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 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?

Let me guess...you're going to quote Darwin himself when he spoke about this?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 199 by Guy Threepwood]

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

And yet again ... ignoring natural selection completely and implying that evolution is nothing but chance, random blundering, accidental errors, etc., and nothing more. Why don't you like the idea of natural selection?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 196 by brunumb]

Let me guess...you're going to quote Darwin himself when he spoke about this?

He recognized many potential problems far more readily than many of his followers-, way before he had any idea just how big those problems would become- I think by his own standards he would be a skeptic today.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 202 by DrNoGods]

And yet again ... ignoring natural selection completely and implying that evolution is nothing but chance, random blundering, accidental errors, etc., and nothing more. Why don't you like the idea of natural selection?

once again- natural selection can only select from features that have already been created.

how are new features created? pure random blundering accidental blind chance errors, (according to the theory)- that's just not going to do the trick

[Donray]

[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.

just like a lot of Christians they say things with no support and refuse to debate their beliefs and just throw out useless information to try to pretend their beliefs are valid.
You have no idea how life came to evolve on earth and the only thing you are trying to do is use fake science to disprove evolution. You cannot logical debate your beliefs because you know they would stand up to debate.
I asked you for your theory that would replace evolution and you were incapable of doing that. All you are doing is making excuses was to why you are incapable of explaining your theory to replace evolution.

The majority of Christians are undereducated and just feel the need to belive in their god because they have no other hope this is why they reject anything that disturbs their belief system.

So, you and the THESCIENCEGUY are the same in that neither can give an alternate theory and don’t respond to questions about their trying to prove evolution is fake. Yet Christians continue to try to prove EVOLUTION fake and CANNOT come up with any logical replacement except the magic god can do anything including faking fossils and eradicative dating etc.

So, I do understand why you don’t want to debate me.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 202 by DrNoGods]

And yet again ... ignoring natural selection completely and implying that evolution is nothing but chance, random blundering, accidental errors, etc., and nothing more. Why don't you like the idea of natural selection?

once again- natural selection can only select from features that have already been created.

how are new features created? pure random blundering accidental blind chance errors, (according to the theory)- that's just not going to do the trick

Then please explain how certain bacteria evolved to consume nylon, an artificial material that did not exist before the 1930s.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 206 by rikuoamero]

Then please explain how certain bacteria evolved to consume nylon, an artificial material that did not exist before the 1930s.

same way finches adapted different size beaks. They are still finches and likewise the bacteria are still bacteria

every animal (and almost any reasonably sophisticated product), has a pre-supported and essential capacity for adaptation- within specified functional limits. i.e. adaptation is a design feature, not a design mechanism.- and this is supported by what we see in direct observation and experiment (all bacteria remain bacteria- no matter the evolutionary pressure applied) and in the fossil record, the genetic hierarchy and simulation

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 207 by Guy Threepwood]

What do you say to the idea that chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor is just another example of adaptation within specified functional limits? We are after all, mammals who are still mammals.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 208 by Bust Nak]

What do you say to the idea that chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor is just another example of adaptation within specified functional limits? We are after all, mammals who are still mammals.

It would be useful to know what that ancestor was for starters, but as problematic as a new morphology is to acquire by random error- acquiring abstract thought and innate language the same way...

Mental capacity gets very interesting: how does even something simple, like an innate fear of spiders and snakes first appear as a random copying error in DNA?

Let me ask you this hypothetical: if all life were wiped out on Earth leaving only single celled bacteria- what odds would you give them of evolving into beings who would be having a conversation like this again? Given that we were the only species in countless millions who achieved this the first time?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 209 by Guy Threepwood]

Let me ask you this hypothetical: if all life were wiped out on Earth leaving only single celled bacteria- what odds would you give them of evolving into beings who would be having a conversation like this again? Given that we were the only species in countless millions who achieved this the first time?

Why single out just one characteristic like high intelligence and speech? Humans are the only species so far to have evolved a brain that is about 80% neocortex and large for our size, and this complex and capable brain is responsible for our high intelligence. And this brain didn't just appear out of nowhere. It progressively got larger and "smarter" from habilis to erectus to the many other more modern examples within Homo up to sapiens. Compare the intelligence level of Homo erectus during their middle stages about 1.2 million years ago to a modern human, or to a chimp. High intelligence via our complex brains is the primary evolutionary advantage humans were lucky enough to obtain. In every other physical area there are many animals far more capable than humans (speed, sight, hearing, strength, etc.). And I'm not scared of snakes, but I don't like spiders.

But there are huge differences, obviously, between a single-celled bacteria and, say, a horse. So if you ask the question on whether, given a population of single-celled bacteria would evolve over 4 billion years into a massive ecosystem of millions of different species, some as advanced over the bacteria as a horse or chimp is today, I'd say the probability is 1, as long as the atmosphere and environment they evolved in was similar to earth. Depending on the starting bacteria you may end up with a different distribution of multicellular animals of all types (compared to what we have today), but the probability that you'd get a massive distribution of all kinds of species of animals and plants is 1.