another forgery from EVOS

[Timo]

If the reactions were endothermic would we not quite quickly break down into a pile of goo - unless activation energies were sufficiently large?

 

[Saviourmachine]

I was thinking of ATP vs ADP. Seems more a cyclus to me.

 

[Saviourmachine]

You stated the forming of big molecules is exotherm isn't it?

 

[kenneth558]

...And when they DO post in thread like these, it's with unsupported generalizations.

The "contradicting thermodynamics" argument is B.S., as explained here: http://www.christianforums.com/t86624&page=2 . I have never seen anyone here or elsewhere say that mathematics disproves evolution, which means that either you've discovered something truly astounding, or you're just spouting nonsense off the top of your head. If you don't provide some support for this assertion, I'll conclude the latter.

You're also equating abiogenesis to evolution even though they are two completely separate theories, which is another mistake someone who reads this forum should be informed enough to avoid. The theory of evolution says nothing about how life first arose, but only how it changed over time once it already existed.

If you actually wish to learn more about these topics rather than just pester us, I suggest that you read the other threads about them. For the sake of everyone here, don't start a new thread or redirect an existing one unless you have something to say that hasn't already been disproven at this site.

Aggie, I know you're pestered by attempts to teach you about the fallacy aspects of evolution. You complain that my topic does not quite conform perfectly to the subject at hand. That complaint falls on unempathetic ears due to all the classroom rot I've had to put up with that micro-evolution is somehow evidence for macro-evolution. The two aren't the same topic at all. Do you use micro-evolution as evidence to support your arguments for macro-evolution? What poor misinformed evolutionist doesn't?

I see a few responses from evolutionists that show their failure to grasp the magnitude of the challenge they face mathmatically and thermodynamically. They just shrug off the challenges tritely and resurrect their straw men. Its been fun! I've got constructive things I must attend to....

 

[Arikay]

Anyone else here think Ken is just BSing us?

 

[MartinM]

I see a few responses from evolutionists that show their failure to grasp the magnitude of the challenge they face mathmatically and thermodynamically. They just shrug off the challenges tritely and resurrect their straw men. Its been fun! I've got constructive things I must attend to....

Ken, there are several physicists on this board. Perhaps you'd care to explain what part of thermodynamics you think conflicts with evolution, so that we can expose the vast gaps in your knowledge of elementary science, point, and laugh. Then, when you can no longer suffer the embarrasment, you can run off with your tail between your legs like all the other ignorant, arrogant fools who show up here pretending to understand every field of science better than the entire scientific community.

Alternatively, we can skip straight to the part where you run away. Your call.

 

[Physics_guy]

Do it for me please.

I know there are exothermic processes. I didn't know that most of the large organic molecules are exotherm.

Well, I'd have to go back to my organic chemistry text from 12 years ago when I briefly flirted with being pre-Med, but it shouldn't be too hard. As I recall most large orgnaic molecule formations are exothermic but obviously ATP which is an energy storage molecule is not.

I was speaking primarily of the basic organic molecules such as amino acid formation. For example, HCNO to Glycine conversion is an exothermic reaction, as are the formation of other amino acids like adenine and guanine.

 

[Physics_guy]

I see a few responses from evolutionists that show their failure to grasp the magnitude of the challenge they face mathmatically and thermodynamically. They just shrug off the challenges tritely and resurrect their straw men. Its been fun! I've got constructive things I must attend to....

Please show me these challenges relating to thermodynamics. You see I am a physicist who has abandoned doing basic science for more lucrative pursuits, but should I learn from you an avenue of study that could show that evolution is thermodynamically impossible I could publish it and undoubtably win the Nobel prize. Please elucidate this poor physicist blinded by the teachings of evolution!

 

[Aggie]

Aggie, I know you're pestered by attempts to teach you about the fallacy aspects of evolution. You complain that my topic does not quite conform perfectly to the subject at hand.

This statement is true in the same way that the statement "the ocean is wet" is true. You have listed a bunch of topics that you claim contradict evolution, and have provided no explanation of how they contradict it. If you fail to provide any evidence to support your conclusion, it will continue to appear to be nothing but an unfounded opinion.

That complaint falls on unempathetic ears due to all the classroom rot I've had to put up with that micro-evolution is somehow evidence for macro-evolution. The two aren't the same topic at all. Do you use micro-evolution as evidence to support your arguments for macro-evolution? What poor misinformed evolutionist doesn't?

To answer your question literally, no poor, misinformed evolutionists believe that. The misinformed ones all believe the same sort of thing that you do.

Every aspect of evolution that has been directly observed, which includes the formation of new species, has been classified by creationists as being inherently different from these SAME changes accumulating in large amounts over a much longer period of time than we can observe other than via fossils. The fossil record suggests that this accumulation of small changes has happened, and there is nothing about the small changes that prevents them from accumulating in this manner. What sort of boundary are you proposing beyond which animals cannot evolve?

There isn't one. It was explained pretty well in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t87627&page=1

I see a few responses from evolutionists that show their failure to grasp the magnitude of the challenge they face mathmatically and thermodynamically. They just shrug off the challenges tritely and resurrect their straw men. Its been fun! I've got constructive things I must attend to

That's because you never TELL us what these challenges are, except by giving obscure hints at them from which no one could possibly tell what you mean! If you have a challenge, quit beating around the bush and just spit it out.

But you should start a new thread for it. This one was about the origin of birds.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I see a few responses from evolutionists that show their failure to grasp the magnitude of the challenge they face mathmatically and thermodynamically.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for the reversible transitions between equilibrium states of a system, the differential of the heat change (dq) divided by the temperature is an exact differential (dS=dq/T) that can be integrated to yield a quantity called entropy(S) and that during such transitions the total change in entropy, as defined above, for the system and its surroundings is always greater than or equal to zero. A consequence of the second law is that no process can occur whose sole effect is to transfer heat from a cooler body to a hotter body so any real process that transfers heat from a cooler body to a hotter body must also transform some work into heat.

Evolution is a process that requires a series of steps. If no step in the process violates the second law of thermodynamics the process does not violate the second law. In order to prove that evolution violates the second law a step that is required for evolution must be shown to violate the second law (leading to a decrease in the entropy of the system plus its surroundings) each and every time that it might occur. Those who claim that evolution violates the second law must identify this step exactly and rigorously prove that it violates the second law. Since they can't do this the claim that evolution violates the second law has no validity.

Regarding abiogenesis, reactions that have a negative free energy change are spontaneous. The free energy change depends on the reactants, the products and the reaction conditions (Temperature, Pressure, pH etc.) In some cases reactions with a postive free energy change can be driven forward if coupled to reactions with a negative free energy change. Since we have no idea what reactions were required for abiogenesis and no idea what the reaction conditions were it is not possible to prove that abiogenesis was forbidden by thermodynamics.

Added in edit: I agree that further discussion of this should be on a separate thread. I am sure there are some thermo threads around.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[napajohn]

You are left with a lot of other things - dude. For one, you are left with simply saying we do not understand how it could happen. That is actually an appropriate answer - far more intellectually honest than throwing up you arms and saying "Goddidit!" Luckily for the state of scientific progress, anti-intellectuals like you are not deciding when to give up and stop looking for solutions to problems.

Yes your right..saying we do not understand how it could happen is an honest answer..however evolution is not presented as that..it is taught as scientific fact in most biology classes..the mechanism may not be understood but we do know that evolution (cells to Man) has happened..if you call speculation science as intellectual progress go right ahead...The problem is that Evos cannot accept answers like an Intelligent designer though it could be plausible..so they spend hundreds of billions on research looking for life on Mars or space or the possibility of it...But in your view thats money and intellectual resources that is well spent...what has SETI gotten us so far?
Remember in the middle ages there were those who believed that the science of alchemy could create gold..that bloodletting was medically acceptable, that phlogiston existed..but hey so long as your doing something, anything ...
according to you thats progress.

 

[Sphere]

The problem is that Evos cannot accept answers like an Intelligent designer though it could be plausible..so they spend hundreds of billions on research looking for life on Mars or space or the possibility of it...But in your view thats money and intellectual resources that is well spent...what has SETI gotten us so far?
Remember in the middle ages there were those who believed that the science of alchemy could create gold..that bloodletting was medically acceptable, that phlogiston existed..but hey so long as your doing something, anything ...
according to you thats progress.

The problem is that the theory of creation is so ridiculous to pursue that creationist science is spent on trying to disprove more logical theories. Napajohn, you'll never pull it off.

 

[armed2010]

Yes your right..saying we do not understand how it could happen is an honest answer..however evolution is not presented as that..it is taught as scientific fact in most biology classes..the mechanism may not be understood but we do know that evolution (cells to Man) has happened..if you call speculation science as intellectual progress go right ahead...The problem is that Evos cannot accept answers like an Intelligent designer though it could be plausible..so they spend hundreds of billions on research looking for life on Mars or space or the possibility of it...But in your view thats money and intellectual resources that is well spent...what has SETI gotten us so far?
Remember in the middle ages there were those who believed that the science of alchemy could create gold..that bloodletting was medically acceptable, that phlogiston existed..but hey so long as your doing something, anything ...
according to you thats progress.

 

[Physics_guy]

Yes your right..saying we do not understand how it could happen is an honest answer..however evolution is not presented as that..it is taught as scientific fact in most biology classes..the mechanism may not be understood but we do know that evolution (cells to Man) has happened..

Umm, we do have a mechanism for simple cells to humans - imperfect replication mixed with environmentally-determined differential reproductive success. Common Ancestry has been shown rather conclusively to the scientific community through this explanation coupled with the abundant fossil and genetic data. Quite frankly, the fact that you do not understand the mechanism is not really an issue.

The problem is that Evos cannot accept answers like an Intelligent designer though it could be plausible..

Sure it could be plausible, but without positive evidence in favor of it and without it providing better explanations for all ready explained phenomenon, an Intelligent Designer is simply superfluous and thus cut out by Occam's Razor. Sorry if this is against your narrow-minded religious fanaticism, but thems the breaks.

they spend hundreds of billions on research looking for life on Mars or space or the possibility of it...But in your view thats money and intellectual resources that is well spent...

This is part of a continuing traditional of off Earth exploration. One could easily say that money is not always well spent (for example, Congress cut the Superconducting Super Collider in favor of the International Space Station which is far more popular with lay-people but much less interesting to scientists), but then again, the Space program have led to an enormous number of technical discoveries. As for Mars exploration, you do realize that NASA is looking at more things than simply the possibility of life on Mars, don't you?

what has SETI gotten us so far?

Huge advances in radio-telescope design and data interpretation, not to mention that this is a SEARCH (see the first letter in SETI). It has not yielded evidence yet of intelligent life outside Earth, which could mean a few things: (1) there is no intelligent life off Earth, (2) there is intelligent life off Earth but it is too far away to have radio signals reaching Earth already, (3) there is intelligent life out there but we haven't found it (considering that SETI has done only marginal surveys of a tiny fraction of the sky), (4) there is intelligent life out there and it isn't communicating in a way we understand or can detect, etc.

By the way, you do realize that SETI is pretty much entirely privately-funded?

Remember in the middle ages there were those who believed that the science of alchemy could create gold..that bloodletting was medically acceptable, that phlogiston existed..but hey so long as your doing something, anything ...
according to you thats progress.

Yes and luckily other scientists came around and looked for other answers. Strangely enough, however, you brought up the middle ages when government was intertwined with the Church and any ideas not supported by the Church were called heresy and abolished. Funny too how most of examples you mentioned were shown to be false during the Enlightenment, a time when the Church lost significant power and rational thought and scientific methodology trumped religious dogmatism.

Also remember that during the middle ages it was commonly thought that diseases were caused by demons and that prayer was an effective treatment. Luckily you weren't around to tell Pasteur to stop looking for naturalistic explanations and to get back to praying.

 

[LorentzHA]

Thank you, LorentzHA, but have you ever been employed where you were required to do or say things you didn't agree with?

Nope and would not be employed where I had to say anything I did not agree with.

It's part of life sometimes

Not part of my life.

All these evolutionists talk about "evidence", but a single proof outweighs billions of "evidences".

OK, bring it. What is your "single proof"??

For any counter-evidence to be worth my attention, that evidence must DEMONSTRATE EXPERIMENTALLY which natural processes can SPONTANEOUSLY make DNA AND the proteins required for replication that the DNA encodes for AND the cell metabolic pathways required to sustain that replication that the DNA encodes for AND bring those items together (against entropy!)

Against entropy? Define entropy please.

in proper proportions into a protective shell that the DNA also encodes for!

"Protective shell?" Do you mean the nucleus??????

Anyone who says it did happen will have a hard time convincing me they're not a fool.

Really? I guess I am a fool? Don't worry, I will not bother trying to convince you otherwise. Seems like your mind is made up on quite a few issues, Ken.

 

[LorentzHA]

what has SETI gotten us so far?

Do you realize the enourmous scales we are talking about??? I am not sure than you do. By the time our transmission reached "them", their civilization could be gone or vice versa, for their return transmission.

Also, they would have to be able to interpret the same frequency signal and transmit the same way. (I think that is right, I know almost nothing regarding electronics, someone correct me if that is not how it works, please).

 

[LorentzHA]

I see a few responses from evolutionists that show their failure to grasp the magnitude of the challenge they face mathmatically and thermodynamically

How can it be a challenge mathematically when like itself is an algorithim?? Please explain.

 

[kenneth558]

Thank you all for your patience - I probably shouldn't even be trying to get involved with this forum given the class load I'm taking. I don't expect to be able to post more than a couple times a month, so maybe I'll be another one of those Creationists who you think has low-tailed it outa' here.

What do I mean by mathmatically impossible? Simply this - given the quantity of evolutionary modifications or steps required between genera of organism, multiplied by the time it would take to effect the step taking into account the efficiency of that genotype variant being chanced upon, etc. etc. Remember, Charles Darwin confessed that only a single impossible step of evolution would constitute PROOF (not merely evidence) that evolution did not and could not occur. And in that point he was absolutely correct.


Thermodynamically impossible relates to Physics_guy's quote:

Many organic molecule formation reactions do not need any energy other than a minimal activation energy and release energy upon formation - they are exothermic.

Physics_guy, the wimpiness of that argument is down at the level of what I'm reading in my Evolution textbook. It's no better than saying "If I drop a stack of 50 pennys from X meters high and two of them end up in a short stack after they've settled, we've proven that all 50 of them will settle in a single stack if we drop them enough times." The fantasy of Evolution (given all the non-homologous chromosomes, the differences in sex determination - [chromosomal vs. developmental vs. gene splicing vs. embryonic temperature], etc. between genera) is against thermodynamic laws in the same way. Its entropic (or random) energy that makes the hypothesis impossible.

IOW, mathmatic possibility focuses on "Can this be done in the wild" while thermodynamic possibility focuses on "Can the steps supposedly done in the wild be done in the best of controlled experimentation." Both answers are "No".

Thanks for letting me pester you some more.

 

[Arikay]

I haven't followed the discussion but you do realize that natural selection makes evolution not random chance, right?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Physics_guy, the wimpiness of that argument is down at the level of what I'm reading in my Evolution textbook. It's no better than saying "If I drop a stack of 50 pennys from X meters high and two of them end up in a short stack after they've settled, we've proven that all 50 of them will settle in a single stack if we drop them enough times." The fantasy of Evolution (given all the non-homologous chromosomes, the differences in sex determination - [chromosomal vs. developmental vs. gene splicing vs. embryonic temperature], etc. between genera) is against thermodynamic laws in the same way. Its entropic (or random) energy that makes the hypothesis impossible.

Please read my post 250 on this thread again for a definition of the second law and then prove that some step that is required for evolution violates the second law. If you can't do this you are only blowing smoke. I doubt you can do this since no other creationists has ever done it and your ideas on thermodynamics seem a bit imprecise.
You might want to read creationist Alan Harvey's essay on the subject as well.

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

The Frumious Bandersnatch