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]

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

I have a nut allergy and I am lactose intolerant. According to Christians and Creationists, I was designed...so this includes the above.
I would like an explanation, something that says how and why my allergies and intolerances are a great design.
I see only downsides in having them. Since my allergy started a few years ago (had been fine prior to that), I scour the ingredients of literally EVERYTHING I eat. If it says so much as handled in a factory with nuts but on a different line, I don't eat it.
I hear great things coming from vegetarians and vegans, about their diets, about how its so much healthier. When asked where they get their protein from, they say nuts. But I can't eat them, so a potentially healthier source for protein is literally off the table for me. I also now have to buy antihistamines and epipens.

My lactose intolerance has me buying special milk, that has lactase added. It's more expensive than regular milk. Any time I eat anything with dairy, I have to make a conscious choice, say to myself is eating this worth the happy fun time on the toilet later?

So I'd like to ask - where is the great design here? If there is one for realsies, but we simply haven't found it yet, aren't those who say there is a great design jumping the gun?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 191 by rikuoamero]

I'm sorry to hear that, that can't be fun- though as you said "Since my allergy started a few years ago (had been fine prior to that)"

... my back was fine a few years ago also, and my car was fine before it started leaking oil- design does not preclude damage, decay, entropy happening to the designed object - but it is the only thing that can at least fight against it..

I'm not a nutritionist and I'm sure you know more than I do on this- but can you eat beans? good for protein- and garbanzo beans are kinda nutty...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 190 by Guy Threepwood]

how does an eye patch move you?

Simple ... it communicates (via nerves) to muscles which then move you towards the light, which you wouldn't otherwise know about unless you were already in it and were receiving energy from it through some other means (eg. skin absorption that could be detected). There is no need for the eye patch itself to move anything ... that is done via other body components that developed because they also provided useful functions to the organism (eg. to move it).

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?

Chance alone? Or chance plus natural selection? Although I'm not sure what you mean by these statements though since I don't believe that the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe reflects known intelligently originated design.

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?

I'd much rather they rework my eyes to be more like that of a squid, or better yet an eagle. If they can do that, I want an appointment.

[brunumb]

[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

There is no "required hand" in evolution. The advantage gained in survival and reproducibility is what causes the change to be retained in the population.

As for the eye, the progressive evolution of the eye through advantages gained by an ability to detect and respond to light have been well documented. The easiest for you to access would be Wikipedia, but there are numerous citations that you could then follow for more detail.

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

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 194 by brunumb]

There is no "required hand" in evolution. The advantage gained in survival and reproducibility is what causes the change to be retained in the population.

As for the eye, the progressive evolution of the eye through advantages gained by an ability to detect and respond to light have been well documented. The easiest for you to access would be Wikipedia, but there are numerous citations that you could then follow for more detail.

And the Wikipedia page is a good example of that hand- where the evolution of the eye is granted a functional eye up-front; an array of photoreceptors- plural- all conveniently bundled and connected to an optic nerve of some kind, which then fades out of the artistic impression.... so is it not connected to anything yet? (no evolutionary advantage) or does that connection to a signal processing mechanism which connects to a physical mechanism- all properly integrated & capable of enacting an appropriate & significantly advantageous physical response.. all come as a free thank-you bonus in a single mutation package? by pure chance?

This all sells a mere royal flush a little short, to describe the chances of accidentally producing all the necessary proteins, you run out of nano-seconds the universe has existed, individual organisms that have ever existed, in even attempting to put a number on it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 195 by Guy Threepwood]

This all sells a mere royal flush a little short, to describe the chances of accidentally producing all the necessary proteins, you run out of nano-seconds the universe has existed, individual organisms that have ever existed, in even attempting to put a number on it.

That's a straw man argument. Try small steps, long time, not everything at once. How about investigating the evolution of the eye in a little more depth and then demonstrate that it just can't work.

If God created our eyes, why does his design allow for innumerable problems and faults specifically related to that design? Evolution provides an explanation. What about God?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 191 by rikuoamero]

I'm sorry to hear that, that can't be fun- though as you said "Since my allergy started a few years ago (had been fine prior to that)"

... my back was fine a few years ago also, and my car was fine before it started leaking oil- design does not preclude damage, decay, entropy happening to the designed object - but it is the only thing that can at least fight against it..

I'm not a nutritionist and I'm sure you know more than I do on this- but can you eat beans? good for protein- and garbanzo beans are kinda nutty...

It does preclude these things if we are positing that this designer is all-knowing, all-powerful. In the real world, we praise the designer of the object that is able to last five years, over the designer of the object that is only able to last two years. We call the five year guy smarter, more reliable, more robust, than Mr. Two Years.
Since you're talking about your car, wouldn't you call a car that never leaks, is designed to never leak and never will, a better design than one that does?
Since you want to call the human body designed, and point to things you say are the result of design, and showcase design, shouldn't flaws in the human body, like my allergies, or my cousin being born with cerebral palsy, point to not-design? How can your all powerful, all knowing super intelligent designer make so many ridiculous blunders?
What is your criteria for what constitutes design, and what constitutes not-design? It looks to me like you don't actually have any set criteria. The human body is designed, and no matter what happens to a human in terms of illnesses or maladies, it will always be designed. A designer who is, according to you, able to craft our genetic code (from scratch) ought to be able to catch genetic diseases and ensure they don't happen...and yet they do.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 197 by rikuoamero]

What is your criteria for what constitutes design,.....

Unless the criteria for establishing design and how they are applied can be provided, claims for design are nothing more than unjustified assertions. I have asked for the criteria before and got nothing but evasion.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 196 by brunumb]

The eye is irreducibly complex for Darwinian evolution, there is no linear gradual process to build it one step at a time by accidental errors

what problems?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 197 by rikuoamero]

I take your point, and obviously many religious people, living through famine, plague, war and many problems far worse than we are complaining about here.. have not merely overlooked this question..

I'd say there are two general schools- that creation was perfect and becomes corrupted, partly by humanity and free will in some cases..

Or it's all part of the grander design.

I tend to lean towards the latter- there are logical reasons for us not being immortal- and 'good' and 'bad' acts and experiences are defined by each other- like left and right, you cannot have one without the other.

Having said that I do think it has always been the biggest challenge for anyone's faith- especially when it is personal