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]

Every hand in poker is not improbable we can calculate the probability.

You will be dealt a 2 pair every 1 in 20 deals. So if 20 people are being dealt cards then you can expect 1 of those to be dealt a 2 pair. The event is highly probable.

You don't understand probability. Yet you think you know math. It is not true what you say.

Where did you get the 2 pairs of 1 in 20 deals? Prove it. http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Prob ... Hands.html

Second let’s say your 1 in 20 i true it does not mean that that there will be a 2 pairs dealt in 20 hands. There could none in the first 100 hands dealt and then 5 in the next hands. This proves you do not understand your logic and most likely are just plagiarizing and don't really understand what you write.

It shows a server lack of education in math.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 151 by Donray]

There could none in the first 100 hands dealt and then 5 in the next hands.

Precisely. Unless an event has zero probability, it can occur. Not only that, it can occur at any time. Usually, when something with very low probability does occur believers will automatically attribute the occurrence to a miracle.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 152 by brunumb]

So if a gambler in a casino plays 3 royal flushes in a row, do you put this down to chance? Why not? it is no less improbable than any other particular sequence of 15 cards, right?

i.e. the point is not the lower odds of the outcome, but the higher odds of a less improbable explanation: intelligent agency

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 149 by EarthScienceguy]

And most of time a beneficial mutation is simply increasing the length of time protein is added in a particular area or whether not as much protein is added to a particular area.

This makes no sense at all. If a gene codes for a particular protein, and a mutation in that gene causes it to code for a modified protein (because one or more amino acids has been replaced, or eliminated, or added to the protein), then translation will result in production of the modified protein. This has nothing to do with the "length of time a protein is added in a particular area" (whatever that means). A mutation would create a different protein ... it has nothing whatsoever to do with length of time in any context.

If you are going to base it on morphology then how is it that the evolutionary tree has man ancestor as an chimp instead of an orangutan?

Can't you get this straight? Evolution does NOT say that humans are direct ancestors of chimps (or orangutans). We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, that is neither a chimp nor a bonobo (or an orangutan).

You need to do more reading on how genes code for proteins and what that means, and basic ancestry as far as evolution is concerned. Comments like those quoted in this reply just prove that you don't understand the basics, then you draw false conclusions based on these obvious misunderstandings.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 152 by brunumb]

So if a gambler in a casino plays 3 royal flushes in a row, do you put this down to chance? Why not? it is no less improbable than any other particular sequence of 15 cards, right?

i.e. the point is not the lower odds of the outcome, but the higher odds of a less improbable explanation: intelligent agency

Is the gambler who plays 3 royal flushes in a row playing a game where a royal flush is a winning hand? i.e. is a royal flush of more 'significance' (best word I can think to use here) than any other draw?
What if he's playing a game where a royal flush isn't significant? Would you be worried if he pulled it three times in a row then?

[Bust Nak]

Why are we still talking as if the whole genome of an organism pops up spontainously at random?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 155 by rikuoamero]

Is the gambler who plays 3 royal flushes in a row playing a game where a royal flush is a winning hand? i.e. is a royal flush of more 'significance' (best word I can think to use here) than any other draw?

of course, for the analogy- it's the significance of the sequence, not the relative improbability of it.

as with the> 500,000 words in War & Peace. A blindfolded chimp is as likely to type this sequence of characters as any other. So why not accept this is a good explanation?

Now consider a vast array of mathematics and algorithms , including hierarchical digital information systems- arranged in such a way as to literally develop it's own consciousness to ponder itself with..

As above, chance is not technically impossible, but there are far far less improbable explanations- because the significance of the result provides a potential motive- points to desire, forethought, imagination- things than can only exist in a conscious mind..

What if he's playing a game where a royal flush isn't significant? Would you be worried if he pulled it three times in a row then?

there is still some significance, but lesser- so you might still be skeptical of chance right? a stacked deck perhaps-

As in the Rosetta stone- or SETI's 'wow' signal you may not know what it says or why, but you recognize the significance of a sequence of specified information.


It's an objective mathematical test, any proposed rule that says it cannot be applied to biology or cosmogony is simply not being objective

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 157 by Guy Threepwood]

of course, for the analogy- it's the significance of the sequence, not the relative improbability of it.

I expected this answer, was even hoping for it.

I'm assuming you didn't notice the implication of your answer...that the significance of a royal flush is something defined prior to playing the game. People who sit down to play poker all agree (whether explicitly or simply by playing the game) that if a royal flush is drawn (that is, a sequence of cards ace, king, queen, jack, and ten all in the same suit), that sequence has a significance above any and all other combination of cards. With that hand, the player who has it wins.

What happens if you're NOT playing poker, but some other game? Not all card games have royal flushes. You could be playing a game where even if you get the above sequence of cards, it doesn't mean anything special.

Is this what we see in evolution? Someone defining, beforehand, that any one or any few specific organisms are of special significance, above others?

as with the> 500,000 words in War & Peace. A blindfolded chimp is as likely to type this sequence of characters as any other. So why not accept this is a good explanation?

Only because we attach significance to the 587,287 words, the specific sequence of characters that make up each word, each line in the novel.
If we lived in a world with no defined language, a monkey hammering out what would be (in our world) the words of War & Peace would be of no more significance than any other sequence.
If multi-verse theory is true, then the following constitutes an actual language, an actual message of some kind.
aghpaighgihpihgpehhgihash ahshahglhgiei xhzhAhsl.

Of course, you'll guess that I just hammered away at my keyboard just now, but what if that DID constitute a message in our language, much as this sentence is?

Now consider a vast array of mathematics and algorithms , including hierarchical digital information systems- arranged in such a way as to literally develop it's own consciousness to ponder itself with..

As above, chance is not technically impossible, but there are far far less improbable explanations- because the significance of the result provides a potential motive- points to desire, forethought, imagination- things than can only exist in a conscious mind..

I actually agree with everything here. However, where I disagree with you is that I do not throw out the "of random chance" or "of natural causes" as a possible explanation. You seem to operate under the mindset that that is unlikely, and then move on to "it MUST be of a mind" as an explanation.

there is still some significance, but lesser- so you might still be skeptical of chance right? a stacked deck perhaps-

Enough for me to think the guy is cheating? That there was forethought and planning involved?
For a game where what is called a royal flush in other games is not of any significance?
There's a break in your logic here. Please tell me when you find it.

I'll give you a hint. You're trying to tell me the guy is clever enough to cheat...but somehow stupid enough to do it at the wrong game, and yet he's still clever anyway.

As in the Rosetta stone- or SETI's 'wow' signal you may not know what it says or why, but you recognize the significance of a sequence of specified information.

https://www.livescience.com/59450-radio ... liens.html

" Jocelyn Bell Burnell and her supervisor Antony Hewish heard a bright, repeating radio signal on Nov. 28, 1967. Even though they didn't immediately determine it was aliens, Bell, recounting the story in 1977, said she and Hewish noted the signal seemed too fast for any kind of star known then, and the timing seemed too precise."

Using your standards, this WAS a signal from an intelligent civilisation.

"Burnell found another similar signal, in another part of the sky. Since it was unlikely that two different civilizations would choose the same frequency to broadcast on, the source was probably natural. It turned out to be a pulsar — short for "pulsating star" — and it confirmed a prediction made decades earlier by astronomers Fritz Zwicky and Walter Baade, who said that a sufficiently dense star made up of neutrons could form after a supernova."
Ah woops! Guess that you're just jumping to conclusions, rather than actually examining the evidence!

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 158 by rikuoamero]

Is this what we see in evolution? Someone defining, beforehand, that any one or any few specific organisms are of special significance, above others?

absolutely.

By the analogy, if you watch a poker game, and have no idea what the rules are, but you see someone play a royal flush- everyone reacts and the player takes all the winnings..

you can deduce after the fact that this WAS agreed to be a special sequence- by the outcome. If he does it three times in a row- you may not appreciate the implications of this, but those who are aware of the math involved, will know he is cheating

Likewise we are able to observe the result of vast arrays of finely tuned predetermined values and sequences in physics, chemistry and life and determine that chance is not the most probable explanation.- but it does come down to the math also- it's the only objective measure we have for anything.

as with the> 500,000 words in War & Peace. A blindfolded chimp is as likely to type this sequence of characters as any other. So why not accept this is a good explanation?

Only because we attach significance to the 587,287 words, the specific sequence of characters that make up each word, each line in the novel.
If we lived in a world with no defined language, a monkey hammering out what would be (in our world) the words of War & Peace would be of no more significance than any other sequence.
If multi-verse theory is true, then the following constitutes an actual language, an actual message of some kind.
aghpaighgihpihgpehhgihash ahshahglhgiei xhzhAhsl.

Of course, you'll guess that I just hammered away at my keyboard just now, but what if that DID constitute a message in our language, much as this sentence is?

right, so it's the significance of the sequence that tells us ID was involved, not the improbability of that sequence v any other,

So let me try randomly mashing my keyboard and see what I get

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

wow- that just came out randomly, do you believe me?

i.e. if it did make a sentence, I'd know you were not just hammering wouldn't I?

I actually agree with everything here. However, where I disagree with you is that I do not throw out the "of random chance" or "of natural causes" as a possible explanation. You seem to operate under the mindset that that is unlikely, and then move on to "it MUST be of a mind" as an explanation.

I think we should merely allow both to compete on a level playing field. Many materialists insist that intelligent agency is inherently forbidden and hence off the playing field altogether when applied to certain fields like biology or cosmogony- obviously chance wins by default with no competition allowed!


On SETI- to clarify I don't believe in ET, I think we are alone in the universe. my point was the very simple signal was enough to draw serious interest in ID in a materialist setting-

while many of the same people can simultaneously write off vast arrays of sophisticated mathematics permeating space/time matter/energy- as having presumably blundered into existence for no particular reason...

Again I think the math is objective, it does not care which field you apply it to or the philosophical implications of it, it has no such double standard .

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 159 by Guy Threepwood]

absolutely.

We do? Who does? The only people I've seen do this are the anti-evolution crowd, the creationists who strawman evolution by saying things (paraphrasing) that mankind is an end result, that our bodies were designed.
If so, explain my allergy towards nuts. Growing up, I was fine eating nuts and nut products, then one day, my body suddenly went haywire after I ate a cookie.

By the analogy, if you watch a poker game, and have no idea what the rules are, but you see someone play a royal flush- everyone reacts and the player takes all the winnings..

Here, we're seeing thinking agents. Where do we see the thinking agents in terms of DNA?

By the analogy, if you watch a poker game, and have no idea what the rules are, but you see someone play a royal flush- everyone reacts and the player takes all the winnings..

And if he's playing in a game where he doesn't understand the rules, where they're not predefined to him? What if the guy whom you say is cheating is the one unaware of the rules, and not mas a passive bystander?

So let me try randomly mashing my keyboard and see what I get

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

wow- that just came out randomly, do you believe me?

Again, no, because we "agreed" (quote unquote) upon a language beforehand, that certain shapes constitute certain letters, that certain letters constitute certain words and that certain words grouped together constitute sentences, with meaning.
If we didn't have that, then what you typed would be unintelligible, of no special significance.

Just to let you know, I'm now working, so don't look for a further reply from me for several hours.