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.

[Donray]

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.

[Donray]

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 75 by EarthScienceguy]

2nd this paper assumes that evolution happens. I do not share in that assumption.

It is not an assumption. Evolution has been observed and shown conclusively to happen. So you aren't free to believe it or not any more than you are free to believe that the force of gravity is real or not. This objection can be discarded.

They are assuming that there is no end to the extent of change in the genome.

They make no such assumption ... you just made that up.

Again he assumes evolution actually takes place.

It is observed to take place, so this is not an assumption.

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.

Eyes exist, and the path from simple eye patch to full-up, modern eyes is driven by natural selection which you conveniently ignore. Mutations which provide better functionality of the sight process are maintained because they are beneficial. This is not an assumption but what is observed.

The Gibbs free energy equations indicates that an eye would not form because the entropy of the system is to high.

So eyes don't exist then, correct? How are you able to see without eyes? How do you think eyes came about? Did a god just put them, fully formed, into various creatures when they were "created"? Why lean on Gibbs free energy, which you obviously don't understand as shown in your many posts where you misinterpret it (like the one above), when you can just explain everything by your favorite god being simply putting fully-formed eyes into whatever animals he/she/it wanted to have eyes?

If you're going with "god did it", there is no need to waste all this time trying to debunk evolution via a thermodynamic argument that you can't prove anything with (especially the way you are trying to use it)? Just say you believe that god created all plant and animal life and that you don't believe evolution because you simply don't believe it, or because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. The last 150+ years of scientific observation and anallysis, and the last 40+ years of genetics work, have conclusively shown that evolution does in fact happen. So you'll never be able to show that it doesn't whether you ever get Gibbs free energy right, or not.

[Goat]

[Replying to ATN]

I think we ain't saying the same when saying "creating new genes".
Are talking about creating a change? For example the difference of long haired dogs and short haired dogs are a mistake in copying a guanine and was read as a thymine.
Are you talking change in the length of the gene? Are you aware that it happens that a section of genes sometimes are duplicated?

Now here you have a couple of different things going on. You have the phenotype of long haired dogs and short haired dogs. The phenotype is not caused by genetic mutation but is inherited by the parents of the dog. This type of change can be shown in the Gibbs free energy equation.
dG = dH – tdS
dH would be positive
dS would be low because there would be only one way for genes to combine.

Now during a mutation.
All mutations are part of a random event. It does not matter what new genetic letter is place in the mutation event, whether it is inverted, translated, deleted, or duplicated it does not matter because it is random. This is why most mutations are deleterious mutations and of the ones that are not deleterious mutations and called positive usually have secondary traits that are not desirous.

Since it does not matter what code inverted, translated, deleted or duplicated then entropy would still be low. And allows for the mutation reaction to proceed.

Now lest say that there is an organism that is evolving from an invertebrate like a worm to a fish. A fish has around 23,000 coding genes. And we will assume that a worm has about the same number of coding genes. Then let’s say that 100 of those need to change in the correct sequence to make a worm into a fish. Now that would be 10^115 different combinations possible. Without taking into the fact that certain parts genome are more prone to mutations than others, not only do these changes need to take place they need to take place in at the correct locations. This number of possibilities drives the entropy way up. Making it an impossibility according to the second law of thermodynamics.

A Second problem is the degeneration of the genome over time. Recent experiments show the build up of deleterious mutations causes the genome to deteriorate over time.

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.

As for the 'second law of thermodynamics', why you would need a ball of hydrogen that was in the process of fusion that weights 1.989 × 10^30 kg, and is about 93 million miles away. I can't imagine where you would find something like that.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 68 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

That is precisely why the Great Pumpkin is the One True God.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 77 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

Definitions are made by human beings. They do not have to correspond with reality. By definition, the Great Pumpkin is superior to any other conception of a god.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 68 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

That is precisely why the Great Pumpkin is the One True God.

I disagree, I think Thor is the one and only great God. All other gods and goddesses are below him especially the goddesses.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 68 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

That is precisely why the Great Pumpkin is the One True God.

I disagree, I think Thor is the one and only great God. All other gods and goddesses are below him especially the goddesses.

Many theists assert, without presenting supporting evidence, that I must worship something as a god/goddess. So if they are right, even though they haven't presented supporting evidence, and I had to pick, I'd choose Grace Kelly.

She is of course dead, but that never stopped Jesus from claiming that position, why should it stop a beauty like Grace Kelly?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 88 by Tcg]

She is of course dead, but that never stopped Jesus from claiming that position, why should it stop a beauty like Grace Kelly?

The Great Pumpkin offers everyone unconditional love, but I'm sure he would not approve of the worship of any other deities. Repent, before it is too late.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 88 by Tcg]

She is of course dead, but that never stopped Jesus from claiming that position, why should it stop a beauty like Grace Kelly?

The Great Pumpkin offers everyone unconditional love, but I'm sure he would not approve of the worship of any other deities. Repent, before it is too late.

Conditional love isn't all that bad compared to the unconditional love you are offering. Would you rather be loved by squash or a true princess?