Thermodynamics vs. Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

david23
Coral
Coral
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Post by david23 » Sat May 05, 2007 2:03 am

guys this kind of topic is just something to make real scientists puke. Why even waste time on this thing. There shouldnt even be a debate like this in first place if it wasnt for the religious nuts.

User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Post by kotoreru » Sat May 05, 2007 3:53 pm

Judging by the standard of your English, I assume you are still in Secondary Education. You are not a Scientist, and cannot presume to understand how one would argue a point like this.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.

david23
Coral
Coral
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Post by david23 » Sun May 06, 2007 5:43 am

right right and u are one? just because you speak english so perfectly that qualifies you as one. Maybe u should read definition of science again.

Thermodynamics should not even be an issue with evolution debates. Using one branch of science to refute another by creating false conditions is nothing more than nonsense. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself trying to use thermodynamics like this. If everyone is so idiotic to support you, then they can, and enjoy the rest of their lives wandering in forums online.

Looking at your past posts, all you do is google answers and cite wiki. I presume you havent taken biochem yet, and dont have a single degree yet. If you did, the first themodynamics chapters would cover these issues pretty nicely.

But let me help you out

When idiots try to refute evolution they usually first go after the process in which polymers are formed, resulting in lower entropy. Well guess what, all these molecular synthesis happen in water, and water is part of overall reaction. Call that the system, open close whatever. If you want me to close it, I'll dump some ATP, GTP whatever in there, and close the whole freaking system. When polymers are being synthesized using the energy from ATP, the polymers themselves become less entropic, and build up potential energy. While this is happening, the water now free from interacting with individual monomers become more entropic because it doesnt take a scientist to know that when you add junk in water, you are adding constraints to the water molecules. So once the polymers get made, the water will have less contraints. When you add the overall S of the water to the S of the peptides it should definitely be greater zero, to show that there is a net gain.

CASE CLOSED or do you want me to explain it all in simpler terms for someone that hasnt taken biochem yet. Or maybe you think there is this God somewhere mysteriously putting little molecules together every second of day trying to overcome the universe's will of constantly trying to take them apart.

User avatar
charles brough
Coral
Coral
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: California

Post by charles brough » Sun May 06, 2007 11:55 am

mith wrote:
Noumenalist wrote:hahahahaha. That's like saying the formation of a snowflake demonstrates a decrease in entropy!


It doesn't?!!

http://www.holysmoke.org/thermo.htm

scroll to the bottom.

Btw, you should check out how the glucose reaction works and compare it to snowflake formation.


I found the link very helpful. It seems to me that "entropy" is, for our practical purposes, only that energy is transfered (dissipated) because of friction. So what? So, it is dissipated but there has always been plenty of energy on this Earth in one form or another. I don't understand how anyone can claim this has anything to do with evolution. No one has as yet made that clear.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Post by narrowstaircase » Sun May 06, 2007 11:39 pm

david23 wrote:right right and u are one? just because you speak english so perfectly that qualifies you as one. Maybe u should read definition of science again.

Thermodynamics should not even be an issue with evolution debates. Using one branch of science to refute another by creating false conditions is nothing more than nonsense. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself trying to use thermodynamics like this. If everyone is so idiotic to support you, then they can, and enjoy the rest of their lives wandering in forums online.

Looking at your past posts, all you do is google answers and cite wiki. I presume you havent taken biochem yet, and dont have a single degree yet. If you did, the first themodynamics chapters would cover these issues pretty nicely.

But let me help you out

When idiots try to refute evolution they usually first go after the process in which polymers are formed, resulting in lower entropy. Well guess what, all these molecular synthesis happen in water, and water is part of overall reaction. Call that the system, open close whatever. If you want me to close it, I'll dump some ATP, GTP whatever in there, and close the whole freaking system. When polymers are being synthesized using the energy from ATP, the polymers themselves become less entropic, and build up potential energy. While this is happening, the water now free from interacting with individual monomers become more entropic because it doesnt take a scientist to know that when you add junk in water, you are adding constraints to the water molecules. So once the polymers get made, the water will have less contraints. When you add the overall S of the water to the S of the peptides it should definitely be greater zero, to show that there is a net gain.

CASE CLOSED or do you want me to explain it all in simpler terms for someone that hasnt taken biochem yet. Or maybe you think there is this God somewhere mysteriously putting little molecules together every second of day trying to overcome the universe's will of constantly trying to take them apart.


what you lack in sublety you make up for in... oh wait, you dont make up for it. :P

but seriously. you are very clever it seems. if you took such offense to an observation on your communication skills dont you think your attack on the OP question deserves to be questioned in the first place? where you are very clever in your field of study other people are lacking and are smarter in utterly different subjects. why didnt you just explain what you have to contribute in a way the OP (and I) can understand since you know we arent as educated as you in the matter. you could just explain why it is so and not reject a question that is valid in the mind of the OP. that would be considerate and nice of you.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."

i_r_e_d
Coral
Coral
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA

Post by i_r_e_d » Mon May 07, 2007 3:00 am

Okay... okay... Lets settle down children... Lets all hold hand and sing "Why can't we be friends..."
Image

-Danny

david23
Coral
Coral
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Post by david23 » Mon May 07, 2007 8:40 am

narrowstaircase wrote:
david23 wrote:right right and u are one? just because you speak english so perfectly that qualifies you as one. Maybe u should read definition of science again.

Thermodynamics should not even be an issue with evolution debates. Using one branch of science to refute another by creating false conditions is nothing more than nonsense. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself trying to use thermodynamics like this. If everyone is so idiotic to support you, then they can, and enjoy the rest of their lives wandering in forums online.

Looking at your past posts, all you do is google answers and cite wiki. I presume you havent taken biochem yet, and dont have a single degree yet. If you did, the first themodynamics chapters would cover these issues pretty nicely.

But let me help you out

When idiots try to refute evolution they usually first go after the process in which polymers are formed, resulting in lower entropy. Well guess what, all these molecular synthesis happen in water, and water is part of overall reaction. Call that the system, open close whatever. If you want me to close it, I'll dump some ATP, GTP whatever in there, and close the whole freaking system. When polymers are being synthesized using the energy from ATP, the polymers themselves become less entropic, and build up potential energy. While this is happening, the water now free from interacting with individual monomers become more entropic because it doesnt take a scientist to know that when you add junk in water, you are adding constraints to the water molecules. So once the polymers get made, the water will have less contraints. When you add the overall S of the water to the S of the peptides it should definitely be greater zero, to show that there is a net gain.

CASE CLOSED or do you want me to explain it all in simpler terms for someone that hasnt taken biochem yet. Or maybe you think there is this God somewhere mysteriously putting little molecules together every second of day trying to overcome the universe's will of constantly trying to take them apart.


what you lack in sublety you make up for in... oh wait, you dont make up for it. :P

but seriously. you are very clever it seems. if you took such offense to an observation on your communication skills dont you think your attack on the OP question deserves to be questioned in the first place? where you are very clever in your field of study other people are lacking and are smarter in utterly different subjects. why didnt you just explain what you have to contribute in a way the OP (and I) can understand since you know we arent as educated as you in the matter. you could just explain why it is so and not reject a question that is valid in the mind of the OP. that would be considerate and nice of you.


Oh my I got no subtlety, or perhaps you are simply looking for an excuse to cover the fact that u dont understand, but trying to do it in a much more graceful manner than I did. Maybe I should learn from you. No, wait, I will learn from you. From now on, whenever I attack someone for their mistakes and utter blasphemy against any science field, I will be graceful like you, and add some, I guess subtlety to the matter. How about it, would that make you happy? Can we be friends like IRED has suggested. If we can, then there is no problem is there?

Lastly, I'm pretty sure you know more stuff than I do in some fields. I'm just a lowly PHD biochem candidate. I'll admit that I have forgotten some basic anatomy and physiology stuff, which I'm sure you can beat me. But when someone makes blasphemous statements in fields that I know, I get pretty angry. Let me apologize right here in case I were to offend you in the future.

User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Post by kotoreru » Mon May 07, 2007 9:49 am

Are you seriously a PHd?
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.

david23
Coral
Coral
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Post by david23 » Mon May 07, 2007 10:19 am

PHD candidate, there is a difference. But you are asking the question implying that you have doubts and you want other people have doubts too. So if you have doubts then just come out and say it. Where did I make mistakes with my arguments, please point them out. Again you can always attack my lack of punctuation, capitalizing, spelling mistakes, and attribute that as a sign of inexperience, or perhaps not PHD worthy. But I can assure you that if I were to publish a paper, it will take me a week to fix all these mistakes as oppose to typing it out in less than 2 minutes here. Then again, if you were to point out me mistakes in my scientific arguments, which I probably made somewhere, granted I do a lot, it will take a while for you, considering you were someone who did not know what redox potentials are? Perhaps you didnt take analytical chemistry yet.

After skiming through your posts, a rough estimation would be that you have had ecology to some degree, as expected of a first year biology major. Some basic human biology again expected of first year. On the other hand you also have some level of genetics, the basic ones granted, something still within the realm of using simple phrases like dominant and recessive, and of course you started cell bio. So what exactly are you first year, second year? I dont know how the curriculum works in UK, so you will have to help me out, wont you.

User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Post by kotoreru » Mon May 07, 2007 10:54 am

You're quite easy to offend...and so far you have contributed nothing to this topic - only spoken of yourself and criticised others.

I simply shall not give you the satisfaction of knowing 'what' I am, needless to say that arguing with you is a waste of this Forum's time and resources.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.

david23
Coral
Coral
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Post by david23 » Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 am

oh my I contributed more than you did. I gave a pretty good example of how entropy can be decreasing in part of a system while not breaking the law of thermodynamics. What have you ever contributed? If you cant understand, then I cant help you there. Although I did offer to explain it in simpler terms, but you haven't asked me to. What you are is a wannabe undergraduate scientist who offer nothing but suggestions and references to search engines. Your 113 posts haven't had any significant information to contribute. While we are busy reading journals and going after grants, you are here, posting little suggestions that dont offer any clues to the real answer. Now you want to leave this topic, ooooh now who's offended. Do you want hide your lack of experience that bad.

You have taken some basic sciences so you think that makes you smart enough to discuss like a real scientist? You might think you are so clever, but to a professional we see it all the time. It's not a good sign. Oh and I am happy that you decided to leave and be all high and mighty. It definitely saves me time to do other studies. Lastly, evolution is acceptable and integral in mainstream science. If a real scientist used thermodynamics to counter it, he'll be out period. No more publications, no more grants, no nothing. I hope you can learn something from this, and dont ever attempt something like this again when you become a pro.

User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Post by kotoreru » Mon May 07, 2007 12:03 pm

david23, please just shut up now - it's just becoming boring.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests