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 280 by EarthScienceguy]

I'd like to ask you something. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it has to do with your latest reply. You quoted 1 Corinthians and are more or less saying that the words of your religion will not make sense to those who don't believe as you do, those who are not saved.
I'd like to ask you...why mention them? Why your latest comment? You're saying to a bunch of non-believers that since we're non-believers, we are unable to understand, so I want to ask - why say these things to us at all? It's like saying to us "You're unable to understand Thai, but I'm going to say this anyway
ฉันรู้ว่าคุณไม่เข้าใจฉัน �ต่ฉันจะพูดต่อไปเพื่อที่ฉันจะรู้สึ�ดี�ว่าคุณ "

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 279 by brunumb]

I did,

If you understand the point of loving parents who gave you life, you understand, in principle at least, the point of 'worship' - the desire to show a little gratitude

And is it an ego-trip, to desire that our own children might love and want to be with us? by their own free will?

Love is all you need Brunumb!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 282 by Guy Threepwood]

If you understand the point of loving parents who gave you life, you understand, in principle at least, the point of 'worship' - the desire to show a little gratitude

Gratitude and appreciation are a far cry from worship. Worship is a pointless exercise and achieves nothing. Although, if worship is ritualised it serves as a means of binding and controlling the faithful. Perhaps your God likes having his ego stroked and Christians believe that he will reward them with better seats in heaven if they indulge him appropriately. I can see that as a motivator for worship.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 282 by Guy Threepwood]

If you understand the point of loving parents who gave you life, you understand, in principle at least, the point of 'worship' - the desire to show a little gratitude

Gratitude and appreciation are a far cry from worship. Worship is a pointless exercise and achieves nothing. Although, if worship is ritualised it serves as a means of binding and controlling the faithful. Perhaps your God likes having his ego stroked and Christians believe that he will reward them with better seats in heaven if they indulge him appropriately. I can see that as a motivator for worship.

ego, favors, being obliged to worship ..

That's certainly true in the case of iconic atheist leaders like Mao, Il Sung, Stalin etc..
The largest 'place of worship' in the world is a stadium in N Korea used for state celebrations. (2nd I believe is close to me- U of Michigan's 'big house' for worship of college football!- but at least you don't get shot for leaving at half time!)

and if you don't like religion being used for political gain either, we have much to agree on- but what fun is that ?

For me personally, and people of faith I know, counting your blessings and giving thanks for them, is entirely voluntary, heartfelt, and an end in itself- which is inherent in the belief that life is a gift.

If it's not, if we are all just the result of some grand fluke, then it's still probably not a bad exercise - but how certain are you of this belief? 100%?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 284 by Guy Threepwood]

ego, favors, being obliged to worship ..

That's certainly true in the case of iconic atheist leaders like Mao, Il Sung, Stalin etc..

Yahweh is in good company. Belief in God does not seem to be a deciding factor when it comes to immorality and narcissism.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 276 by EarthScienceguy]

I am simply pointing out that evolution cannot follow Gibbs free energy equation. Which I have successfully done for almost 30 pages now.

If you think you successfully defended the claim in the OP in those 30 pages then you've completely misunderstood all of the information presented which proves that you did not even come close ... not even close to coming close. You just ignored everything you didn't like and declared success.

Do you actually think you sold anyone on the OP claims, or that you supported them with anything more than hand-waving arguments? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 281 by rikuoamero]

I'd like to ask you...why mention them? Why your latest comment? You're saying to a bunch of non-believers that since we're non-believers, we are unable to understand, so I want to ask - why say these things to us at all? It's like saying to us "You're unable to understand Thai, but I'm going to say this anyway
ฉันรู้ว่าคุณไม่เข้าใจฉัน �ต่ฉันจะพูดต่อไปเพื่อที่ฉันจะรู้สึ�ดี�ว่าคุณ "

Exactly.

There are two ways that I could learn Thai.

I could make a decision to learn Thai, all of the vocabulary and rules of the language. But I would still really not understand the language. But you can understand that.

Another way would be to actually be turned in to a native that speaks the language. This does not make sense.

But this is what happens when someone puts their faith in Christ. The Bible describes it as going from death to life.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 286 by DrNoGods]

If you think you successfully defended the claim in the OP in those 30 pages then you've completely misunderstood all of the information presented which proves that you did not even come close ... not even close to coming close. You just ignored everything you didn't like and declared success.

Do you actually think you sold anyone on the OP claims, or that you supported them with anything more than hand-waving arguments? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

I knew that you would like that comment.

What other material is added in the reaction that changes the gene?
Gibbs free energy equation can be used in chemical reactions, because all chemical reactions are closed systems.

A chemical equation must list all of the reactants and products, so all matter has to be accounted for. That would make a chemical reaction a closed system.

So unless you are saying that changes in the genome are not driven by chemical reactions then these chemical reactions must follow gibbs free energy equation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 272 by DrNoGods]

And we see exactly the opposite as well ... certain fish gaining legs and lungs to become amphibians, members of the genus Homo gaining more neocortex over 2-3 million years of change to obtain a larger and more complex brain, and countless other examples of GAINING features and/or functions. No new mutations creating new genes may be required to turn fins into legs since genes already exist to produce muscle, bones, blood vessels, etc. Changes in the activation sequence and levels of various signaling proteins can build different structures, so the required changes are not necessarily mutations to create new proteins. Natural selection includes these kinds of processes as well. It has never been a one-way road where life consistently degrades and loses features based on a misapplied understanding of entropy and its role in the evolutionary process.

There was evidently a substantial discontinuity in the fossil record between terrestrial vertebrates like Ichthyostega and their presumed ancestors. This was acknowledged by evolutionists, such as Carroll who wrote:

‘We have not found any fossils that are intermediate between such clearly terrestrial animals and the strictly aquatic rhipidistians described

Carroll, R.L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, p. 158, 1988.

So I am not quite sure what your evidence is of fish changing miraculously into amphibians. Maybe it was the invisible power the universe.

Then how do you explain the evolution of the brain from early Homo members (habilis, erectus, etc.) to Homo sapien? Entropy doesn't apply the way you seem to think it does for this kind of process. There is no continuous increase in entropy required for any particular component within a larger system. And the percentage of scientists today looking for a fundamentally better explanation (assuming you mean an alternative to ToE) is small ... 2-3% at best. So far they are not making any progress at dethroning modern ToE.

In Nature in the year 2000, by J.J. Hublin (also from the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology). stated, “The once-popular fresco showing a single file of marching hominids becoming ever more vertical, tall, and hairless now appears to be a fiction.�

It is also now known that anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. So how have modern humans evolved from theses.

The most complete fossil considered to be H. erectus is known as “Turkana Boy,� discovered by Richard Leaky in 1984 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. This nearly complete skeleton consisting of 108 bones has been estimated to be
from an about 11–12 year old. The pelvic anatomy indicates that this individual would have been fully bipedal. The brain size was estimated to be about 800 cm3. Unlike apes, Turkana Boy shows clear evidence of protruding nasal bones.

In general, H. erectus had human-like body proportions with relatively short arms and long legs compared to the size of the torso. These fossils are often found in association with tools such as hand axes and cleavers, as well as evidence of fire hearths for cooking.


Homo habilis is considered to be one of the earliest members of the genus Homo that are presumed to have lived between 1.4 and 2.4 million years ago. But even many evolutionists consider H. habilis to be an empty taxon consisting of a collection of several dozen controversial and confusing fossil specimens.






Quote:
Natural selection is NOT a creative mechanism- it merely selects what has already been created- there is no way around this.

I agree that it isn't a "creative" mechanism in that there is never an intention or plan to create something from the process. But it is not called "Natural Creation" ... it is called Natural Selection. Take the example of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. It is a population consideration ... not just change in one individual that then passes on that change to its offspring. If a bacterial infection in a human is hit with an antibiotic that is effective in killing off 99.99% of all the bacteria, but there is 0.01% that by random mutation are able to survive and reproduce, then that 0.01% will become a new population of bacteria that are immune to the antibiotic.

The subset of the population that happened to get lucky and have a mutation that could survive the antibiotic already existed within the larger population at some threshold level (no argument there) and therefore survived while the other 99.99% did not. But when there are millions, billions or trillions in the population, each capable of holding random mutations, the probability of some minimum threshold number of them having a survival mutation can be high enough for that population to survive. The population that survived may have very different physical characteristics than the population that didn't, depending on the nature of the mutation(s). Enough cycles of this can ultimately produce a new species or a new genus, with no predictability in whether the path is smooth and continuous, or via dramatic jumps in the changes per cycle, because the mutations responsible are random.

The problem with your little bateria story is that the mutation comes at a cost, as do most mutations. The bacteria become less competitive in a normal environment. But these mutated bacteria in an environment in which there are no antibiotics and they will not survive. Mutations always come with a down side. Good in one situation deadly in another.

This could not be classified as evolution.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 273 by Clownboat]

Believing death to not be the end, because of faith is also unwise IMO, because we just don't know, death just might be the end. Religions all over the world are useful at getting people to risk their earthly lives for some empty promise of an afterlife. Your religion included.

Other religions men give their lives so they might get to heaven.

I don't care and I don't see the relevence.

Christians are already in because nothing can "pluck them from the Father's Hand".

Please show that you speak the truth.
Remember, that you have faith in a concept is not in question. THAT is very evident and a quality that would make for a good Muslim also.

So Christians give their lives so that others may come to know the love of Christ as they know the love of Christ.

Christians give their lives? You sure you are not talking about Muslims?

Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quotes. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

Many rulers tried to stomp out Christianity because Christians allegiance is to Christ and not a ruler.

That does not seem to reflect reality. Other religions tried to stomp out Christianity to strenghten their own religious claims and power. See the Crusades. Why, because religion is useful to the rulers.

Nothing you typed seems to be truthful. Can you show that you do speak the truth? Again, that you have faith is evident and your faith is not in question.


_________________
You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

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 being’s wrath. - KenRU