Denial of evolution IV

[Robittybob1]

Anything I would write has already been written.

How about a standard bible cover, but inside are the following college texts:

(1) cosmology
(2) biology
(3) archaeology
(4) anthropology
(5) mythology

call it: Pentateuch 2.0

do a flashmob delivery to random churches

so they just show up scattered around in the pews

I would wait up all night in anticipation

like waiting for Santa Claus

just to hear Rush Limbaugh having an anuerysm

it would be like the night Obama got elected

dancing in the streets, blue search lights scanning the sky

wow one can dream anyway

oh yeah, we'd have to hire Wavy Gravy

just to come out and say:

"I think we're in heaven, man!"

That would cover the religious aspect.

I sense you are quite keen on the idea.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I only spent 5 minutes and could do it easily.

By contrast, Darwin spent 5 years voyaging around the world studying not only the flora and fauna, but geologic formations and fossils.

Darwin was a wealthy and educated city boy brought up in England.

Darwin was so fascinated by nature that he volunteered aboard the Beagle declining a salary, asking only that he be allowed to keep all the specimens he could find.

(deforested England)...This was Darwin's early nature.

Bull.

Darwin left the city and traveled to a far away island that was untouched by humans. He could see the differences between this natural environment and his country's natural environments based on human interaction, and inferred there was a process of change, that was slower in nature. The island still had ancient critters and not all the modern pigeons and squirrels.

The HMS Beagle made a 5 year journey around the world. Darwin took did sounding, charting, navigation, studies of geologic, coral and volcanic formations, and he dug and collected fossils, studied local indigenous people, observed territorial behavior of animals, eating habits, etc., and sketched and collected plants and animals, tagging them, classifying them, sketching and documenting them in substantial detail.

Much of what he saw and inferred was common sense to anyone having to struggle in nature, like on a farm or hunting in the forest, away from the city. The pioneers in America saw this every day as they moves into pristine lands. His premises are humanistic, so anyone can relate. This helps in the selling process. These can apply to anyone who observes nature, regardless of their belief in the origin of life. Through repetition you try to attack the general to the specific.

Bull.

In the years after his return, it took a team of scientists under Darwin to integrate one of the largest sets of natural specimens, with detailed notes, to assemble the findings into a small encyclopedia of natural history which the world had never seen. See the item at the end of this post to see how ridiculous this claim is.

Darwin was essentially the city boy who visits a nature farm and is now the expert in farming (so to speak) relative to his city peers who never saw a farm or had to get dirty working. The clean prestigious city college folk now think they are onto something entirely new. They turn this into a type of science religion. This was good in its day, since chemistry and physics were just fledgeling science too. Without a physical-chemical basis, humanistic at least gets people thinking.

Bull. This has no bearing whatsoever on the person who left his record behind.

And Darwin was a degreed theologian, about to serve as a rural minister when the opportunity to serve on the Beagle arose.

In my opinion, since both sides of the debate can use these same arguments, for real time observations, both are right based on humanism. If the goal of science is a more scientific analysis, without subjective humanism, you need to get down to the very basics in chemistry and physics. Water is a fundamental part of everything in life since life evolve in water. If you ignore this, all you have is half baked.

Which is all you have. Bogus claims, unfounded, attacking a subject you have not studied. Unlike you, Darwin has left a pile of published work, contributing to global knowledge of natural science.

What you need to realize is all the major breakthroughs in biology required equipment invented in physics and chemistry such a microscopes, NMR, X-rays, Ph meters, etc. Without this core science support, biology would still be at collecting, cataloging, trail and error and humanistic explanations.

Bull. Pure propaganda, nothing to do with the man or the science.

Evolution needs a new tool that comes from the constant supplier of tools, which allows biology to move forward. We need to remove the subjective bias that causes censorship, to guide the gate, as though all contrary opinions are crimes. This is irrational and is due to the shaky humanistic foundation.

Evolution doesn't need anything, it's not a hungry child. It's the result of discovery that arises out of curiosity, the mark of genius.

I notice you own curiosity is lacking. Why is that?


Just to show how ridiculous your assessment of Darwin is, here is a miniscule sample from one of his many detailed works, showing that he was studying every creature in every habitat he encountered. This is from his treatise on Coral Reefs:

The dark blue colour represents atolls and submerged annular reefs, with deep water in their centres. I have coloured as atolls, a few low and small coral-islands, without lagoons; but this has been done only when it clearly appeared that they originally contained lagoons, since filled up with sediment: when there were not good grounds for this belief, they have been left uncoloured.

The pale blue colour represents barrier-reefs. The most obvious character of reefs of this class is the broad and deep-water moat within the reef; but this, like the lagoons of small atolls, is liable to become filled up with detritus and with reefs of delicately-branched corals: when, therefore, a reef round the entire circumference of an island extends very far into a profoundly deep sea, so that it can hardly be confounded with a fringing-reef which must rest on a foundation of rock within a small depth, it has been coloured pale blue, although it does not include a deep-water moat: but this has only been done rarely, and each case is distinctly mentioned in the Appendix.

The red colour represents reefs, fringing the land quite closely where the sea is deep, and where the bottom is gently inclined extending to a moderate distance from it, but not having a deep-water moat or lagoon like space parallel to the shore. It must be remembered that fringing reefs are frequently breached in front of rivers and valleys by deepish channels, where mud has been deposited. A space of 30 miles in width has been coloured round or in front of the reefs of each class, in order that the colours might be conspicuous on the appended map, which is reduced to so small a scale.

The vermilion spots, and streaks, represent volcanos now in action, or historically known to have been so. They are chiefly laid down from Von Buch's work on the Canary Islands; and my reasons for making a few alterations are given in the note below.*

 

[billvon]

If the goal of science is a more scientific analysis, without subjective humanism, you need to get down to the very basics in chemistry and physics. Water is a fundamental part of everything in life since life evolve in water. If you ignore this, all you have is half baked.

Which is why my "gravity causes evolution" theory is so much better than your "entropy causes evolution" theory. Much simpler, and not based on your humanistic definitions of efficiency.

 

[wellwisher]

Mutations, which are an important part of evolution, are just a special case of entropy, since entropy is a change from the status quo, a spreading out into available energy levels, a measure of the information needed to define a system, degrees of freedom, irretrievable energy due to inefficiency, etc.

Entropy can only increase if we add energy. Improper base pairing exists at higher energy than proper base pairing, due to the energy lowering impact of proper hydrogen bonding. Having mutation randomly appearing is retro. I like to figure out where the energy came from, since even the random aspect of entropy needs sufficient energy.

Besides, energy and entropy can be used to address abiogenesis since it is part of the same continuing change. I don't need to start in the middle out of context with the beginning and then treat the beginning as something else. This is part of the reason I went back to the basics; useful for biogenesis too.

You need to look at the membrane, when you scale up to humans and the brain since this is an interactive device that is more than the DNA. Humans have will power and can chose paths different that DNA optimization. This is not a problem for energy and entropy since departure adds new levels of cultural efficiency due to the reversal and lowering of entropy.

For example, the debate about evolution tries to lower the degree of freedom away from all alternate explanations. The status quo try to maintain lower entropy, carrying on the low entropy traditions of life. The status quo is trying to avoid a change to the status quo by trying not to allow more degrees of freedom, in line with the universal potential to increase entropy. Humans carry on the traditions of life in a microcosm until the environment forces an entropy change.

 

[origin]

Mutations, which are an important part of evolution, are just a special case of entropy, since entropy is a change from the status quo, a spreading out into available energy levels, a measure of the information needed to define a system, degrees of freedom, irretrievable energy due to inefficiency, etc.

Entropy can only increase if we add energy. Improper base pairing exists at higher energy than proper base pairing, due to the energy lowering impact of proper hydrogen bonding. Having mutation randomly appearing is retro. I like to figure out where the energy came from, since even the random aspect of entropy needs sufficient energy.

Besides, energy and entropy can be used to address abiogenesis since it is part of the same continuing change. I don't need to start in the middle out of context with the beginning and then treat the beginning as something else. This is part of the reason I went back to the basics; useful for biogenesis too.

You need to look at the membrane, when you scale up to humans and the brain since this is an interactive device that is more than the DNA. Humans have will power and can chose paths different that DNA optimization. This is not a problem for energy and entropy since departure adds new levels of cultural efficiency due to the reversal and lowering of entropy.

For example, the debate about evolution tries to lower the degree of freedom away from all alternate explanations. The status quo try to maintain lower entropy, carrying on the low entropy traditions of life. The status quo is trying to avoid a change to the status quo by trying not to allow more degrees of freedom, in line with the universal potential to increase entropy. Humans carry on the traditions of life in a microcosm until the environment forces an entropy change.

I looked at my old physics books and I could not find the equation:

S = <delta>status quo.

How many times must it be pointed out to you that your discussions involving entropy and evolution are nonsensical? You do not understand entropy or evolution.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I looked at my old physics books and I could not find the equation:

S = <delta>status quo.

The 100 or so sites yammering about Dr. Ayala would have you update your library to their theo-friendly version. Maybe you would actually find that very equation in their chapter on "Evolutionary Thermodynamics".

Let me check my crystal ball.... I see leopold ignoring this and continuing with repeat that there are no take backs.

Even my cheap plastic model is humming and glowing.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Mutations, which are an important part of evolution, are just a special case of entropy, since entropy is a change from the status quo, a spreading out into available energy levels, a measure of the information needed to define a system, degrees of freedom, irretrievable energy due to inefficiency, etc.

All meaningless.

Entropy can only increase if we add energy.

"We" don't do anything. Nature does.

Improper base pairing exists at higher energy than proper base pairing, due to the energy lowering impact of proper hydrogen bonding. Having mutation randomly appearing is retro. I like to figure out where the energy came from, since even the random aspect of entropy needs sufficient energy.

All meaningless. Wasted words.

Besides, energy and entropy can be used to address abiogenesis since it is part of the same continuing change. I don't need to start in the middle out of context with the beginning and then treat the beginning as something else. This is part of the reason I went back to the basics; useful for biogenesis too.

See the tutorial on biological thermodynamics.

You need to look at the membrane,

See the tutorial on cell membranes

when you scale up to humans and the brain since this is an interactive device that is more than the DNA. Humans have will power and can chose paths different that DNA optimization. This is not a problem for energy and entropy since departure adds new levels of cultural efficiency due to the reversal and lowering of entropy.

All meaningless.

For example, the debate about evolution tries to lower the degree of freedom away from all alternate explanations.

There is no debate. Evolution is settled.

The status quo try to maintain lower entropy, carrying on the low entropy traditions of life. The status quo is trying to avoid a change to the status quo by trying not to allow more degrees of freedom, in line with the universal potential to increase entropy. Humans carry on the traditions of life in a microcosm until the environment forces an entropy change.

All of this is meaningless.

 

[wellwisher]

How many times must it be pointed out to you that your discussions involving entropy and evolution are nonsensical? You do not understand entropy or evolution.

This is all a smoke and mirrors tactic to discredit what you can't seem to grasp. But I do recognize this is difficult until you get used to it, so I will keep trying.

Let us go back to one definition of entropy. Relative to biochemical processes of life, entropy is the energy that is loss as irretrievable heat. Entropy is an indirect measure of efficiency, with the higher efficiency, the less entropy.

If we drew a line from simple replicators to the DNA of modern cells, the efficiency at the DNA has gone up, indicating evolution lowers entropy as it moves forward over long periods of time. There will be short term reversal back into higher entropy , but not over the longer term time cycles.

The first Wellwisher law of evolution is; over long periods of time the entropy of life, connected to its many processes, will decrease. These will get more efficient.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This is all a smoke and mirrors tactic to discredit what you can't seem to grasp. But I do recognize this is difficult until you get used to it, so I will keep trying.

The texts I gave you are the closet thing to you (apparently) for a reality check.

Let us go back to one definition of entropy.

No. Read the text.

Relative to biochemical processes of life, entropy is the energy that is loss as irretrievable heat.

Where is the system boundary?

Entropy is an indirect measure of efficiency, with the higher efficiency, the less entropy.

You have nothing without a system.

If we drew a line from simple replicators to the DNA of modern cells, the efficiency at the DNA has gone up, indicating evolution lowers entropy as it moves forward over long periods of time.

Prove it. Write the equation that says this.

There will be short term reversal back into higher entropy , but not over the longer term time cycles.

No, you don't have a system, you don't have a boundary, you don't have entropy and you don't have cycles, just a blob of amorphous verbiage.

The first Wellwisher law of evolution is; over long periods of time the entropy of life, connected to its many processes, will decrease.

Is that the welcome screen to a sim game, or are you posting in a science forum which relies on evidence, not gamesmanship?

These will get more efficient.

All meaningless.

The theory given 150 yrs ago covers the bases. It has been updated slightly. Other than that, everything you insist on rehashing is just a variant of creationism. It has no practical use, it models nothing found in nature, it uses no schematic model of nature, no equations, no governing rules or laws founded in science so what is it?

It's a dream. Wellwisher? It's a wish. You wish creationism were true, but it's not.

Dream on.:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

wellwisher isn't perhaps completely off the mark:

In his recent 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution, [John Scales] Avery combines information theory with thermodynamics to account for the phenomenon of life, including its origin and evolution. Since the beginning of the formulation of the second law of thermodynamics in the 1860s, which states that the entropy, or disorder, of an isolated system tends to increase with time, there has been a debate as to how this law relates to the "ordering" process of evolution. The apparent paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources."[1]

Information Theory and Evolution

 

[wellwisher]

The apparent paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources."[1]

Actually there is another source, right here on earth, which is connected to a very basic interaction between water and organics. If we mixed water and hexane, just as an easy example, and then shake vigorously, the energy added, will increase system entropy to form an emulsion. This high level of entropy is unstable since the formation of hydrogen bonding (subsequent lowering of enthalpy) will cause the system to phase separate into two phases. There is a loss of entropy, compared to the higher entropy in the shaken emulsion. This direction is favorable with respect Gibbs free energy since the enthalpy of hydrogen bonding and Van der Waals formation is stronger than the loss of emulsion entropy.

Life is composed of organics within water. This base surface tension equation or Gibbs free energy situation is always active within this two part system, with the enthalpy decrease of the water able to lower the entropy of the organics. Enzyme proteins form their ordered shapes of lowered entropy due to the impact of organic and aqueous interactions. This lowest energy is repeatable.

If we put lipids in water, the Gibbs free energy water-oil effect gives us a membrane that is all ordered into a bilayer, for step two. Entropy increase prefers an emulsion but this causes the enthalpy to increase too much. If water is dominant, all the organics will have to conform to the water. Hydrogen bonding is useful since this allow organics to better blend within the water. This, in turn, is also a powerful source of secondary bonding for global type structures, but also within the context of the water-oli effect of the bulk cell.

When you look at a biology textbook, water is hardly mentioned. The organic reactions are presented as though they occur in air. This is misleading since the cell was organized around the water since the beginning.

To prove the singular importance of water, if we take away the water from the organics of a cell oct any form of life, all life stops. If we add any other solvent, to replace the water, very little happens. Yet, we ignore water in favor of an organic analysis that occurs in air.

What is interesting about water, water is the most anomalous chemical in nature, with 69 anomalies compared to other compounds. Water is the universal wild card with certain anomalies useful to life. This is why it is hard to replace with other solvents. These others don't have that extra.

When water forms hydrogen bonds fully with itself, all the water expands 10%. If we break these hydrogen bonds water contract 10%. This useful for local aqueous push-pull at enzymes if we need them to change shape for reactions.

An interesting water-organic Gibbs free energy observation, is the dispersal of the nuclear membrane after the DNA is duplicated. The dispersal implies the entropy of the nuclear membrane increases. All of a sudden the Gibbs free energy equation changes in favor of nuclear membrane entropy. This is due to all the new organics things and duplicated DNA that are now dissolved in the water.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Mod note: This thread needs a major clean up. As a result, it will be closed for a number of days until this is completed.

Determinations and actions

• All of leopold’s posts from this thread (and associated replies) have been moved to a split thread: views on evolution. This has been done to isolate his contributions away from the background noise and demonstrate leopold’s utterly disingenuous, wilfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest debating tactics. An official warning will be issued to leopold for trolling. Any future instances will result in a ban.

• wellwisher’s interminable misapplication of thermodynamic concepts to evolution are pseudoscience spam. His posts in this thread remain, but in future the ‘entropy crusade’ must now be carried out in another forum, such as Alternative Theories. Any further entropy posts by wellwisher in the B&G sub-forum will earn a ban for spamming.

Cleaning and editing of this thread has been completed. It will not be re-opened. A Denial of Evolution V thread has been created.