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 210 by DrNoGods

a certainty? You'd have to argue this with most evolutionary biologists I think

So you'd need not only the right atmosphere again, but just the right symbiotic/dynamic changes in atmosphere and ocean chemistry allowing ocean to land habitation- what allowed mammals to come out of hiding? - you'd need another perfectly timed, weighted, aimed meteor to surgically remove the dinosaurs without destroying too much else- along with several other crucially timed near-total extinction events . want to put odds on that?

These are just a couple of examples in countless, a tiny tip of a giant iceberg of 'lucky' events that allowed a diversity of mammals, far less thinking one's- which at the very least apparently appeared from a tiny bottle neck of individuals- this is not a theistic argument- it's something that is ever more appreciated across the board

i.e. even if you granted abiogenesis, & allowed every design step required of evolution to appear by pure blind chance as ToE proposes, you still have an astronomically improbable result: Beings pondering the meaning of their own existence.

Whatever number we put on this improbability, we would somehow have to ascertain the odds of intelligent agency as being even lower, in order for that to be less probable.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 211 by Guy Threepwood]

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.

I think you missed the above section. I didn't say we'd end up with the SAME distribution of life we have today ... just that evolution would guarantee that over 4 billion years, and without some totally destructive event like the sun going red dwarf and engulfing the earth, a starting population of single-celled bacteria would evolve into a massive distribution of species of life very different from bacteria.

It doesn't matter what "lucky" events may happen along the way that may wipe out some species and allow overs to survive ... that is irrelevant. The point is that evolution, over 4 billion years, would create a huge diversity of species of all types ... just as we observe has actually happened on this planet. I agree that duplicating the exact same diversity of life we have today is unlikely, but that is not at all what I suggested.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 212 by DrNoGods]

Except there are an infinity of possible versions that do not create diversity, or even do wipe everything out- like one of the major meteor impacts being a little bit stronger, a materialistic process with no goal would be perfect 'happy' with this result. Or ocean life developing in a way that did not create a suitable atmosphere for any life beyond it. In fact cosmologists feel that this is the far more likely probability for any exo-planet we might find with any life on it- that it never got out of the ocean..

The question though WAS specifically about achieving the same result- i.e. a sentient being capable of having this debate- arising once again from a single cell- how likely would you say that was?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 213 by Guy Threepwood]

The question though WAS specifically about achieving the same result- i.e. a sentient being capable of having this debate- arising once again from a single cell- how likely would you say that was?

I don't know ... come back in 50 million years and see if we have other apes that have developed more advanced verbal communication than they have today. Humans have only been on this planet, carrying on conversations and "being smart" for a measly 2 million years or less (depending on the capabilities of early erectus, and when sapiens appeared which appears to be 300,000 years ago, roughly, based on the recent Morocco findings).

2 million years is only 0.002 billion, or 0.05% of the time since life first appeared some 4 billion years ago (or adjust this as you see fit). So for the first 99.95% of the time from first life to today, there were no intelligent humans around. Let's go back to 2 million years ago and ask your question and forget humans and their intelligence. Or, let's examine the development of the human brain starting 2 million years ago and look at the progression of brain size and neocortex percentage to see how intelligence at our level came into existence.

We (humans) have only been around a tiny period of time, and are the first super-intelligent creatures to have evolved on this planet. So it is way too early to say if there might be others, or what we'll evolve into in 50 million years if we don't ruin the planet first from overpopulation (in which case humans may disappear and we may have yet another major extinction event and a reset).

I don't think human intelligence is anything more than the evolution of a brain capable of it, and this development is exactly the reason we are in the position we are today at the top of the food chain. Language, etc. is a byproduct. How "smart" was the first Homo erectus compared to habilis, or habilis compared to a chimp? How much did the development of complex language accelerate the learning process (a gigantic amount I'd guess).

Life on this planet evolved to live in the environment that existed at the time. Prior to the "great oxygenation event" most of the life forms we have today could not have survived. And it took some 3 billion years before the first multicellular organisms showed up. If you wiped out all life on this planet today except for a few populations of single-celled organisms, and came back 4 billion years from now (although that is about the time that the sun will red dwarf and Andromeda will collide with the Milky Way ... but ignore that for the moment), there would no doubt be a huge diversity of multicellular life on the planet. Evolution would guarantee it.

[Bust Nak]

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?

What's this about random error? I was speaking of pre-supported and essential capacity for adaptation as a design feature. If it wasn't clear before, let me be more explicit: Do you feel theistic evolution, (that God set things in motion, intended to create humanity in a hands-off manner,) is a tenable alternative to naturalistic evolution?

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?

No idea.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 214 by DrNoGods]



I appreciate your thoughtful response as always- but just taking your conclusion here:

there would no doubt be a huge diversity of multicellular life on the planet. Evolution would guarantee it.

Even taking all the life currently on Earth - remove just one species:humans- you still have a vast diversity of life right? just none that can actually be aware of that fact, and actually contemplate the meaning of it all

you have drastically altered the significance of the result- it comes back to the poker hand, even if I grant you all the cards, you are guaranteed a diversity of hands in any game, but not a royal flush.


And we have more players at this poker table than just Earth, yes? if this rich diversity of life is 'guaranteed' from something that is also 'probable' by chance (abiogensis) - occurring in a solar system that is not miraculously improbable either...

Then why the 'great silence', as it is called, in the galaxy?


- ultimately- let me ask you this hypothetical: if it could be shown that we were in fact the only intelligent being- and hence- the only means by which the universe, can literally contemplate it's own existence...can be self aware

Tell me, would this give you even the slightest pause for thought? or could you honestly,comfortably, write even this off as yet one more astonishing coincidence?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 215 by Bust Nak]

Thanks for clarifying,

What's this about random error? I was speaking of pre-supported and essential capacity for adaptation as a design feature. If it wasn't clear before, let me be more explicit: Do you feel theistic evolution, (that God set things in motion, intended to create humanity in a hands-off manner,) is a tenable alternative to naturalistic evolution?

I'm not sure how you reconcile 'intended' with 'hands-off' - how do you guide an unguided process?

- but in the sense that a DVD plays a movie in a 'hands-off' manner yes. I'm not sure that, as some ID proponents believe, new information had to be uploaded into DNA on the fly- we already know there is a lot of data decompression/extraction going on- in a sense the singularity was quite literally a self extracting archive of highly compressed information!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 214 by DrNoGods]

How "smart" was the first Homo erectus compared to habilis, or habilis compared to a chimp? How much did the development of complex language accelerate the learning process (a gigantic amount I'd guess).

Evidently, they were a lot smarter than chimps.

1.

Researchers report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they have re-dated and correlated geologic layers containing stone tools from northern Kenya’s Turkana Basin and Ethiopia’s Konso region hundreds of miles south. By examining tools associated with Homo erectus, they have determined the more advanced Acheulean tools actually show up in layers dated as old as 1.75 million years ago. Thus, they write, “Behavioral novelties were being established in a regional scale at that time, paralleling the emergence of Homo erectus-like hominid morphology.�

Y. Beyene et al., “The Characteristics and Chronology of the Earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2013)

2. From the BBC “Homo erectus was the first hominid species that left Africa; they were technologically sophisticated with stone tools; they hunted animals. Many behaviors we consider unique to humans were present in Homo erectus.�

3. paleontologist Scott Simpson of Case Western Reserve University points out that H. erectus was much more similar to today’s humans than to chimpanzees.

4. The earliest known human remains, from the early Ice Age, have a distinctive appearance, with a high brow ridge and receding chin. The skull of “Turkana Boy� was found in 1984 near Turkana Lake in East Africa . From the neck down, his skeleton is virtually indistinguishable from ours. These early settlers from Babel were fully human—making hand axes, burying their dead, and settling three continents.

Man did not evolve from Chimps. H. erectus could have played chess with you, because he was a modern man.


Man did not evolve from chimps. Why do you insist on telling this tell? Curious George is much better.

[Goat]

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

o

Please elaborate on this claim. How does it reflect known intelligently originated design strategies? Please explain why doing an out of the way route is an intelligently designed strategy, rather than just having a short route?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 219 by Goat]

Please elaborate on this claim. How does it reflect known intelligently originated design strategies? Please explain why doing an out of the way route is an intelligently designed strategy, rather than just having a short route?

well I was agreeing with another poster commenting on how Dell wires it's PCs

There are many connections which take very long routes and for the same good reasons- it makes sense to bundle several routes into one and branch off- if you've ever had to exit the highway and double back to get to your favorite fast food restaurant- that's the same principle. It doesn't mean the highway spontaneously materialized by accident

But more so where you must allow for flexibility, movement in the design, and if you are designing for several different models using the same components.

None of this speaks to designs being created by random blunders in the instructions, the opposite argument can be better made I think