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.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 160 by rikuoamero]

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.

Well you are talking about the vast majority of free thinking humanity, so you can't really marginalize the position! Last Gallup poll I saw put belief in Darwinian evolution at 19% in the U.S.

My car never used to burn oil, now I have to top it up. So by that rationale the car must have spontaneously materialized by some unguided naturalistic process?

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

right click on this page and 'view source' what do we see? Specified information, the work of thinking agents. So too, I submit to you, in DNA

we "agreed" (quote unquote) upon a language beforehand .If we didn't have that, then what you typed would be unintelligible, of no special significance.

then the proof is in the pudding, life does have that special significance for us does it not?, so much so we are wasting all this time debating it when we should be working!!

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

I appreciate the civil discussion, more fun than work but must run also!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

Any life on earth. There are so few amino acid combinations that actually produce life as we know it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 154 by DrNoGods]

Is that a new picture for you? I like that one.

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.

Ok, you need another example.

Take for example Darwin's finches. Why do the finches have different sized beaks? They have different sized beaks because of a bone morphogenic protein, known as Bmp4. If there is more of this protein then the beaks grow longer if there is less of this protein the the beaks are shorter. Nothing new here simply more or less of a protein that enhances or decreases the enhancement.

It is this type of "evolution" that most evolutionist call evolution. This is very similar to the what some call evidence that man evolves. There is not any new protein made in the human evolution. A protein on the outside of the cell, I believe they call it CD5 or something like that. Is moved to the inside of the cell and CD4 is on the outside. No new proteins are made. No new structure is made. There Simply and inversion of two proteins already made, placed in a structure that was already designed.

Many claim these types of events as evidence of evolution happening today. But this is simple extending or decreasing structures that are already in place and designed or simply an inversion of proteins already made in a structure already designed. There are no new proteins or structures in any of these examples.

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).

So you mean all we have do is find the missing link and the blanks will be filled in. Like Neanderthals, they were really close to humans. In fact Science did a study.

The study, published in the journal Science, compared the Neanderthal genome to the genes of five humans alive today. The comparison revealed that in some individuals, up to 4% of the total genome was of Neanderthal origin.

Wow, a little less than 4% of my genome comes from the south pacific islands. Just that means that I could be more Neanderthal than my ancestors from the pacific islands. Maybe you could have Neanderthal in you. Do you ever have any urges to run around with a spear and make fire from wood?

Now young earth creationist have always predicted that Neanderthal DNA and modern Human DNA would overlap. Excuse me, I have to go spear some fish or something like that.

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.

I don't read fictional stories, like those that believe in evolution do. I am about facts. I understand how those that believe in evolution do not like to here about real observations about the world around us. There is no theory in evolution that would have ever predicted that Neanderthal and human DNA would be that closely overlapped. It is just another example of the failure of evolutionary theory.

[Donray]

re. the fossil record:

One of the tip-offs that something deeper was going on in physics, was being able to look back in time and see the staccato record of sudden appearances, explosive events, distinct and crucially timed and 'symbiotic' stages of development- which speaks more to following a specific set of instructions rather than the slow gradual progression of simple unguided laws and mechanisms. So yes, the fossil record agrees with this quite strikingly, ever more so the more we learn

The fossil record agrees with what? You have never stated your theory. Therefore, it agrees with nothing since you stated nothing as a theory.

Second, what the h is "staccato record"?????? Look it up on the WEB and then tell me what think it is?

Again, I asked you to trace a kind that your god made to all the type now using the fossil record. Or do you belive that your god created all life as it exists today and in the past at one time? Just what is your theory? I asked your before and you cannot state what it is you belive and therefore how are you presenting anything that support your theory?

Please give me your theory with supporting logic data so we can discuss your theory or are you like other Christians that just like to try to say evolution is false but have no idea what your theory is to explin all the fossils and current life form and past life forms like the Neanderthal.

So are you going to give your theory so that we can discuss it? Or are you going to continue to spout nonscience about evolution?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 163 by EarthScienceguy]

It is this type of "evolution" that most evolutionist call evolution. This is very similar to the what some call evidence that man evolves. There is not any new protein made in the human evolution. A protein on the outside of the cell, I believe they call it CD5 or something like that. Is moved to the inside of the cell and CD4 is on the outside. No new proteins are made. No new structure is made. There Simply and inversion of two proteins already made, placed in a structure that was already designed.

What? Are you saying that humans have no difference in the number and types of proteins compared to any other animal (specifically, the ones on the human evolutionary tree)? And why just point to two proteins? There are many thousands of different proteins in the human body. And no new structures are made? Compared to what?

Wow, a little less than 4% of my genome comes from the south pacific islands. Just that means that I could be more Neanderthal than my ancestors from the pacific islands. Maybe you could have Neanderthal in you. Do you ever have any urges to run around with a spear and make fire from wood?

Neanderthals did not live in the south pacific islands. Where did you come up with that one? They lived in Europe, and interbred with Homo sapiens which explains why many people today of European descent have Neanderthal DNA. And most hunter-gatherers, including Homo sapiens, did run around with a spear and make fire from wood, and many still do (head to the Brazilian rain forest and visit the wrong camps and your head may end up on someone's plate after they kill you with a poisoned spear and cook it over a fire made from wood).

Now young earth creationist have always predicted that Neanderthal DNA and modern Human DNA would overlap.

Young earth creationists (YECs) think the universe is 6000 years old, and Neanderthals died out about 34,000 years ago. So not only do YECs not predict any such an overlap, they don't believe Neanderthals even existed, and certainly not when they actually did exist. You are just making this stuff up as you go along.

I am about facts.

Obviously not ... you've proven that repeatedly! Neanderthals lived in the south pacific? YECs predicted DNA overlap between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens? These aren't facts!

There is no theory in evolution that would have ever predicted that Neanderthal and human DNA would be that closely overlapped.

Only the very foundation of the theory!

It is just another example of the failure of evolutionary theory.

Keep trying ... I'm sure you can make up more "facts" and then conclude from them pretty much anything you like.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 149 by EarthScienceguy]

The chances of a Royal straight flush being dealt to you is 1 in 649,000. So that means that if you have 649 000 people being dealt cards it is highly probable that one of them will have been dealt a royal straight flush.

Now the number of possible combinations in the genome is 1 in 10^490. So even if you have a mole of creatures 6 x 10^23. You would still have only a 1 in 10^460. Very improbable event.

Probability is very much dependent on the actual event you are describing. A royal flush is a particular hand of 5 cards dealt from a deck of 52 cards. The probability of being dealt that hand is very small as you said. But consider a different procedure. A player is dealt one card. If that card is one of the 5 necessary cards for the royal flush, it is kept. If not, it is rejected and a new card is dealt. This process is then repeated until the player has 5 cards. What is the probability that the player holds a royal flush now?

The problem with applying probability to outcomes like the natural formation of proteins or DNA is that the mechanism is not known. Dealing cards in a game with known processes and outcomes is not a valid analogy. The calculated probabilities tell us nothing about the probabilities associated with the origin of living systems.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 164 by Donray]

Again there are several people here I disagree with on many issues, and we can debate them on substance, without throwing insults around

I don't find it offensive, as much as just boring- there are countless other forums which cater to that sort of thing.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 163 by EarthScienceguy]

Nothing like throwing out nonsense to camouflage that you know very little about science.

Tell me exactly what South Pacific has to do with Neanderthal? Hope you explin the connection. Of course, you cannot since you need to say Neanderthals either never existed and your god is playing a joke and making up the fossils or what?

Anyway, I hope you explin this South Pacific connection.

Also what is with you and spears? Do you like spears?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 166 by brunumb]

not to butt in...

but you highlight a problem with natural selection.

A person can select and retain each card, in anticipation of constructing a royal flush

evolution (according to ToE) cannot act according to future pay-off. If the advantage is not immediate, there is no advantage, & nothing for natural selection to select.

At some point there is a little anthropomorphism creeping into ToE (ironically?!), everything we do is in anticipation of future consequences, so it's impossible for us to remove this bias entirely from our thought experiments.

But computer simulations can, which is why, I submit to you.. Darwinian algorithms fare less well there than in our imaginations

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 169 by Guy Threepwood]

A person can select and retain each card, in anticipation of constructing a royal flush

evolution (according to ToE) cannot act according to future pay-off. If the advantage is not immediate, there is no advantage, & nothing for natural selection to select.

Natural selection does not anticipate anything. If the organism gains a slight advantage in survival, it has a greater chance of reproducing and spreading its advantage throughout the population. The advantage is equivalent to keeping the required card, but there is no deliberate action involved. The problem with analogies again.