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 218 by EarthScienceguy]

Evidently, they were a lot smarter than chimps.

Exactly ... that is my point. And they were not as "smart" as modern humans and most likely could not be as they had smaller brains and less neocortex mass. In the Homo line, if you start with Homo habilis (although there is debate on whether they should actually be in the Pan line or the Homo line), there is a clear, progressive path from smaller brain size to larger, and less intelligence to more. Modern humans did not just appear out of nowhere with the brains we have now.

H. erectus could have played chess with you, because he was a modern man.

Doubtful, but if you could teach them how the various pieces move I'm pretty sure I could win a chess match with a Homo erectus by outsmarting him on strategy. They were definitely not "modern men." Are you suggesting that the ability to make primitive tools and hunt animals is equivalent to the intelligence level of a Homo sapien? Turkana Boy, if he had made it to adulthood, may have been indistinguishable from a modern human from the neck down as your cut/paste says, but from the neck up it was a different story. But they are member of the genus Homo ... there is no dispute about that ... so not sure why you brought it up.

Man did not evolve from chimps. Why do you insist on telling this tell?

You are the one who kept posting that evolution claims that humans evolved from chimps! I have been correcting you on this to straighten out your mistake, but you still don't seem to get it. Evolution says modern humans share a common ancestor with chimps, not that we evolved directly from chimps. Are you claiming that the genetics work of the last 40 years is all wrong?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 216 by Guy Threepwood]

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.

But isn't your fundamental argument that evolution cannot produce "macro" changes such as new species, or vastly different life forms such as tetrapods from (ultimately) single-celled organisms? In that case it doesn't matter if you stop at 2 million years ago ... you still have a planet full of wild diversity in plant and animal life.

If you tack back on the last 2 million years and include humans, that just adds one teeny tiny additional group who happen to have evolved a complex and capable brain. That development, which allows humans to be humans, is just an evolutionary advantage our small group of organisms happened to develop. There are plenty of other examples of evolved features that benefit certain groups of organisms exclusively and give them advantages within their ecosystem (eg. the ability to fly, or produce venom, etc.). We just happen to have evolved a more complex brain than anything else (so far) which gives us the amazing abilities we have in intelligence. If humans all died out tomorrow planet earth would march along just fine, and we'd be nothing more than a very brief evolutionary experiment that didn't work out.

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?

Abiogenesis is just one option, panspermia is another, but we have reached almost no ability to investigate the universe or even our own galaxy for life. The "radio bubble" around earth is only about 130 light years (distance the first ever man-made radio signal has traveled since it was first produced). The distance to the center of our own galaxy is about 26 thousand light years, and the distance to the other side could be 100,000 light years beyond that. And of course we've only visited the vicinity of other celestial bodies in our own little solar system.

So there is no "great silence" if all we can do is interrogate with our own signals a measly 130 light years from earth, and as far as incoming signals we have no idea what some other intelligent civilization might produce (and have only had the ability to look at incoming light signals for a similar 130 year period, or less). Also, there could be billions or trillions of planets teaming with life somewhere in the entire universe, but it could be a situation like on earth 10 million years ago (back to 4 billion years before that) where there were no species capable of intelligent communication. We have no idea what forms life might take on another planet, and have no ability to investigate that at the moment, so it is a completely unanswerable question.

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?

I think it is far too early to even contemplate that question, because we have no ability to investigate anything beyond just a tiny distance from our own planet. If will be 26,000 years before our first radio signal reaches the galactic center, and 130 light years we have so far only gets to a few thousand stars (or few tens of thousands). But I'm convinced that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor, who evolved from earlier mammals, who evolved from ... all the way back to single-celled organisms. Until something comes along to show that this didn't happen, I'm sticking with ToE as the best explanation we have so far, and the best one that is supported by observation (fossil record, and genetics).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 221 by DrNoGods]

Exactly ... that is my point. And they were not as "smart" as modern humans and most likely could not be as they had smaller brains and less neocortex mass. In the Homo line, if you start with Homo habilis (although there is debate on whether they should actually be in the Pan line or the Homo line), there is a clear, progressive path from smaller brain size to larger, and less intelligence to more. Modern humans did not just appear out of nowhere with the brains we have now.

From the good old BBC
A new Homo erectus fossil suggests that females had large, wide pelvises in order to deliver large-brained babies.

A Melanesian with a cranial capacity of 790 cubic centimetres (cc) is said to be the lowest on record of a normal adult. Harris claimed that the variability of man’s cranial capacity starts at 850cc. Although mentally retarded adults have had measured cranial capacities of 511cc and 519cc which are equal to an adult gorilla’s, their behaviour was obviously not pongid.

Schultz, A.H., 1966. The physical distinction of man. In: Readings in Anthropology, Thomas W. McKern (ed.), Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Harris, Marvin P., 1971. Culture, Man and Nature. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York,

Homo erectus brain capacity is 900 cc well within the parameters for a human.

Doubtful, but if you could teach them how the various pieces move I'm pretty sure I could win a chess match with a Homo erectus by outsmarting him on strategy. They were definitely not "modern men." Are you suggesting that the ability to make primitive tools and hunt animals is equivalent to the intelligence level of a Homo sapien? Turkana Boy, if he had made it to adulthood, may have been indistinguishable from a modern human from the neck down as your cut/paste says, but from the neck up it was a different story. But they are member of the genus Homo ... there is no dispute about that ... so not sure why you brought it up.

Have you ever tried to make tools of anytype out of rocks? It is not an easy feat. And as the cut and past above says they were like us from the neck up also.

Check Mate.

Are you claiming that the genetics work of the last 40 years is all wrong?

I am not saying that all genetics work of the last 40 is all wrong. In fact I have used much of that work to prove my point. That humans did not evolve from chimps.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 223 by EarthScienceguy]

A new Homo erectus fossil suggests that females had large, wide pelvises in order to deliver large-brained babies.

And? Here is a table of brain case volumes (in cm^3) from

https://www.britannica.com/science/huma ... brain-size

Australopithecus 440
Paranthropus 519
Homo habilis 640
Javanese Homo erectus 930
Chinese Homo erectus 1,029
Homo sapiens 1,350

The Homo sapiens volume is 31% larger than Chinese Homo erectus ... that is significant, and both are much larger than Australopithecus. 900 cc is NOT will within the parameters for a modern human (ie. Homo sapien).

Have you ever tried to make tools of anytype out of rocks? It is not an easy feat. And as the cut and past above says they were like us from the neck up also.

Check Mate.

I actually have ... we did this back in boy scouts and it is not easy. But I wouldn't compare the brain power to do that with Newton or Einstein, or even the guy working the counter at Starbucks. Homo erectus were not identical to us from the neck up ... and not just the smaller brain case.

I am not saying that all genetics work of the last 40 is all wrong. In fact I have used much of that work to prove my point.

Really ... can you give us the references to the journals where you published this groundbreaking research?

That humans did not evolve from chimps.

Not that again! Go back and read the prior posts explaining that this is not what evolution claims. It is only you who can't wrap your head around what a common ancestor means. Here ... have a look at this chart:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens#ref866006

You can click on the picture to blow it up.

[brunumb]

[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?

The dinosaurs ruled the earth for around 135 million years. A cataclysmic accident changed the environment causing their extinction and allowing the mammals to gain a foothold. Humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. There is no specific path that evolution takes. We may not last anywhere near as long as the dinosaurs despite our intelligence.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 136 by micatala]

And yet, it happened. This also happens every time you play cards. Any given hand you have ever received playing bridge, poker, etc., was very improbable.

Every hand in poker is not improbable we can calculate the probability.

Your statement here is nonsense. Being improbable simply means the probability is low, not that the probability is impossible to calcuate.

You will be dealt a 2 pair every 1 in 20 deals. So if 20 people are being dealt cards then you can expect 1 of those to be dealt a 2 pair. The event is highly probable.

We can disagree on what counts as 'highly probably' or 'highly improbably' but anything less than 50% is would be more improbable than probable.

The chances of a Royal straight flush being dealt to you is 1 in 649,000. So that means that if you have 649 000 people being dealt cards it is highly probable that one of them will have been dealt a royal straight flush.

This is the correct calculation. Any one hand has a chance one fourth of the royal straight flush.

In bridge, the chance of any particular hand occurring is 1 out of 635,013,559,600. This would seem to be wildly improbable. And yet the next bridge hand dealt would have had this chance of being dealt when it is dealt. That's the point I was making.

Now the number of possible combinations in the genome is 1 in 10^490. So even if you have a mole of creatures 6 x 10^23. You would still have only a 1 in 10^460. Very improbable event.

Your calculations do not refute my point. When one of these DNA combinations occurs, it is wildly improbable. And yet it happens. Your DNA was a wildly improbably event, and yet it happened. It is irrelevant that a whole lot of other possible DNA combinations have not occurred or are not likely to occur.

Evolution only selects certain changes that occur because they provide some advantage.

This is an entirely false statement evolution cannot select anything. Unless someone believes in some sort of pantheistic evolutionary scenario. People do believe that if that is what you believe. But if you have some sort of pantheistic we are having the wrong conversation. We should be discussing if the universe is a living entity.

Perhaps we are in the wrong conversation, as your statement here regarding evolution is entirely at odds with the reality of the what the theory says. It is also gobbledy gook.

If that is not the case then we evolution has to be considered directionless. And it is only by random chance that a mutation even happens in a particular position in the genome and if a mutation in beneficial or neutral to the organism. Most of the time they are either neutral or destructive. And most of time a beneficial mutation is simply increasing the length of time protein is added in a particular area or whether not as much protein is added to a particular area.

Evolution is directionless in the sense that the situation in the past was not clearly pointed to what we have now. Things could have turned out differently. The only 'direction' that evolution have is to favor survival and reproduction of individuals that have some small adaptive advantage in their environment.

Your fallacy is that you seem to think that because a species that exists now, and the probability that this particular species (or this particular DNA sequence) is wildly improbable by random chance, that evolution could not have produced it.

You are looking backwards at the history of life and assuming it must have unfolded the way it did and claiming it can't have been evolution because what happened was would have been wildly improbably if predicted ahead of time.

I look back in time and see the FACTS that were left behind.

There is no continuous sequence to evolution. In other words there is no such thing as a tree of life. Can you tell me is that tree based on morphology or is it based on the genome?

The tree is based on the actual history of life. Both DNA and morphology can provide evidence regarding that tree. Arguing against the tree of life would be logically equivalent to arguing you have not tree of ancestors. In both cases, all you need is that living organisms reproduce 'after their own kind' to use the biblical phrase.

If you are going to base it on morphology then how is it that the evolutionary tree has man ancestor as an chimp instead of an orangutan?

Chimps, orangutans, and humans have a common ancestor according to the evidence we have. Even if we do not know what that common ancestor looks like, we can infer it exists as follows. We all know we have a great-great- . , -great grand father for however many 'greats' you would like to put in, with the caveat there cannot be more greats than the timespan of life on earth allows for.

Now, consider the number of fathers alive today. Call that N0. The number of fathers of these fathers, call that N1, cannot be any larger than N0 and is almost certainly smaller. N1=N0 only if every person counted to produce N0 was an only son (we'll ignore women for now). Continuing back generation by generation, we have smaller and smaller groups at each generation. N0>N1>N2> . . . . >Nk. Nk is simply the number of male ancestors at generation k of males alive today who are fathers.

At some point, Nk is going to be equal to 1, and that person would be a common male answer of all fathers alive today, and thus a common male ancestor of everyone alive today and all future humans. The only way this argument goes wrong is if at some point you do get = instead of > starting at some point in the chain and continuing 'forever.' That would be a truly improbable event.

This common male ancestor is probably human, but there is nothing to say that it has to be. Similarly, you could apply the same logic to every single male mammal alive today to show that, with a degree of confidence so high you would be better off betting on the lottery than against this, all mammals alive today have a common male ancestor. That common ancestor can clearly be in all the species alive today and is probably not a species that even exists today.

But, because it has now happened, looking back, the probability is now 100%. Just like the last bridge hand played by any given player was very wildly improbable and any number of other hands could have occurred. Cards is unlike evolution in that a given hand is not 'selected' for survival.

I understand that evolutionist do not like to deal with facts.

This statement is so completely ridiculous that, at this point, I will decline to respond further to this post.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 226 by micatala]

Your fallacy is that you seem to think that because a species that exists now, and the probability that this particular species (or this particular DNA sequence) is wildly improbable by random chance, that evolution could not have produced it.

Well, at least you think that evolution is wildly improbable by random chance. What my numbers showed was that any life is wildly improbable. An event that is wildly improbable most people would still call impossible. A series of wildly improbable events people would say that it is being directed.

The tree is based on the actual history of life. Both DNA and morphology can provide evidence regarding that tree.

Which DNA or morphology because they say two different things. So which one is continuous.

Chimps, orangutans, and humans have a common ancestor according to the evidence we have.

What evidence? What is that evidence based on?

Now, consider the number of fathers alive today. Call that N0. The number of fathers of these fathers, call that N1, cannot be any larger than N0 and is almost certainly smaller. N1=N0 only if every person counted to produce N0 was an only son (we'll ignore women for now). Continuing back generation by generation, we have smaller and smaller groups at each generation. N0>N1>N2> . . . . >Nk. Nk is simply the number of male ancestors at generation k of males alive today who are fathers.

At some point, Nk is going to be equal to 1, and that person would be a common male answer of all fathers alive today, and thus a common male ancestor of everyone alive today and all future humans. The only way this argument goes wrong is if at some point you do get = instead of > starting at some point in the chain and continuing 'forever.' That would be a truly improbable event.

This common male ancestor is probably human, but there is nothing to say that it has to be. Similarly, you could apply the same logic to every single male mammal alive today to show that, with a degree of confidence so high you would be better off betting on the lottery than against this, all mammals alive today have a common male ancestor. That common ancestor can clearly be in all the species alive today and is probably not a species that even exists today.

That makes no sense at all and is not based on anything factual. That is simply what you believe to be the case not based on any observations in nature. Although evolution is not based on any observation in nature either so why should I expect more.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 226 by micatala]

Your fallacy is that you seem to think that because a species that exists now, and the probability that this particular species (or this particular DNA sequence) is wildly improbable by random chance, that evolution could not have produced it.

Well, at least you think that evolution is wildly improbable by random chance.

This is a wildly inaccurate and mischaracterization of what I said.

What my numbers showed was that any life is wildly improbable. An event that is wildly improbable most people would still call impossible. A series of wildly improbable events people would say that it is being directed.

This reasoning continues to be fallacious.

Now, consider the number of fathers alive today. Call that N0. The number of fathers of these fathers, call that N1, cannot be any larger than N0 and is almost certainly smaller. N1=N0 only if every person counted to produce N0 was an only son (we'll ignore women for now). Continuing back generation by generation, we have smaller and smaller groups at each generation. N0>N1>N2> . . . . >Nk. Nk is simply the number of male ancestors at generation k of males alive today who are fathers.

At some point, Nk is going to be equal to 1, and that person would be a common male answer of all fathers alive today, and thus a common male ancestor of everyone alive today and all future humans. The only way this argument goes wrong is if at some point you do get = instead of > starting at some point in the chain and continuing 'forever.' That would be a truly improbable event.

This common male ancestor is probably human, but there is nothing to say that it has to be. Similarly, you could apply the same logic to every single male mammal alive today to show that, with a degree of confidence so high you would be better off betting on the lottery than against this, all mammals alive today have a common male ancestor. That common ancestor can clearly be in all the species alive today and is probably not a species that even exists today.

That makes no sense at all and is not based on anything factual. That is simply what you believe to be the case not based on any observations in nature. Although evolution is not based on any observation in nature either so why should I expect more.

This is an utterly futile attempt to dismiss a valid argument. Do fathers have sons? Yes, we observe that in nature. The rest is mathematics.

If you want additional details, we can statistically identify how much smaller N1 is than N0, although the data would be more robust if we had considered mothers and daughters rather than fathers and son.

For mothers, you can consider the total fertility rate (TFR). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

If the TFR is, say, 2.4, and if we assume that roughly half of all children are female, than each woman has on average 1.2 daughters. If we let M0 be the number of living mothers and M1 the number of grandmothers of mothers, then M1/M0 is roughly 1/1.2 or 0.8. If this same rate holds into past generations (which is not valid in general, but will give us an estimate), then M100 = M0*(0.83^100) or about 2*10^(-10) times M0. Each grandmother in the 100th generation would have about 20 billion female If we estimate M0 at say 2 billion, then M100 would be about 0.1. If the TFR is higher, the 0.83 gets smaller and M100 is even smaller. So, mathematically, we would get to 1 much sooner than the 100th generation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to micatala]

This is a wildly inaccurate and mischaracterization of what I said.

That was exactly what you said.

This is an utterly futile attempt to dismiss a valid argument. Do fathers have sons? Yes, we observe that in nature.

We observe fathers having sons of the same species. Any change is caused by heredity. Now heredity has been observed to change species over time. But it has been heredity that has made the change not duplication and mutation. I do not know of any observed duplication and mutation that has caused a change in the species of an animal to another genus.

If you want additional details, we can statistically identify how much smaller N1 is than N0, although the data would be more robust if we had considered mothers and daughters rather than fathers and son.

For mothers, you can consider the total fertility rate (TFR).

This is all heredity. This type of change occurs because the information is already in the genome. The only way that new information can form in the genome is duplication and mutation. And a change in species has never been observed from duplication and mutation.

If the TFR is, say, 2.4, and if we assume that roughly half of all children are female, than each woman has on average 1.2 daughters. If we let M0 be the number of living mothers and M1 the number of grandmothers of mothers, then M1/M0 is roughly 1/1.2 or 0.8. If this same rate holds into past generations (which is not valid in general, but will give us an estimate), then M100 = M0*(0.83^100) or about 2*10^(-10) times M0. Each grandmother in the 100th generation would have about 20 billion female If we estimate M0 at say 2 billion, then M100 would be about 0.1. If the TFR is higher, the 0.83 gets smaller and M100 is even smaller. So, mathematically, we would get to 1 much sooner than the 100th generation.

People have grown 100 generations of bacteria and you know what they had at the end of that time? Bacteria

Man has been around for 100 generations and you know what man was 100 generations ago? Man.

Although you did just make a good proof for a young Earth. Because if that is the fertility rate then where are the 20 billion females.

Thanks I could not have used math better myself. Well, maybe. But yours will work.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 229 by EarthScienceguy]

Because if that is the fertility rate then where are the 20 billion females.

You do realize that people die don't you? If there are 3.7 billion females on the earth now, how many total females were born over the last 100 generations? Maybe if they were all like fictional biblical characters (eg. Methuselah living to 969) we'd have 20 million still around today, but the majority of the females born over the last 100 generations are long dead and gone.

Man has been around for 100 generations and you know what man was 100 generations ago? Man.

100 generations? That's only about 2,500 years. Do you so little understand evolution that you think 100 generations of humans is even remotely enough to cause significant visible change? The three different human groups who have adapted to high elevation life (yes ... via evolutionary changes) did so in the relatively short time of only 15,000 - 30,000 years (around 600 - 1,200 generations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-alti ... _in_humans

But going back further, we do know that modern humans evolved from a great ape ancestor that lived around 6 -10 million years ago. That is roughly 320,000 human generations ago. These are the time scales you need to be considering ... not a measly 100 generations.