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.
Evolution RIP
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #71
[Replying to post 69 by Bust Nak]
So are you saying that mutations do not happen randomly? Each step on the evolutionary journey from a worm to a fish would be till the roulette wheel of mutations happens to hit on the correct sequence.
Each "upward" mutation would not reduce S because because there would be no reduction in the number of possibilities.
There is only one possible sequence that gives a fish. You can try to say that there would be other types of life develop. But that would be nothing more than fantasy.
So are you saying that mutations do not happen randomly? Each step on the evolutionary journey from a worm to a fish would be till the roulette wheel of mutations happens to hit on the correct sequence.
Each "upward" mutation would not reduce S because because there would be no reduction in the number of possibilities.
There is only one possible sequence that gives a fish. You can try to say that there would be other types of life develop. But that would be nothing more than fantasy.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #72
No, mutations do happen randomly.EarthScienceguy wrote: So are you saying that mutations do not happen randomly?
Right, and getting there one step at a time is a hugely different prospect from getting there in one giant leap.Each step on the evolutionary journey from a worm to a fish would be till the roulette wheel of mutations happens to hit on the correct sequence.
So what? You seem to be forgetting natural selection here. There is a huge number of possible of paths to get from one sequence to another.Each "upward" mutation would not reduce S because there would be no reduction in the number of possibilities.
There is only one possible sequence that gives a fish.
Why? I am looking at your other post, it seems you were thinking other types of life that is not in the fossil record, what's wrong with other types of life that is in the fossil record developing?You can try to say that there would be other types of life develop. But that would be nothing more than fantasy.
Post #73
Do you read anything before posting it from some other site?EarthScienceguy wrote:
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)
The article is about RNA and viruses.
Read the complete article before you plagiarize from other sites and do your copy and paste.
Also, would not your original post indicated that your god cannot possible exist because of same argument you are trying to use to show evolution is not possible?
Also, to what degree do you belive in evolution? Did all dog like thing evolve from one pair of some old dog like thing?
Did your god create several different human species and only our current human species survived? Or don't you belive there were other human spices?
Post #74
[Replying to post 70 by EarthScienceguy]
Most mutations is neutral or deleterious, but some are increasing the genome. And larger genome are to my knowledge less stable, as in more mutations. And decreasing the genome is stabilizing it. The environment (the present selection pressures) "choose" if having more or less rapid mutations is beneficial. Bacteria need hosts to survive, and are constantly fighting creatures immune system, it must be able to rapidly adapt to it's environment and it's defenses, so rapid mutations are more beneficial. As for most animals mutations are mostly harmful so a shorter genome is generally more beneficial. All balancing the need for new traits up against defects. The most effect on this balance is how rapidly the spice reproduce.
How rarely something happens don't matter because selection pressures stabilize the results toward the more beneficial outcome. It grows more like a three than a latter. It braches in different directions at random, but selection pressures kills off unsuccessful branches. In your calculations you can think it like the growth of a beach is a mutation, the death of said branch also kills all possiblities based on that mutation.
Most mutations is neutral or deleterious, but some are increasing the genome. And larger genome are to my knowledge less stable, as in more mutations. And decreasing the genome is stabilizing it. The environment (the present selection pressures) "choose" if having more or less rapid mutations is beneficial. Bacteria need hosts to survive, and are constantly fighting creatures immune system, it must be able to rapidly adapt to it's environment and it's defenses, so rapid mutations are more beneficial. As for most animals mutations are mostly harmful so a shorter genome is generally more beneficial. All balancing the need for new traits up against defects. The most effect on this balance is how rapidly the spice reproduce.
How rarely something happens don't matter because selection pressures stabilize the results toward the more beneficial outcome. It grows more like a three than a latter. It braches in different directions at random, but selection pressures kills off unsuccessful branches. In your calculations you can think it like the growth of a beach is a mutation, the death of said branch also kills all possiblities based on that mutation.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #75
The equation that Nilsson and Pelger use to calculate the number generations.
R = h^2i V m or R = h^2 i Op
Where
h is heritability
i is intensity of selection
V is the coefficient of variation
m is mean
1st the paper is estimating a process that has never been observed so there is no way to validate the calculations that they are making.
2nd this paper assumes that evolution happens. I do not share in that assumption.
Nilsson and Pelger set the h value at 0.50. So they are assuming that
almost 1/2 of the change is a result of what creationist would call
adaptation. They are assuming that there is no end to the extent of
change in the genome. But this is not correct according to Ahmed M El-
Shehawi and Mona M Elseehy paper on "Genome Size and Chromosome
Number Relationship Contradicts the Principle of Darwinian Evolution from
Common Ancestor". The conclusion
R which is the observable change in each generation. Again he assumes evolution actually takes place.
"R = .00005 m, which means that the small variations weak selection cause a change of only .005% per generation. This assumes that in every generation there is a progression towards the desired outcome in this case an eye. This is a totally incorrect assumption. Even your "Talk origins" website states that mutations are mostly neutral and of the mutations that are left they are mostly derterious and the smallest portion is beneficial. This is why several papers have shown that the genome actually deteriorates over time. This would predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.
3rd There is no correction for the randomness of mutations in each generation.
They claim that there would be 1829 steps I am assuming that means changes in the genome. Now these "steps" would have to occur in the correct place in the genome and the correct amino acid would have to replace it. How is this randomness accounted for in Nilsson and Pelger paper.
By this statement you are assuming that you are saying that the "i" in Nilsson and Pelger's equation is sufficient enough to drive the reaction in the desired direction. But here again the assumption is that there are many "beneficial mutation" and that the stressors that are causing the "i" are not changing for a significant period of time.
Along with this there is no reason for the correct mutation in the correct position to occur outside normal reaction calculations. Consequently the Gibbs free energy equation would predict whether or not this series of reactions can take place. The Gibbs free energy equations indicates that an eye would not form because the entropy of the system is to high.
Therefore evolution would still break the second law of thermodynamics.
R = h^2i V m or R = h^2 i Op
Where
h is heritability
i is intensity of selection
V is the coefficient of variation
m is mean
1st the paper is estimating a process that has never been observed so there is no way to validate the calculations that they are making.
2nd this paper assumes that evolution happens. I do not share in that assumption.
Nilsson and Pelger set the h value at 0.50. So they are assuming that
almost 1/2 of the change is a result of what creationist would call
adaptation. They are assuming that there is no end to the extent of
change in the genome. But this is not correct according to Ahmed M El-
Shehawi and Mona M Elseehy paper on "Genome Size and Chromosome
Number Relationship Contradicts the Principle of Darwinian Evolution from
Common Ancestor". The conclusion
This would suggest that there is a limit to change an organism can change.The data suggest that there is no clear trend for genome
evolution from common ancestor at the genome size and chromosome
number levels. In addition, the location of human genome supports the
idea of independent appearance of living organisms on earth.
R which is the observable change in each generation. Again he assumes evolution actually takes place.
"R = .00005 m, which means that the small variations weak selection cause a change of only .005% per generation. This assumes that in every generation there is a progression towards the desired outcome in this case an eye. This is a totally incorrect assumption. Even your "Talk origins" website states that mutations are mostly neutral and of the mutations that are left they are mostly derterious and the smallest portion is beneficial. This is why several papers have shown that the genome actually deteriorates over time. This would predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.
3rd There is no correction for the randomness of mutations in each generation.
They claim that there would be 1829 steps I am assuming that means changes in the genome. Now these "steps" would have to occur in the correct place in the genome and the correct amino acid would have to replace it. How is this randomness accounted for in Nilsson and Pelger paper.
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:
By this statement you are assuming that you are saying that the "i" in Nilsson and Pelger's equation is sufficient enough to drive the reaction in the desired direction. But here again the assumption is that there are many "beneficial mutation" and that the stressors that are causing the "i" are not changing for a significant period of time.
Along with this there is no reason for the correct mutation in the correct position to occur outside normal reaction calculations. Consequently the Gibbs free energy equation would predict whether or not this series of reactions can take place. The Gibbs free energy equations indicates that an eye would not form because the entropy of the system is to high.
Therefore evolution would still break the second law of thermodynamics.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #76
[Replying to post 74 by ATN]
The problem with mutations is that they are random events. Random because they can happen anywhere in the genome with a new random sequence. This means that no phenotype mutations have to occur for long periods of time. With most mutations being neutral and of the ones that are left most being deleterious and the smallest portion being beneficial according to "Talk origins".
There is no reason to believe that correct genes would be mutated in the correct order to produce a fin.
Ok, for a moment let's pretend that this does happen. That selection pressures stabilize the results towards the more beneficial outcome. Normally, this is accomplished by not by mutations but by heredity. Creationist concur that heredity changes organisms. Now, for a worm to acquire a fin, would fall outside the realm of heredity and would need mutations to accomplish the task.How rarely something happens don't matter because selection pressures stabilize the results toward the more beneficial outcome. It grows more like a three than a latter. It branches in different directions at random, but selection pressures kills off unsuccessful branches. In your calculations you can think it like the growth of a beach is a mutation, the death of said branch also kills all possibilities based on that mutation.
The problem with mutations is that they are random events. Random because they can happen anywhere in the genome with a new random sequence. This means that no phenotype mutations have to occur for long periods of time. With most mutations being neutral and of the ones that are left most being deleterious and the smallest portion being beneficial according to "Talk origins".
There is no reason to believe that correct genes would be mutated in the correct order to produce a fin.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #77
[Replying to post 73 by Donray]
God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.
Not unless I have to. But that is why I gave three sources.Do you read anything before posting it from some other site?
The article is about RNA and viruses.
Why this not a scientific journal, then I would.Read the complete article before you plagiarize from other sites and do your copy and paste.
Nope, definition of God says that He has existed from eternity past in and into eternity future. This would mean that God would also have to be all power and that He would have to be omnipresent because He would have to exist at all points of time in the present tense.Also, would not your original post indicated that your god cannot possible exist because of same argument you are trying to use to show evolution is not possible?
I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.Also, to what degree do you believe in evolution? Did all dog like thing evolve from one pair of some old dog like thing?
God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #78
[Replying to post 63 by Bust Nak]
Not really. I really do not care whether you agree with my citations or not.Care to update you "facts" in light of the above?
Post #79
[Replying to EarthScienceguy]
The only reason producing a fin is an extraordinary limb to grow, is because you predict it. It's beging hindsighted. Heredity, as you called it, is somewhat predictable. But mutations give several different future outcomes, to say afterwards this was the proper way is hindsighted and disingenuous. An house of Kings and aces isn't the only good hand I poker.There is no reason to believe that correct genes would be mutated in the correct order to produce a fin.
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Post #80
[Replying to post 77 by EarthScienceguy]
EarthScienceGuy I assume that you flat out reject all radiometric dating methods, hominid fossils, transitional fossils like Hyracotherium -> Mesohippus -> Merychippus -> Pliohippus -> Equus, that kind of thing? Are you a Noah's ark kind of guy?
Your stance on the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been argued in this thread already so I'm wondering about the other evidence for evolution that isn't based on your interpretation of Gibbs free energy.
EarthScienceGuy I assume that you flat out reject all radiometric dating methods, hominid fossils, transitional fossils like Hyracotherium -> Mesohippus -> Merychippus -> Pliohippus -> Equus, that kind of thing? Are you a Noah's ark kind of guy?
Your stance on the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been argued in this thread already so I'm wondering about the other evidence for evolution that isn't based on your interpretation of Gibbs free energy.
