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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 180 by Guy Threepwood]

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

If someone were to honestly posit this, it'd be trivial to show them that they're wrong, since highways typically have a lot of paperwork involved, administration, photos, blueprints, news reports, that kind of thing. We'd be able to show the designers working on the highway.
Your analogy doesn't work - it pretends that highways are a thing like life whose origins we're unsure about.
So of course the idea that the highway spontaneously came about is ludicrous - it's ludicrous because we know for a fact it was designed and built. There's no mystery there.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 179 by DrNoGods]

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

1. The big eye paper is back is that one you use frequently.
2. And the mollusk eye is already formed.
3. I was talking about Hagfish. You know the one that Professor Gabbott say,

"Sight is perhaps our most cherished sense but its evolution in vertebrates is enigmatic"

These fossils from Sima de los Huesos are fascinating because they show the folly of attempting to place humans in an evolutionary sequence either through fossils or through DNA. A 2014 Nature article, based on an mtDNA sample from one individual, showed that the Sima de los Huesos fossils were more closely related to the Denisovans than to the Neanderthals. A 2016 Nature article, authored by 14 DNA specialists, including Juan Luis Arsuaga and Svante Pääbo, states: “Here we recover nuclear DNA sequences from two specimens, which show that the Sima de los Huesos hominins were related to Neanderthals rather than to Denisovans.�20 This contradiction between mtDNA and nuclear DNA is also revealed in Svante Pääbo’s book The Neanderthals. He tells in his book of an article in 1997, written with two others, in which they said: “The Neanderthal mtDNA sequence thus supports a scenario in which modern humans arose recently in Africa as a distinct species and replaced Neanderthals with little or no interbreeding.�21 That finding strongly supported the “Out of Africa� model of human evolution. In 2010, Pääbo published his Magnum opus, the complete Neanderthal genome, based upon nuclear DNA. He writes, “We had shown that Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species.�22 That finding contradicts the “Out of Africa� model.

21. Matthias Meyer et al., “Nuclear DNA Sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos Hominins,� Nature 531 (March 24, 2016): 504.

22. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, p. 19. 22.

23. Ibid., p. 237

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

Now I am sure that wikipedia is a very credible information outlet that most colleges and High Schools accept. But in this case I am afraid in this case they are not up to date on current research.

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

Evolutionist said that Neanderthals and modern humans were different species. This is not what was observed. If they interbreed means they are from the same species. They are not distinct, they are the same.

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.

Again the very idea that they can interbreed is evidence that they are the same species and if they are the same species they are us.

What evolution does not tell us is why there there is not anyone with Neanderthal DNA in Africa. If humans came from Neanderthals and modern humans started in Africa then there should be Neanderthals in Africa.

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).

I agree. Modern humans never evolved.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 182 by EarthScienceguy]

If they interbreed means they are from the same species. They are not distinct, they are the same.

No ... it is possible for successful breeding to occur between species, although in some cases the resulting offspring may not be fertile. But in the case of sapiens and neanderthals, you will often see them designated as Homo neanderthalis and Homo sapiens. However, some authors prefer to call neanderthals Homo sapiens neanderthalis and modern humans Homo sapiens sapiens, putting both lineages in the same species (but different subspecies). The did interbreed though, as the DNA evidence proves beyond any doubt Taxonomic terminology is for the convenience of organization.

What evolution does not tell us is why there there is not anyone with Neanderthal DNA in Africa. If humans came from Neanderthals and modern humans started in Africa then there should be Neanderthals in Africa.

There ARE Africans with Neanderthal DNA (link from post 179 ... central Africans have about 0.5% Neanderthal DNA):

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

I agree. Modern humans never evolved.

The didn't evolve directly FROM NEANDERTHALS as you suggested. We share a common ancestor with them. But humans did evolve from earlier hominids as shown by the fossil record, and genetics. This isn't a conjecture anymore.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 181 by rikuoamero]

If someone were to honestly posit this, it'd be trivial to show them that they're wrong, since highways typically have a lot of paperwork involved, administration, photos, blueprints, news reports, that kind of thing. We'd be able to show the designers working on the highway.
Your analogy doesn't work - it pretends that highways are a thing like life whose origins we're unsure about.
So of course the idea that the highway spontaneously came about is ludicrous - it's ludicrous because we know for a fact it was designed and built. There's no mystery there.

That would be the whole point of the analogy yes.. that it should be obvious that bundling delivery pathways does not refute intelligent design being involved , even if it means extending some routes between points- because that's exactly what we do also- in highways, electronics etc

So the opposite argument can be better made: The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve of the giraffe supports intelligent design as it reflects design strategies we know to be consistent with intelligent design.

The same happening by accident is the trickier thing to demonstrate is it not?


BTW anyone find that half necked giraffe ancestor yet?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 146 by Goat]

right, so that leaves only 'pure blind luck' to do the actual creative work, according to ToE. That's the mathematically problematic part

Do you know what that scientific definition of biological evolution is?

if it covers any scale of change, large or small, it's making the same mistake classical physics did. scales matter- things do work differently across them, they have to.

Again, you are doing several errors in logic. There is a filter applied. That filter is known as 'reproductive success'. If you toss 10,000 coins, what are the chances of them turning up all heads (assuming both are heads and tails)?? Not very much, isn't it. How about if it is 'accumulative chance', and there is a filter put into place.

Toss 10K coins up in the air. Take all the tails, and toss them up into the air. Then keep on repeating. Sooner or later, they will all be heads. That is what the filter of natural selection does. It filters out the random variations, using the selection criteria of 'reproductive success' to get apparently non-random results.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 183 by DrNoGods]

There ARE Africans with Neanderthal DNA (link from post 179 ... central Africans have about 0.5% Neanderthal DNA):

From your source

Haber maintains that Africans who carry Neanderthal DNA show gene flow from Eurasians

Still not Africa try again.

The didn't evolve directly FROM NEANDERTHALS as you suggested. We share a common ancestor with them. But humans did evolve from earlier hominids as shown by the fossil record, and genetics. This isn't a conjecture anymore.

Oh my goodness, there has never been anyone that has theorized a evolutionary step between Neanderthals and modern man. This is a pure fabrication. There has been theories that Neanderthals evolved quickly into modern man. But NEVER anything in between.

More fantasy hoping to save a doomed theory.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 185 by Goat]

Again, you are doing several errors in logic. There is a filter applied. That filter is known as 'reproductive success'. If you toss 10,000 coins, what are the chances of them turning up all heads (assuming both are heads and tails)?? Not very much, isn't it. How about if it is 'accumulative chance', and there is a filter put into place.

Toss 10K coins up in the air. Take all the tails, and toss them up into the air. Then keep on repeating. Sooner or later, they will all be heads. That is what the filter of natural selection does. It filters out the random variations, using the selection criteria of 'reproductive success' to get apparently non-random results.

Then we agree; the selection filter can only select from what has already been created, it has no creative power to give you anything you were not given to begin with- it can only keep or remove them.

So the question is; if you started with pennies, and ended up with pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters... what created all those other coins?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 180 by Guy Threepwood]

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

Plenty, if you are an organism that benefits from being in the sunlight and knowing which way to move to get there.

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!

No need to overreact! I didn't call you a liar, nor did I fire out an ad hom. I simply asked for a reference because the comment sounded exactly like something an anti-evolutionist would come up with to try and justify the inefficient design of the human eye. It would be much more "intelligent" for mammals living in the daytime if it were done like the squid's eye (but maybe not as good for the first mammals who mainly lived during the nighttime).

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?

I'm sure Dell understands that computers have to be worked on, COGS have to be minimized, etc.. Cables may need some slack to reach their terminations when the case is opened and the system has to run. It may be cheaper to make 100,000 cables of the same length rather than 50,000 each of only slightly different lengths to take advantage of volume manufacturing discounts, and on and on. I expect they have maximized efficiency considering all of the relevant factors and not just one.

there are endless examples of 'bad design' that turned out to be great design we just didn't understand

Or simply bad designs explained away to support a position.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 186 by EarthScienceguy]

Oh my goodness, there has never been anyone that has theorized a evolutionary step between Neanderthals and modern man. This is a pure fabrication. There has been theories that Neanderthals evolved quickly into modern man. But NEVER anything in between.

That's not the point at all. The human evolutionary path was very "bushy", as most are. There wasn't some straight line path from Homo habilis (or erectus) to Homo sapiens, but many branches along the way. Neanderthals were a different branch that died out, like other branches did. You're apparently assuming some linear process where one Homo species evolved directly into another, but that's not how it worked. Neanderthals existed (towards their end) at the same time as Homo sapiens, and interbred with them. These are the facts if you are actually interested in facts as you say.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 188 by DrNoGods]

Plenty, if you are an organism that benefits from being in the sunlight and knowing which way to move to get there.

how does an eye patch move you?

No need to overreact! I didn't call you a liar

no just suggested I 'made it up'... totally different thing

I'm sure Dell understands that computers have to be worked on, COGS have to be minimized, etc.. Cables may need some slack to reach their terminations when the case is opened and the system has to run. It may be cheaper to make 100,000 cables of the same length rather than 50,000 each of only slightly different lengths to take advantage of volume manufacturing discounts, and on and on. I expect they have maximized efficiency considering all of the relevant factors and not just one.

Okay, so the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe reflects known intelligently originated design strategies.

Do we have any unambiguous examples of the same occurring by chance yet?

Or simply bad designs explained away to support a position.

You'd have to take that particular accusation up with the American Physical Society.

But you may know something they don't- I have friends in retinal surgery, would you like an appointment to have your fiber optic color filters removed, and find out how much better you can see without them?