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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead]

What we see in nature is that some critters, over time, become them different than what they was awhile ago. Equashuns and math be danged, elephants ain't near them hairy as they used to be.

Yes, but none of what you mentioned is an example of evolution. Every changed you mentioned is a result of heredity not a result of duplication and mutation which is the driving force of change in evolution.

All change that we have observed in nature is a result of heredity and not evolution.

"Complexity" is both a subjective, and relative term. How come it is women are so danged complex, but us men are so simple? I'd argue that there's a whole bunch of women that're just pretty as heck, but that doesn't mention how so many of 'em're smarter'n they are pretty.

Complexity is not subjective when describing abilities and number functions an organisms can preform. But if you do not like the word complex, that is find, substitute the word different. Heredity puts limits on the amount of change there can be in the genome. At that point evolutionary theory says that duplication and mutation will occur and save the day and give life more options.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 243 by DrNoGods]

That is not even remotely true. The highest power continuous wave (CW) laser humans have ever built are systems like that used for LAWs (shipborne laser weapon), which is currently at about 30 KW with the potential to combine multiple beams to get up to 300 KW. There are fiber lasers that can reach 100 KW, and MW lasers are thought to be about a decade away (probably also via combining beams from multiple lasers, which reduces the beam quality):

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/u ... class-lase...

But these are lasers that operate in the 0.5 to 10 micron range. The example I used earlier was a pulsed laser and I used a power level that is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we've built that operates continuous wave (CW), which you'd need for some intelligent creature with eyeballs on a planet far away to see it.

And any laser like this cannot get around the fact that the beam will diverge as it leaves the source. The longer the wavelength, the greater the divergence, and diffraction sets a lower limit for this. The diffraction-limited divergence is given by:

theta = 2.44 * (lambda / D)

where lambda is the laser wavelength and D is the emitting aperture. For a best case example, use the 532 nm Nd-YAG wavelength, then theta = 3.25 x 10^-7 rad. This cannot be achieved with a real laser, but plugging this full-angle divergence angle into D = a*tan(theta) with a = 25 trillion miles to Alpha Centauri gives D = 8.1 x 10^6 ~ 8 million miles (diameter of the beam at Alpha Centauri). So you'd have an 8 million mile diameter beam at Alpha Centauri (cross sectional area = 1.3 x 10^24 cm^2). Even if you had a 1 MW laser, the power density would be only 7.7 x 10^-19 W/cm^2 ... far too small to see at Alpha Centauri with an eyeball of any type. This is the diffraction limited version ... the real world case would be worse, and the wavelength likely longer as well. So Dr. Yiu apparently didn't run the numbers and ignored beam divergence.

Hey look at that we agree. Even concentrated light follows the inverse square law.

Quote:
The largest-scale laser system would employ 50 to 70 gigawatts of power to propel the craft forward, about as much as is used to launch current spacecraft to Earth orbit. That laser setup, which Lubin described in a proposal paper, could propel a tiny spacecraft with a 3.3-foot (1 meter) sail up to 26 percent the speed of light in 10 minutes.

More science fiction. First, we don't have 50-70 GW lasers on earth to provide the power for the tiny spacecraft and sail. Second, getting all that power (if it did exist) onto a 1m x 1m sail (described here:

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scien ... lsion-syst...

.

It actually is from a science fiction novel. Called a "The Mote in God's Eye". It was an enjoyable read but even the aliens in that book could not make it work.

We can accelerate things to 99.99% the speed of light with particle accelerators, but their mass is nearly nothing. So although photonic propulsion could, in theory, be scaled up arbitrarily, the amount of laser power required for anything but a "tiny" object is prohibitive. You'd have to follow the tiny sail with a gigantic space-borne laser generating GW of power, then figure out how to power that thing. So the suggestion that we could get any space craft big enough to carry even 1 human moving at 26% of the speed of light (or even 1% of the speed of light) is pure fiction at this point.

I again concur with your assessment of current technology. In fact, I thought this type of propulsion system had been abandon. Everything I have been reading that is thought to have promise is on warping of space. I cannot envision any other type of propulsion system having any chance at achieving a percentage of the speed of light.

But this all started with your "radio silence" comments. My whole point there is that we simply have not investigated anywhere near enough of the region of our own galaxy to expect that a system like SETI would have seen anything at all. If there were thousands of civilizations out there, just in our galaxy, with exactly our level of technological development, and they were more than a few dozen light years away, we'd have no idea they were there and vice versa. Divergence of radio signals would be far worse than the examples given earlier because of the long wavelengths (SETI looks at the 1-10 GHz range which is 0.25 to 2.5 cm wavelengths ... some 20,000 times longer than my 532 nm example so divergence would be that much larger), and we can't physically visit anything outside of our own solar system. And a system like SETI on another exoplanet would be blind to the tremendous about of near-IR light we generate (the entire fiber-optic communication system uses wavelengths in the 0.8 to 1.7 micron range), or the FM radio band signals (88 - 108 MHz on your FM dial). So I think the only thing we can say is that we haven't detected any intelligent communicators within a few dozen light years from earth, and that's it. Anything beyond that and we simply have no idea. Speculating the existence of advanced civilizations with Star Trek capabilities has no basis.

They would not even use anytype of electromagnetic frequency to communicate. I would think they would have developed the technology to use entangled particles to communicate. Entangled particles would allow them to communicate instantaneously over vast distances in space.

Quote:
If SETI had found the galaxy awash with intelligent life forms- I'd be happy to accept the implication- that apparently humanity is not the primary intended beneficiary of creation.


Again, SETI has operated for so little time, and has so little ability to see any signals that weren't generated very close to earth, it tells us nearly nothing about whether some intelligent civilizations may be out there or not.

SETI is an worthless waste of time. They have no hope of detecting life.

Now with regards to other life in the cosmos the Bible is relatively silent on that issue. But there are ideas that we can infer based on God character.

God is a very creative, so it would not be out of character for there to be a universe teaming with exotic life. I do not believe that it would be intelligent like us. But I do believe it would be nothing like life here on earth. Like for example, life based on other elements other than carbon based would not be out of the question.

But all of this is strictly speculation, for the foreseeable future we are bound to this earth.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 252 by EarthScienceguy]

SETI is an worthless waste of time. They have no hope of detecting life.

agreed, but only because I disagree with SETI's premise, that we are not special.

Granting their premise; I agree with them- if we are not special, there should be plenty of evidence detectable with our level of technology.

Now with regards to other life in the cosmos the Bible is relatively silent on that issue. But there are ideas that we can infer based on God character.

God is a very creative, so it would not be out of character for there to be a universe teaming with exotic life. I do not believe that it would be intelligent like us. But I do believe it would be nothing like life here on earth. Like for example, life based on other elements other than carbon based would not be out of the question.

But all of this is strictly speculation, for the foreseeable future we are bound to this earth.

I agree with that also, and if it is God's will- ET is out there also, he is not bound by the rules of his own creation.

But materialists are bound by those rules- and going by them, it appears that the the universe would have to be much much larger than we currently understand to make another civilization- supporting world probable

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 253 by Guy Threepwood]

I agree with that also, and if it is God's will- ET is out there also, he is not bound by the rules of his own creation.

If he is not bound by the rules of his own creation then the sacrifice of Jesus was not an actual necessity. Interesting.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

If he is not bound by the rules of his own creation then the sacrifice of Jesus was not an actual necessity. Interesting.

Not true.

God did not have to bind Himself to His rules. His rules are who He is. He implemented the law so show man the character of Himself.

God is Holy and therefore nothing unholy can be in His presence. Therefore sin brings death on all who commit sin. So the punishment for sin is death.

Jesus had to die because the law condemns all who sin to death.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 255 by EarthScienceguy]

God is Holy and therefore nothing unholy can be in His presence.

Really? Wasn't a problem when Satan wandered in one day and he and God set about torturing Job for a bit of a bet.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 255 by EarthScienceguy]

God did not have to bind Himself to His rules. His rules are who He is. He implemented the law so show man the character of Himself.

But, as you said, God is not bound by the rules he sets. The so-called sacrifice of Jesus was just window dressing and not an actual necessity.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 256 by brunumb]

Really? Wasn't a problem when Satan wandered in one day and he and God set about torturing Job for a bit of a bet.

Satan neither came from the presence of God neither did he remain in the presence of God. He was in the presence of God as any "human sinner" is in the presence of God. For God to exercise His sovereign control over all creatures great and small.

If you notice in that conversation Satan can do nothing without that task being approved by God. And from the plagues that Satan suffered, we can deduce the power that Satan has over different things on this Earth.

So why did God allow all of these plagues to happen to Job? So that the world could see His Glory, and there by seeing Him by seeing His glory. In someway God's sovereignty interacts with man's will to make a seamless interaction in which man's will and God's sovereignty cannot be separated out.

Here God's glory was on display for Job's wife and his 4 friends and at the end of the book God has Job pray for his friends.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 257 by brunumb]

But, as you said, God is not bound by the rules he sets. The so-called sacrifice of Jesus was just window dressing and not an actual necessity.

This is not even true in human interaction.

Any leader of men, managers, teachers, supervisors all have to follow the basic rules of the company. If they do not follow the rules of the company everyone in the business or classroom will not follow the rules of the company.

God the Father laid down the rules of His Kingdom in the Bible and now one was able to follow them. His rules could not change so Jesus paid the penalty for those did not follow the rules.

[Clownboat]

God did not have to bind Himself to His rules.

Fascinating claim.

His rules are who He is.

Interesting. I thought that this god was 'love', but apparently he is 'His rules'.

He implemented the law so show man the character of Himself.

Not needed. Just read the old Testament and you can see the character of this god.

God is Holy and therefore nothing unholy can be in His presence.

That logic doesn't follow.

Therefore sin brings death on all who commit sin. So the punishment for sin is death.

Actually, sin is just an invention of your religion. It no more brings death then it brings ice cream.

Jesus had to die because the law condemns all who sin to death.

This seems like nothing more than religious speak.
Face it EarthScienceguy, you're not going to buy the medicine (religion) unless you first believe that you are sick (Adam's sin in the garden).
Feel free to believe you are sick, but it is rude of you to project your sickness on to the rest of mankind.

Muslims call me an infadel and you claim I'm going to die because of sin.

Be well...