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.

[Bust Nak]

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

That quote came from a creationist book, the actual paper is referring to the advances of medical science lowering the selection pressure on our species.

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)

That's also creationist publication.

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

This one is fine, apart from the selective quoting. The paper goes to to present a solution to the "paradox."

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Did you read the book? Great book from what I heard, I have not actually read it yet but I want to.

But, so what about whether it is quoted in a creationist book. The papers still went through the peer review process.

National Academy of Sciences is not a creationist group.

New Perspectives is not a creationist group (I don't think so anyway)

Journal of Theoretical Biology is definitely not a creationist group.

I picked these because they were not from creationist group. I believe all of these hold to the primary axiom of evolution.

I cannot help it if you do not like facts. I deal in facts.

[Bust Nak]

Did you read the book?

No.

But, so what about whether it is quoted in a creationist book. The papers still went through the peer review process.

National Academy of Sciences is not a creationist group.

Right, that's why I don't have a problem with the paper, just the book. Note the difference between a quote from a book, and quoted in a book.

New Perspectives is not a creationist group (I don't think so anyway)

It is not a group at all, it's the name of a book written by creationists.

Journal of Theoretical Biology is definitely not a creationist group.

That one is fine, it just doesn't support your side.

I picked these because they were not from creationist group. I believe all of these hold to the primary axiom of evolution.

I cannot help it if you do not like facts. I deal in facts.

Care to update you "facts" in light of the above?

[ATN]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

"Biological Information: New Perspectives" was published by Springer-Verlag, it got through by being discategorized as a Engineering and Applied Science book. The publication dropped it when the dishonesty was discovered. The editors are R.J. Marks II, M.J. Behe, W.A. Dembski, B.L. Gordon, J.C. Sanford, all associated with Discovery Institute. It's most certainly a creationist book.

I looked into Michael Lynch, don't seem to have a problem with the the theory of evolution. Also as stated in my last post, build up of deleterious mutations in humans don't disprove evolution.

Alexey Kondrashov present that the natures answer to this buildups is sexual pressures (it one of the selection pressures). His work isn't anti evolution, it explains how selection pressures fixes this paradox.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 60 by DrNoGods]

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.

I would think the number of mutations is a big part of evolution. Unless you do not hold to the primary axiom of Evolution.

The Primary Axiom’ : Life is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection’

The problem evolution has is that word random. Before I get a diatribe on how evolution proceeds. I understand what the theory says that once a mutation is deemed beneficial in that environment then that organism will keep that trait and in stair step fashion the organism will eventually turn into something new.

But again the problem with evolution is that word random. Because entropy says most mutations will be, for argument sake for now, I will say neutral. Which no one, even you wonderful "talk origin" site disputes.

Now I used a mutations 100 in the genome simply because I have already did the math and it was easy. Also because you go over 100 possible mutations and the numbers start to get really crazy and I start having to calculate things by hand because it goes over the my calculators capabilities. The number of possibilities is actually much higher than 100 because a mutation can happen anywhere in the genome for the most part.

So even if you had a mole of worms which have never existed randomly going through all of the combinations for 5 billion years a worm would never become a fish. The number of combinations is just too high. And this is why the second law of thermodynamics says that evolution cannot happen.

Oh thanks over looking my grammar you are a true gentleman.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 65 by EarthScienceguy]

So even if you had a mole of worms which have never existed randomly going through all of the combinations for 5 billion years a worm would never become a fish. The number of combinations is just too high. And this is why the second law of thermodynamics says that evolution cannot happen.

You're ignoring natural selection in the process, and assuming that an evolutionary change happens only by random mutations having to go through every possible statistical event until by pure dumb chance a fish appears from a worm. That is not how it works. I've linked to this paper many times before, but it is a good example against arguments like yours where you assuming random mutations with no natural selection, then try to estimate the total number of events that would have to happen:

http://www.rctn.org/bruno/animal-eyes/n ... lution.pdf

Tiny changes can "build on themselves" via natural selection favoring the ones that are beneficial. Eyes didn't start from nothing and suddenly a group of mutations happened all at once and presto ... a full-up eye. It started with simple light sensitive molecules transitioning to eye patches and eventually to the many different types of eyes seen in nature. Natural selection "guides" the process in that beneficial mutations are maintained in the population.

But here is what you are saying. Let's count the number of mutations that would be required to produce a human eye from nothing to start with. Then let's calculate the purely statistical number of combinations of base pair changes possible from a given number of starting pairs (or, as you did, assume 100 amino acids making a protein and the total possible number of ways the amino acids could combine). Then let's assume a mutation rate that is very fast, and divide the number of combinations possible by this mutation rate and show that there hasn't been enough time since the formation of the planet to have gone through that many combinations. You are ignoring natural selection and simply assuming that every possible combination of outcomes is equally possible, and that evolution proceeds with no other inputs to the process that could favor some combinations and not others.

The paper above is a better description of the evolutionary process. Your description can only happen if natural selection is ignored completely.

[ATN]

[Replying to post 65 by EarthScienceguy]

Mutation isn't really the driving force of evolution, natural selection is. Mutation is what gives new information. A child is most likely going to be just about the same height as its parents, but not the exact same. Now if this group is in an environment that favor smaller individuals, those who end up the same or lower than their parents will most likely be more likely to be able to reproduce, slowly but surely decreasing the size of the individuals in the group.

Random isn't a problem. It's random if a child look more like the mother or more like the father, but the outcome isn't a problem just because it looks like the one and not the other. It's only a problem if you want to create a child that looks a curtain way. Evolution didn't sett out to create this outcome, this is the outcome we got in this environment so far.

Also the next step never is anything else that it's previously steps, an animal don't get an offspring that is not the same animal. Just that after several generations the group will be different.

Speciation is a splitt of populations, that slowly makes them different from each other, so much they eventually can't interbreed. Look into "ring species", this is a temporary state that different sub-spicies can and can't interbreed untill the species totally separates into two distinguished spicies. The Californian salamander, the greenish warbler are good and simple examples

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Donray]

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

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

Good, your right nothing can be created from nothing.

Good thing God has always existed. And not only has He always existed but He exist in the present tense at every point in the timeline. This is how He crosses infinity.

And this is how we know that God is all powerful because only an all powerful Being can exist from eternity past and into eternity future.

[Bust Nak]

So even if you had a mole of worms which have never existed randomly going through all of the combinations for 5 billion years a worm would never become a fish. The number of combinations is just too high.

Whatever you are describing here, isn't evolution: You have in mind a DNA sequence of a worm spontaneous changing to that of a fish. Of course that isn't likely to happen even given a "crazy" amount of trials.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 67 by ATN]

Random isn't a problem. It's random if a child look more like the mother or more like the father, but the outcome isn't a problem just because it looks like the one and not the other. It's only a problem if you want to create a child that looks a curtain way. Evolution didn't sett out to create this outcome, this is the outcome we got in this environment so far.

Everyone agrees that most mutations are neutral or deleterious. This is because of the large number of possibilities increasing the entropy of the genome. Which is evidenced by numerous studies that say that show the degeneration of the genomes over time.

If you are saying that other life would have developed that is not in the fossil record. This is pure conjecture not fact. That would be some sort of fairy tell for fantasy books not science.