Denial of evolution IV

[wellwisher]

This post is utter foolish nonsense. You are obviously clueless about what Gibbs was talking about and why. You are also obviously clueless about the science behind evolutionary biology. After all of your text, the only thing a reader concludes is that you are determined to put the round peg in the square hole, despite the lack of common sense that would suggest against it

Sorry you can't comprehend this. Your emotional rant betrays your inability to think beyond what you have memorized. Don't be afraid to peak outside the box, it won't bite you. I am starting easy by developing the concepts before I get too complicated. When it is ready for memorization I will let you know.

One simple way to separate the two aspects of life, experimentally, would be to take a cell and chill it until all chemical activity has stopped. The final inanimate chemical structures which remain are part 1. You will need to add heat to get part 2. The heat allows the environmental connection or part 2, to become active again. The heat is adding energy for the required entropy.

Part 1 or the physical structures of life, I will refer to as the life aspect. The life aspect moves in the direction of increasing energy and lowering entropy. There is a reason for this, which I will explain after I define some basic definitions.

Tp prove that the life aspects defines higher energy and lower entropy, the frozen cell can be burnt in a calorimeter to release the stored energy within all its reduced carbon and nitrogen compounds and structures. Even in an oxidizing environment the growing cell will add size and/or energy value. The frozen cell or the life aspect is all about order down to the tiniest repeatable details. This the opposite of entropy which prefers disorder, random, spreading out, etc.

Part 2 follows the laws of the universe, which move in the direction of lower energy and higher entropy. I like to call part 2, the universal aspect. As we add heat to the chilled cell, its chemical activity increases.

the mixing or "spreading" of the total energy of each constituent of a system over its particular quantized energy levels.

Entropy is a nebulous concept that takes getting used to. To simplify, I like to think of entropy as degrees of freedom, since degrees of freedom imply a spreading out into all its quantized energy levels. It also implies concepts like random and disorder, as well as deviation from the status quo. All options that exist for a change the status quo, implies more degrees of freedom, or more entropy.

A six sided dice has entropy in each six possible energy levels. When we add energy, such as throwing, over time the entropy is not defined in these six energy levels but also within the randomness by which these energy levels are filled.

Going from the inanimate chilled cell, to the start of activity by adding heat, adds entropy or additional degrees of freedom since there is now deviation from the frozen status quo. These extra degrees of freedom are there already, in potential, but will need heat energy so they can become manifest. If we froze the cell again so all activity stopped and then added heat again, these levels open again. It is not exactly like the dice.

the mixing or "spreading" of the total energy of each constituent of a system over its particular quantized energy levels

Much of the entropy, which needs to be gained, is organized into the cell's start up procedure, which we could repeat again and again via experiment. Entropy can also be ordered in terms of energy levels since each defines new freedom.

But there are also random degrees of freedom which might be slightly different each start up. But all are based on entropy.

The next time I will explain why the life aspect goes in the direction of higher energy and lower entropy, thereby setting a dual potential with the universal aspects, which go in the opposite direction. In this flux is life's animation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

More foolish nonsense.
And repeated unsubstantiated crap.

 

[wellwisher]

Dimmwitter needs to back up his claim or else we should assume he lacks the ability to understand. Why does you icon hide behind a mask? This unconscious choice reflects something about you, Why do you feel the need to hide? Are you a thief for attention?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dimmwitter needs to back up his claim

My claim?
Yet you have failed consistently (despite REPEATED requests) to support your specious crap. And reported.

Why does you icon hide behind a mask? This unconscious choice reflects something about you, Why do you feel the need to hide? Are you a thief for attention?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Members are to be referred to by their chosen screen names. Corruptions of names intended to insult will not be tolerated.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Sorry you can't comprehend this. Your emotional rant betrays your inability to think beyond what you have memorized. Don't be afraid to peak outside the box, it won't bite you. I am starting easy by developing the concepts before I get too complicated. When it is ready for memorization I will let you know.

One thing you might want to start to memorize is the definition of fallacy:

A false syllogism; an invalid argumentation; a proposed reasoning which, professing to deduce a necessary conclusion, reaches one which may be false though the premises are true, or which, professing to be probable, infers something that is really not probable, or wants the kind of probability assigned to it. ​

I will skip all the dissection of logic that comes after that. But you really need to study logic and memorize it.

All this time you have been harping on Gibbs free energy, as if this is the only thing you ever memorized, and you have been trying to force this disjoint subject into the subject of evolution. This is where you fail to construct a valid syllogism, one of which I will model for you:

A: If life evolves, then energy is converted to genetic organization
B: But the 2nd law of thermo. precludes against order
C: therefore, Gibbs free energy explains evolution

You have raised similar bogus arguments concerning the validity of science, human behavior, and almost everything under the sun, not to mention the replies to your posts. Other serious flaws in your posts include:

• All of this time you are deliberately avoiding the actual science of evolution, never once propounding the theory and the rationale behind it
• You have not provided a single authority to support anything you claim
• There is no authority, because the claims are specious
• At best, Gibbs free energy could be addressed in an analysis of cellular metabolism, but nowhere in your posts do you even attempt to explain this
• You have baldly asserted that the shuffling of genes amounts to energy use, arriving at a higher state of order
• You have not defined or addressed probability theory or the math behind it
• Instead you have simply put your bald (unsupported) ideas on the plate with the assertion that they must be true because I say so

As far as going outside the box: the box we are talking about is reality. Check yourself. You are beyond the scope of any real valid logic or evidence.

That is, you are outside of science, the field that attempts to explain reality. This is not a box you should be proud of rejecting.

 

[wellwisher]

Developing a new approach takes time. I have been trying to develop the basic idea first, but I constantly meet with distractions and insults. I never get any questions so I can gauge what the audience can understand or knows, so I find myself repeating.

Building background, does not allow you to answer all the questions, right away. Current evolutionary theory was not developed in a few hours, up and running with the ability to explain everything. I am honored you expect that much from me. The insulting and distracting makes it even harder.

Let me make it simple and address one point. My claim is that the chemical configurations of life gain energy value as they grow. This we can prove in a calorimeter. As life puts on mass, there is more potential energy. Once life dies and starts to decompose this energy potential is lowered in line with the direction of inanimate matter; moves toward lower energy.

Let us discuss this one point, unless you prefer willful ignorance.

 

[billvon]

Developing a new approach takes time. I have been trying to develop the basic idea first . . .

Hmm. That's odd. Generally when someone is trying to develop a theory they ask questions, do research and (if that pans out) run some experiments. You seem to have skipped all those parts and instead gone right to the "if you don't agree with my new and undeveloped approach you're an idiot" part of the process.

 

[Billy T]

... My claim is that the chemical configurations of life gain energy value as they grow. This we can prove in a calorimeter. As life puts on mass, there is more potential energy....

That is about as startling as my claim the sun will rise tomorrow.

I.e. no one with slightest knowledge disputes that huge energy input from the environment is required for life forms to grow. It is your extension of this simple fact into discussion of Gibbs Free energy and entropy, which you barely understand, that adds nothing but confusion and makes us laugh at you.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Developing a new approach takes time. I have been trying to develop the basic idea first, but I constantly meet with distractions and insults. I never get any questions so I can gauge what the audience can understand or knows, so I find myself repeating.

Building background, does not allow you to answer all the questions, right away. Current evolutionary theory was not developed in a few hours, up and running with the ability to explain everything. I am honored you expect that much from me. The insulting and distracting makes it even harder.

Let me make it simple and address one point. My claim is that the chemical configurations of life gain energy value as they grow. This we can prove in a calorimeter. As life puts on mass, there is more potential energy. Once life dies and starts to decompose this energy potential is lowered in line with the direction of inanimate matter; moves toward lower energy.

Let us discuss this one point, unless you prefer willful ignorance.

What makes you think the entire body of the scientific community is wrong, and the whole world needs to stop and turn around to listen to you?

Let me ask you the question that stumped Sarah Palin: have you ever actually read any authoritative document? I have not seen a single cite from you yet.

How much "willful ignorance" does it take to shitcan the most massive collaborative work of human history, that has been chewed up and spit out into our beaks as pap by providers such as Wiki and all the free journals and publication services?

As to your inference that you will next try to shove entropy into a discussion of the accretion of mass by organisms, this begins at the cellular level with a discussion of metabolism.

Go get some cites, present a definition of metabolism, pose a particular issue with that, and you're on the road to an open exchange of ideas.

But don't think for a minute that you are about to shock the world with a new discovery. All you will do is shock yourself with the understanding that you were dead wrong. Energy is conserved, and all the expectations about entropy and Gibbs free energy are fulfilled within the closed cycle of respiration and metabolism.

 

[wellwisher]

The observational point I was making is life builds increasing energy value through its growth. If you look at a tree, as it grows the energy value stored in its wood increases with time. This building of energy value is unique to life.

If we took a piece of iron in an oxygen environment, it will lower energy by rusting. Rust will not spontaneously convert to iron since this would mean gaining energy, thereby going against the natural direction of energy. Life on the other hand, squirrels away energy value, allowing it to gain and build energy. Life climbs up an energy hill.

This is unique to life. However, you will never see this in any definition of life, although this gaining of energy value is indirectly implied by growth. Once you add this energy observation, which is unique to life, to the definiton of life, it opens new doors. The exsiting theory does well with the existing data field, but is not aware of what is behind this new door. It works hard to keep this door shut.

In single cells, this building of energy has practical value. It can be used to provide the energy needed to drive cell cycles. This is nothing new. If we tweaked this energy value, many scenarios arise. If we have too little energy for a cell cycle, either it does not happen or if it does happen, it will stop short. This provides energy based variations in cell contents. If we have too much energy, it can move forward into a cell cycle, while also having extra energy to continue for one or more additional cycles. This extra energy is needed for multicellular and can be useful for cancer. But first lifge needed to learn to climb an even higher energy hill.

 

[Billy T]

... Life climbs up an energy hill. This is unique to life. However, you will never see this in any definition of life, although this gaining of energy value is indirectly implied by growth. ...

If you were better informed about the literature and less pretensions, you would know that the observation that life forms do lower their entropy and make much greater increases in entropy total is a common observation.

I.e. that is a characteristic of all life forms but not suitable as a definition of life. If it were, to use your example of iron and oxidation, then a blast furnace which converts Fe2O3 into Fe (iron) is alive by that definition of life.

Why not stop with your pretentious posts and learn a little from 100+ years of literature on evolution, biology and chemistry? If you were less pretentious and were to produce an equation computing the Gibbs Energy required for some basic life process, say mitosis, in a single cell then we might stop laughing at you. We are growing quite tired of your verbal pretentious garbage.

 

[Billy T]

What makes you think the entire body of the scientific community is wrong, and the whole world needs to stop and turn around to listen to you?. ...

I can answer that: Wellwisher is arrogant, ignorant and pretentious. Capable only of generation of verbal garbage, not one good reference or one equation - only verbal garbage like this from post 419:

Like I said, if you base evolution on fuzzy random based theory and not science laws, you will need to use subjective rhetoric to make it seem correct. ...

If you ever fell in love, once triggered there is a strong usage of energy, since it causes a significant change in free energy. The bond also lowers entropy since you can't look at anyone else. If the female's bird's brain is triggered by the sensory triggers from the male, this optimizes the release of free energy and lowers their combined entropy. If not there, the free energy is maintained in both with entropy higher; open the options.

If there is a blockage, such that there is no trigger to release the enthalpy so free energy can lower, the entropy side can be used. The result can be a generic change, or change of mind, to take advantage of the situation.

Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.

.

 

[Aqueous Id]

If we took a piece of iron in an oxygen environment, it will lower energy by rusting. Rust will not spontaneously convert to iron since this would mean gaining energy, thereby going against the natural direction of energy. Life on the other hand, squirrels away energy value, allowing it to gain and build energy. Life climbs up an energy hill.

Hold that thought. This is your premise, but it's messed up. So don't take it and expand into more fallacy.

You are refusing to see that life is not a closed system which is moving against the flow of chemical or thermodynamic order.

This is your fundamental flaw. Before you go one step further, you must find the closed system. You are the one who is espousing Gibbs. So get with it. Go get some Gibbs-relevant material, right here, before you fall into that black hole of self-replicating fallacy.

Suppose I jump right into a proposal for the common ancestry between apes and humans. Let me say proto-humans, so not a lot of tweaking is required. Now this proto-human is just slightly "better" than the ape, because it can track the panther's pawprints to the tree where it sleeps off the first meal, with the second half of the meal--the rest of the carcass--slung over a high branch, ready to attack after nap time is over.

Our proto-human is able to learn that the paw prints lead to a reward, and eventually devises a spear or some other means of getting the cat out of the tree, then he goes and feasts on a high protein meal. Meanwhile, his ancestral buddies are left fishing for termites with a stick, or maybe even trying to grab the leavings of a kill that hyenas are moving in on.

So Proto-Man has "squirreled away energy" by gaining what the ape lacked, under your bogus premise.

Now look at how silly that sounds. If I compare the chromosomes of Prot-Man to Bonzo the Chimp, I get something like this:

So to get a Proto-Man from Bonzo, an anomolous fusing of the chromosome pair in position 2 is just about all it takes.

Do you want to calculate how many femto-Joules of energy might be involved in such a chemical reaction? And try to apply some wild idea about the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated? Go for it. But you can't just hand wave over this. See if you can figure out the heat of reaction in a gene replication, then try to do the same for the process of meiosis itself, or maybe at the first division of a fertilized egg.

Suppose it takes, I don't know, 1 μJ. Now where does that energy come from? Metabolism. Why did it happen? Some random hitching of the molecules, maybe a catalyst was present, maybe there was a lightning strike in the vicinity just as Bonzo and Bonza were seeing fireworks. Is Gibbs free energy important here? Sure, if you're talking about chemical bond formation, you might want to pull up your chart and calculate the theoretical heat of reaction, which is insane, because we are only talking about a few atoms bonding. Was conservation of energy violated? No. because the excess goes in or out as heat. Now close the loop. This is where you make your fatal mistake. Did the system gain order? No. Somewhere a bond was broken, somewhere a bond was joined, but the fusion of those two chimp genes does not constitute a more highly organized system and that is where your idea was fatally flawed from the start.

Equally fatal is your presumption that the world's supply of geniuses could have overlooked something as fundamental as heat of reaction as a new discovery giving cause to throw evolutionary biology out the window.

 

[Trippy]

The argument regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics is fundamentally and fataly flawed.

Any such consideration needs to take into account, for example, solar output.

 

[Arioch]

@Aqueous Id --

Let me ask you the question that stumped Sarah Palin: have you ever actually read any authoritative document? I have not seen a single cite from you yet.

You can't doubt Wellwisher, he's an engineer who works with the Second Law on a daily basis. It's obvious that his take on a biological topic are well within his expertise, we probably listen to him.

PS: For those of you who couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.

 

[GeoffP]

Actually, those centromeres are quite the fucked up. Interesting.

 

[billvon]

As we approach 2012 we have this fun announcement on the front page of Conservopedia, the "trustworthy" encyclopedia:

==========
Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

A supporter of the Question evolution! campaign writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."

. . .

The new year is rapidly approaching. Accordingly, it is time for our Question evolution! campaign to chart out our group's vision for 2012. Simply put, we want to help make 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism. More specifically, in the Western World we want to help make 2012 a pivotal year as far as the expansion of creation evangelism. Our goal is to increase percentage of the Western World population which holds to a biblical creation worldview which should aid Christian evangelism.
===========

http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

 

[wellwisher]

I.e. that is a characteristic of all life forms but not suitable as a definition of life. If it were, to use your example of iron and oxidation, then a blast furnace which converts Fe2O3 into Fe (iron) is alive by that definition of life.

This only happens because humans are alive and make it possible. This will not happen without a human setting up the smelter. Maybe you can show us where this occurs in the ground, without life helping? Life increases energy such as making iron from iron oxide. This is more of an extension of life building energy value, where the brain carries on the tradition.

The argument regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics is fundamentally and fataly flawed.

The cell membrane is a unique place within the cell, because it defines a zone of low entropy and high energy. The membrane represents an energy hill and entropy well, due to the induced cationic gradient associated with the membrane potential. One simple way to see that the membrane is at lowered entropy, due to the cationic gradient, would be to stop inputting ATP into the membrane and let the cationic potential discharge over time. It will flow in the direction of lower energy and higher entropy. The minimal energy and highest entropy result will be a uniform solution of cations on both sides of the membrane. The segregation represents low entropy since this would never happen spontaneouesly. Rather entropy will flow the other way.

The reason the cell is able to induce this low entropy and high energy boundary is because the entropy will increase and the energy will decrease elsewhere. For example, going from ATP to ADP and phosphate increases entropy and lowers energy. This entropy increase is made possible through catalytic action on the ion pumps. Also, the configurational changes of the Na+K+ pumps and the release of cations will define higher entropy. Because of this catalyzed increase in entropy, the membrane can become a zone of lowered entropy and higher energy induced by the cationic gradient.

The low entropy induced is analogus to an entropy well, since its entropy exists below that of the normal environment. This cationic segregation would not appear spontaneously in nature and remain stable. It becomes analogous to a block of entropy ice, speeding the flow of entropy into the membrane to help fill this entropy well. It makes the cell membrane an entropy magnetic attracting more than the normal share of change associated with increasing entropy. It is activity/change that is going to happen.

One long term result of the entropy well is the single handedness of active bio-materials, such as left handed proteins. Higher entropy would imply equal amounts of both handedness since this defines the most deviation and energy levels. With cells limiting proteins to only one of the two options, this reflects the long term impact of the low entropy boundary. The handedness choices are also the most bio-active since they also reflect the higher energy of the boundry condition.

What is the current explanation for single handedness and how is this low entropy condition perpetuated?

 

[Billy T]

This only happens because humans are alive and make it possible. This will not happen without a human setting up the smelter. Maybe you can show us where this occurs in the ground, without life helping? ...

No need to do that as I was only showing your ORIGINAL DEFINITION of life (uses energy to reduce entropy) was your typical silly verbal garbage.

Now you seem to agree as you are adding the condition "but life can not be man made" - but last time I looked, human babies were made by mankind. Also recently living, reproducing, cells were made by man using chemically assembled DNA - according to a sequence stored in a computer - inserted into a cell with its original and different DNA removed.

Surely you need to revise your definition yet again if you do not want to declare that babies are not living do you?