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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 169 by Guy Threepwood]

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

And less well in both of those arenas than in the biological world where it can be directly observed (eg. bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, among countless other real-world examples).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 168 by Donray]

Anyway, I hope you explin this South Pacific connection.

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

It sounds to me that with his mention of Neanderthals and spears, and us being descended from Neanderthals, that he's confusing Lamarckian evolution for Darwinian evolution.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 170 by brunumb]

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.

right, so it doesn't know to keep a card that is only one part of a required hand of five

That's what makes the eye for example irreducibly complex, there is no linear incremental process by which it can be built with significant advantages at every step

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 173 by Guy Threepwood]

That's what makes the eye for example irreducibly complex, there is no linear incremental process by which it can be built with significant advantages at every step.

What objections do you have to these articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

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

http://www.molluscs.at/mollusca/index.h ... /eyes.html

What alternative theory can you offer for the development of so many different types of eyes? Why do they exist now at varying stages of development (eg. in molluscs, worms and snakes)? Tiny, incremental changes over tens of thousands of generations, or millions, is a perfectly believable mechanism for how eyes developed from simple light-sensitive molecules. Also, how do you explain the issue with human eyes where the photoreceptors are essentially facing backwards:

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/ ... human-eye/

What intelligent designer would incorporate the deficiencies noted in the above article? Evolution is the far better explanation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

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?

Nope, What I am saying is that some call those that are immune to the HIV virus as human evolution. But the only different is a switch in the order of the proteins that line the cell.

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).

Wow, definitely not a place to vacation then. I will have to reschedule.

But there is one pesky thing about facts they always seem to refute evolutionary predictions.

https://www.sciencealert.com/pacific-is ... an-species

But you know who do not carry any neanderthal Genes that's right those in Africa which evolutionary theory or at least the theory right now says is supposed to be the cradle of life. Wow, that's a bit a problem. Where did man come from then.

How can humans today possess Neanderthal DNA especially up to 4%!!!!!

Now another questions is why is it that everywhere but Africa modern men have neanderthal DNA.

about 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone outside Africa is Neanderthal in origin.

https://www.livescience.com/47460-neand ... ealed.html

If this is true then the Bible has an answer for this do you?

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.

They did not die out their DNA is in everyone except those that are 100% African. How many generations back do you think DNA test can read. At 4 generations a person can be <3% less say Korean even if one of their 4 generations ago one person in their line was 100% Korean.

Come on give me a good story. I love evolutionist stories. They are so imaginative. Kind of like curious George Stories that we read to children.

Only the very foundation of the theory!

Really, Evolution says that Neanderthals would be a ethnic group like Koreans or let's say those in the South Pacific. Evolutionary theory did not say that Neanderthals became extinct 30-40 thousand years ago by interbreeding. I guess the theory that they quickly evolved into modern humans is out.

Mark another one down for heredity. Creation theory also predicted that this was not a form of evolution but heredity.

Facts, Facts, Facts. They always seem to disprove evolution. I think that will be my new mantra.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 174 by DrNoGods]

What objections do you have to these articles:

Not much- they all appear to acknowledge the necessity of beginning with a functioning eye

What alternative theory can you offer for the development of so many different types of eyes? Why do they exist now at varying stages of development (eg. in molluscs, worms and snakes)? Tiny, incremental changes over tens of thousands of generations, or millions, is a perfectly believable mechanism for how eyes developed from simple light-sensitive molecules.

The picture that is beginning to emerge is that the necessary information is essentially pre-existing, not blundered upon by random mutations. It's even used as an atheist argument now 'No need for God, it's already pre-programmed!' That's fine- but Darwinian evolution it ain't!

Also, how do you explain the issue with human eyes where the photoreceptors are essentially facing backwards:

Yes, I see the 2015 article you linked to still cites the inverted retina- light having to pass through a layer of cells -as 'bad design'!

Actually it's been known for a long time that this is no ordinary layer of cells- it is essentially a screen of fiber optic tubes, tuned to particular wavelengths of light- representing an amazingly efficient color filter tuned for daytime color sensitivity- particularly helping filter out the excess of blue light on clear days.. the overall loss is very small, but where animals may need every photon they can get e.g. squids, it makes perfect sense that they would not have this feature

But it's amazing how long this argument persists- it's a striking and tragic example of what happens when you encourage 'bad design' arguments to be taught, while forbidding the other (scientific) side of the argument.

There will always be unsolved mysteries, shadows the light of science has not yet illuminated, where a Darwinist can point and declare 'bad design'-- Darwinism of the gaps?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 174 by DrNoGods]

So how was the eye formed without any intermediates.

Professor Gabbott explains: "To date models of vertebrate eye evolution focus only on living animals and the blind and 'rudimentary' hagfish eye was held-up as critical evidence of an intermediate stage in eye evolution. Living hagfish eyes appeared to sit between the simple light sensitive eye 'spots' of non-vertebrates and the sophisticated camera-style eyes of lampreys and most other vertebrates."

The details of the retina in the fossil hagfish indicates that it had a functional visual system, meaning that living hagfish eyes have been lost through millions of years of evolution, and these animals are not as primitively simple as we originally believed. As a result they are not the most appropriate model for understanding eye evolution.

Oh! dear another evolutionary prediction blown out of the water.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 222253.htm

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 176 by Guy Threepwood]

Not much- they all appear to acknowledge the necessity of beginning with a functioning eye

Not sure where you got that. None of them start with a functioning eye but rather simple light sensitive molecules or eye patches.

...not blundered upon by random mutations.

Ignoring natural selection ... again. Why do you not acknowledge natural selection and always revert to phrases like "chance" or "blundered upon"? Natural selection is not a dumb chance process, so ignoring it is not considering ToE but something else.

Actually it's been known for a long time that this is no ordinary layer of cells- it is essentially a screen of fiber optic tubes, tuned to particular wavelengths of light- representing an amazingly efficient color filter tuned for daytime color sensitivity- particularly helping filter out the excess of blue light on clear days.

I think you just made that up, or copied from someone else who did. Do you have a reference for this claim? Also, there are other tissues and capillaries in the way of the incoming light as well.

But it's amazing how long this argument persists- it's a striking and tragic example of what happens when you encourage 'bad design' arguments to be taught, while forbidding the other (scientific) side of the argument.

This eye example is just one of many such examples (eg. the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is another). It is always possible to twist things to mean something they don't, but that isn't science. I'd like to see references for the claim that cells in front of photoreceptors in human eyes are optical filters for blue light. We evolved from small mammals who made their living mostly at night.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 177 by EarthScienceguy]

So how was the eye formed without any intermediates.

It wasn't. See the links in post 174.

But you know who do not carry any neanderthal Genes that's right those in Africa which evolutionary theory or at least the theory right now says is supposed to be the cradle of life. Wow, that's a bit a problem. Where did man come from then.

How can humans today possess Neanderthal DNA especially up to 4%!!!!!

Now another questions is why is it that everywhere but Africa modern men have neanderthal DNA.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-o ... too-008690

The earliest African Homo members arose long before Neanderthals arose, so obviously they could not have interbreeded. And Neanderthals have been found in Africa where they first originated and migrated through the middle east and into Europe. Here is a quick summary article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

Since Homo sapiens did interbreed with Neanderthals, you'd perfectly well expect modern humans of European ancestry to have some Neanderthal DNA, as observed.

They did not die out their DNA is in everyone except those that are 100% African

They didn't die out? Tell me where you can find Neanderthals in the world today? Their DNA is present in modern humans because of interbreeding, but there are no Neanderthals left in the world today. Or do you think the bible says that there are? Wow.

How many generations back do you think DNA test can read. At 4 generations a person can be <3% less say Korean even if one of their 4 generations ago one person in their line was 100% Korean.

Well, the full genome of some Neanderthals has been sequenced so that goes back as far as at least 34,000 years ago. Using 25 years for a typical generation, that would be 1360 generations. What is your point?

Evolutionary theory did not say that Neanderthals became extinct 30-40 thousand years ago by interbreeding.

Who said that it does? What's the point of that statement?

I guess the theory that they quickly evolved into modern humans is out.

When was it ever in? Did you just make that up? Evolution has never said that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals (just like it doesn't say that modern humans evolved from chimps which you keep repeating). We share common ancestors, which is a point you can't seem to grasp for some reason.

Mark another one down for heredity. Creation theory also predicted that this was not a form of evolution but heredity.

What?

Facts, Facts, Facts. They always seem to disprove evolution. I think that will be my new mantra.

If only you could distinguish facts from fiction.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 178 by DrNoGods]

Not sure where you got that. None of them start with a functioning eye but rather simple light sensitive molecules or eye patches.

what Darwinian advantage does a simple light sensitive patch give you?

Ignoring natural selection ... again. Why do you not acknowledge natural selection and always revert to phrases like "chance" or "blundered upon"? Natural selection is not a dumb chance process, so ignoring it is not considering ToE but something else.

it's not at issue- it's only a selection process, it can only select that which has already been created. Superior designs will tend to out perform inferior ones, and we have endless examples of this in various product designs- it says nothing about how the designs arose, that's the only question here.

I think you just made that up, or copied from someone else who did. Do you have a reference for this claim?

cmon, when someone retreats to calling you a liar, I think that's about as close to conceding defeat as it gets.

here you go, not hard to find, but next time just do the research yourself before whipping out the ad hom!

Bulletin of the American Physical Society
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR15/Session/S47.2

Our image of the world is detected by photoreceptors, lying at the bottom of the nearly-transparent retina. Lateral neural layers for processing the image temporally, spectrally, and spatially come in front the photoreceptors, not behind them. This reverse order is a long-standing puzzle, which we wish to explain. We found out that cone photoreceptors are attached to metabolic Muller cells which span the retina. Cones provide colour vision at day time, and are surrounded by sensitive rods which function at night. We showed by an analytical and a computational method that the Muller cells also serve as fibre optics, concentrating green-red light into the cones, while the excessive blue is scattered to the nearby rods. Spatial and spectral laboratory measurements validate that indeed the shapes and refractive index values of the Muller cells and the surrounding retina separate the colours according to the spectral sensitivities of both cones and rods. These results also explain other effects of vision acuity and colour sensitivity. References A M Labin and E N Ribak, Phys Rev Lett 104, 158102 (2010). A M Labin, S K Safuri, E N Ribak and I Perlman, Nature Comm 5, 4319 (2014). A M Labin and E N Ribak, ``Color sorting by retinal waveguides''. Submitted.

there are other tissues and capillaries in the way of the incoming light as well.

there's the retreat into the gaps, and you will find other tissues are superior at supplying oxygen than in the non reversed design.

(eg. the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is another)

I knew that was coming!

If the RLN is bad design: then by your rationale if you have to exit the highway and head in the opposite direction a couple of blocks to get to Taco Bell- this proves that the highway spontaneously engineered and built itself for no particular reason

Again, like the inverted retina, this deals with inherent design constraint. Look inside your desktop computer, do all the connections use separate wires and take the shortest possible route? why not? in fact nearly all the flexible connections are much longer than the most direct route would dictate. would you like to explain to Dell how their designs could be vastly more intelligent by using individual and shortest possible connections for everything?

flexibility, multiple purpose, bundling, expandability, all make sense- unless all the design features of your computer are also the result of random errors?

Likewise the RLN has long been known to serve several functions on route but the simplistic myth of an arbitrary path survives as a pop-science 'proof' of Darwinian evolution

"As the recurrent laryngeal nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior]. "Grey's Anatomy

I'm sure if you keep retreating you will find something science has not yet explained- but you see the pattern here, there are endless examples of 'bad design' that turned out to be great design we just didn't understand

It's a little like a caveman looking at a smart phone and saying "I could design a much better arrowhead than this!"


And in all these cases, while the debunked 'bad design' argument was 'proof of Darwinian evolution' the revelation of it's absolutely brilliant design is... irrelevant

Tails we win, heads... doesn't count- flip again!