not precede if they did not have these enzymes to create half reactions that do not break the second law of thermodynamics because in the half reactions gibbs free energy drops below 0 like it needs to. These enzymes were produced in the biological system because it was already coded in the DNA.

This is exactly what I am talking about though. Biological systems do not come up with new ways to use the energy or to make new structures. Humans cannot perform photosynthesis because we do not have the structures to perform this task. Humans cannot extract oxygen out of water because we do not have the structures to preform this task.

There are no such enzymes to create new genes. There are no such mechanisms in place to create new genes in biological systems that create new structures in the system. For life to go from simple single celled life to the vast amount of life we see in the world today it would have had to create new genes with new information. Information theory calls this complexity.

There is no requirement that a new gene be any more, or any less, complex than any other gene. Therefore, there is no requirement that "new genes require an increase in complexity of the arrangement of amino acids" as you stated.

There are over 10^300 different ways just to fold a protein. There are somewhere around 10^115 different ways that amino acids can combine in a protein. How many of these different arrangements make a human? one.

How many of these arrangements produce life in general? 10^9 That means that most arrangements produce nothing. So that means that only 10^-94 % actually make life.

This is what entropy is S = kIn W. W is the probability of a specific outcome. Taking 10^115 down to one is a huge change in entropy. Which shifts the Gibbs free energy positive. With no coupling reactions this reaction will not take place.

Therefore evolution cannot happen.