Evolution RIP

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Evolution RIP

Post #1

Post by 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.



User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 2052
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Post #111

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 100 by EarthScienceguy]
Trillions of species of life does not help your situation. Each coding protein has 100 to 300 amino acids. The number of different combinations is beyond comprehension. One coding protein of 100 amino acids has 10^115 possible combinations.


This comment is just another demonstration that you don't really understand how all of this works.

First, there is no such thing as a "coding protein." Genes do the coding (of proteins) via the arrangement of base pairs on the gene. The base pairs are organized on the gene in groups of 3 called codons, and each codon specifies an amino acid. The ordering of the codons specifies the ordering of amino acids on the protein. So what you really mean to say is coding gene, not coding protein. Do you know the difference between a gene and a protein?

Second, the median protein length in a human is about 375 amino acids (the longest is Titin with 34,350 amino acids). You are trying to create a large statistical number by continuing to toss out the statistical number of ways that 20 amino acids could combine to make a 100 amino acid long protein, then claiming that this number of combinations would have to be "gone through" to randomly arrive at any particular mutation that could become fixed (ie. selected). But that is not how it works. Here is your comment from post 97 in this thread:
Well that is not so bad 1 in 8000 chance per mutation. If we wanted to calculate the probability to go from a worm to a fish. We would take 1/8000 x 1/8000 X 1/8000 a hundred times. So if we take (1/8000)^100 that would be 1 / 2 x 10^390 chance.


You are assuming that each of the 100 mutations from worm to fish (probably a gross underestimate) is entirely independent of the others, each has the same 1/8000 chance of happening, and that these must happen in series which is not how evolution works. This is ignoring natural selection, and the fact that changes happen in parallel because there is not just one worm undergoing evolutionary change but an entire population of them and they are constantly breeding within the population allowing beneficial mutations to become fixed. Read the third paragraph in this paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full

That describes your mistake in making the serial assumption, which you are presumably doing to try and claim that there isn't enough time for evolutionary change to happen because of the gigantic number of (serial) changes that must take place. Read the rest of the paper as well for a better understanding of how evolution actually does work, and how to more properly apply statistics and probabilities to the problem. Your serial assumption to produce a gigantic number is not reality.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Post #112

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I love your papers thanks for sending them!!!

Problems

1. Herbert S. Wilf and Warren J. Ewens make the following assumption (assumption 1)
But a more appropriate model is the following: After guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct, and then those letters are retained. The second round of guessing is applied only for the incorrect letters that remain after this first round, and so forth. This procedure mimics the “in parallel� evolutionary process. The question concerns the statistics of the number of rounds needed to guess all of the letters of the word successfully. Our main result is
Wilf and Ewens are making the assumption that a functional phenotype exist in one mutations. This is simply not true and has been shown many times. So a correct "letter" does not have to be locked in placed.

A letter or group of letters are not "locked in place" until a functional phenotype exist.

Functional phenotype do not come from duplication.

(1) gene duplications are aberrations of cell division processes and are more likely to cause malformation or diseases rather than selective advantage;
(2) duplicated genes are usually silenced and subjected to degenerative mutations;
(3) regulation of supposedly duplicated gene clusters and gene families is irreducibly complex, and demands simultaneous development of fully functional multiple genes and switching networks, contrary to Darwinian gradualism.

https://creation.com/do-new-functions-a ... uplication

2. Herbert S. Wilf and Warren J. Ewens make the following assumption (assumption 1)

Wilf and Ewens make the assumption that there are not a such thing as hot spots of mutation in the genome.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132924.htm

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA

Post #113

Post by Donray »

Earthscienceguy will not discuss his alternate theory to evolution. He is a hypocrite and only want to bash evolution because if true it would men his religion is false.

Anyone know any other reason he does not want to discuss his alternative to evolution.

Everyone don't debate this guy until he comes up with his KINDS and ADPATATION theory with some specificity like he does in trying to prove evolution wrong. Why let his get away with not disclosing a logical alternative to evolution?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 2052
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Post #114

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 112 by EarthScienceguy]
Wilf and Ewens are making the assumption that a functional phenotype exist in one mutations. This is simply not true and has been shown many times. So a correct "letter" does not have to be locked in placed.


Yet another complete misunderstanding of what is written in the paper. Wilf and Evans make no such assumption ... this is simply another example of you reading one thing and then paraphrasing it with (intentionally) the wrong interpretation in an attempt to make a different point that has nothing to do with the paper.

What they are actually doing (not your mischaracterization) is simulating natural selection where beneficial mutations are retained. This is what they mean by "we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct." Then another cycle of beneficial mutation (decided by natural selection) occurs, etc. They make no claim or assumption that functional phenotype changes happen in just one mutation. A beneficial mutation may not show any functional phenotype changes. It may take hundreds, or thousands, of mutations before any obvious phenotype changes are visible. There is no implication or suggestion in the paper that any functional phenotype changes happen in just one mutation.
Functional phenotype do not come from duplication.


Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Wilf and Ewens make the assumption that there are not a such thing as hot spots of mutation in the genome.


If anything, this would only help their argument as it could further speed up the process (ie. mutations happening at a faster rate than normal).

Again, you completely missed the point that was being made, which was to correct your error in post 97 where you calculated the probability of worm to fish evolution on the (wrong) assumption that things happen in a serial fashion. That is the fundamental mistake I was pointing out. But instead of commenting on that you fabricated an assumption that you claimed was made in the paper, when it wasn't, and then wandered off into something that has no relationship at all to the subject. Just another example of trying to dodge the issue that was raised.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Post #115

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Donray]

Look for evolution RIP 2.0 coming soon.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 2052
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Post #116

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 115 by EarthScienceguy]
Look for evolution RIP 2.0 coming soon.
Please spare us! It might be good to first try and produce even one piece of supporting evidence for the claims in Evolution RIP 1.0, which you have yet to accomplish.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9489
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Post #117

Post by Bust Nak »

Donray wrote: He is a hypocrite...
:warning: Moderator Warning

This crossed the line.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 370 times

Post #118

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to Donray]

Look for evolution RIP 2.0 coming soon.
Let's do one better!
Let's pretend that evolution has been proven false for a moment.

What mechanism would you argue would take its place as far as describing the animals we see now and also in the fossil record?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Post #119

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 118 by Clownboat]

Exactly what we observe now heredity.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 370 times

Post #120

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 118 by Clownboat]

Exactly what we observe now heredity.
I don't think that anyone disputes that parents can pass on traits like hair or eye color for example on to their children. How that would creates new species though is not something I'm understanding.

I'm specifically asking about all the species both now and in the fossil record. I would think it would take more than parents passing on traits like above. I would think there would need to be a mechanism that involves natural selection, mutations, isolation, genetic drift, hybridization and such to create the vast amounts of species we see, no?

Heredity alone as the explanation seems lacking.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply