To creationists......

latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
To creationists......

    Well recently (ok today at lunch) i had the distinct pleasure (if you can call it pleasure) to have debated a hardcore creationist. Now of course this arguement started ok, he stated is opinion that creationism is the only way life could have occurred, so he started of with a quote from Fred Hoyle that the possiblitiy of life getting to our point is 1 x 10 to the power of 40,000, and how he disagreed with the big bang and that he had proposed the steady state universe. Of course I then point out Hoyles fallacy, first off with regards to the possiblity of life, that the hoyle was agruing the complexity of life in his evolution from space, was that it was today more or less, this of course and that all life would spontaneous start at the same time. This of course is quite illogical since the size of the universe and the age of different solar systems allows the possiblity of different forms and different methods to which life could have arised, second it also excludes of large simulatanous trials throughout the entire universe. As for the complexity it excluded the possiblity of a more primitive form of life, that eventually evolves to a more complex form.

    Of course everything I said is dismissed as part of the religion of evolution, and that any real arguement is discarded, I continue to point out that everything I have stated is pretty much the same arguement many have had against Hoyles statement on naturalistic evolution......as such it is known as Hoyles Fallacy. Second his steady state universe was pretty much discarded upon was due to the discovery of cosmic microwave background in the 60's, the discoveries of young galaxies and quasars in the 80's, the COBE satillete in the 90's which more or less cemented the Big Bang theory, as well in recently in 2001 Wilkinson Microwave anisotrophy probe. Yet again, everything I stated is dismissed as wanting ignorance of Hoyles scientific brillance in dismantalling the Big bang and evolution.

     Next part is more interesting, he stated that W.R Bir, a Yale graduate with the American law institute, stating the evolution could not stand in the modern court and that it would be demolished in it. Of course he forgot to mention that he was referring to the Origins of Species, and that it has stood up to scrutiny of the modern court as there have been various cases involving the teaching of creation and creationists trying to remove evolution from schools, but all those cases have been tossed out against creationists as Evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of modern courts. The specific case i gave was the case in Kansas.....of course this is met with the statement that the judge is biased, and anti christian.

    I would like to ask creationists, why don't you bother to actually look at the facts for and against it, your quite willing to believe in fairly tales, but in the real world....it doesn't quite work that way, it's not that scientists will not look at arguements against evolution....it's that once they have and stated their opinion against said arguements, why do you dismiss them immediately as wanting to wallow in their ignorance of evolution? Why not bother to actually look at the arguement being presented and try to understand what they are saying instead of quickly dismissing it as anti-god/christian/religious/truth/etc??

[Edited some minor spelling mistakes] 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The short answer is "God

The short answer is "God did it".

The real answer which they fail to consider is simple. Human phycology. They baught an idea, and human ego wont allow them to consider that they baught a lie.

They fervantly believe in the Abrahamic god as fervantly as the Ancient Egyptians believed that the sun was a thinking entity called "Ra".

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
My question is, were they

My question is, were they a young earth or an old earth creationist? I love debating young earth creationists because they are so clueless about the orirgins of their own belief system. James Ussher (1581-1656) was one of the founders of the young-earth creationist movement. I doubt that he started the movement but he is notable in its inception. Since his time there has been much controversy in assigning dates for a young earth, to say the least. However, many Americans are deluded enough to believe the Earth is only 7,000 years old. You know, I never even knew people actually believed this stuff until pretty recently.

The reason creationists don't check their facts is that they are afraid that doing so will make them question their faith. This is especially true of YECs in my own opinion, so take it for what it's worth. It sounds like you had a pretty good handle on things though. The young-earthers I work with got frustrated trying to get me to buy into their thinking. I want to say it is because I made them question what they believe, but more than likely they just gave up trying to convert me lol.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
For those interested in

For those interested in checking this out.  I have a tract which traces the verses from the Bible that USHER used to prove that the Bible teaches that creation occured 4004 years before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.  If I were an Atheist I would trounce on any Christian who claimed he was not a Young earth Creationist and prove to them using this tract that according to the Bible the earth has only existed for just over 6000 years.  Why as a Chrsitian would I advise this? Becasue I want other Christians to better examine their beliefs so that they become more convinced of them.  In Revelation 5 God tells us that the 7th church called the church of Laodocea is rich and satisfied having all their needs met by their own means.  God wants us to depend on Him to meet our needs.  He says elsewhere "LEan not unto your own understanding". The revelation 5 passage goes on to tell these Christians that God will vomit them out.  When Chirsitians dont faithfully represent Gods thoughts it makes Him ill toward them.  Another passage in the Old Testament says "My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts".  Then in the New Testament it tells Christians "Have this mind in you which is Christ Jesus".  I take this to mean that we dont naturally think the way God does. It is easy to misrepresent Him. This makes him ill  and when his followers don't have his thoughts.  But it is possible to have his thoughts, if we study His word diligently.  One of the things to study regards what he teaches about the age of the earth in His word.

http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_ushers_notes_sm.pdf

I have recently joined the board of a Creathionist organization called "Internaltional Christian Crusade".  I have just edited a booklet they used to distribute 250,000 copies in print.  But they stopped distributing it over a decade ago.  We plan to distribute it again soon in hard copy.  You can have it in .pdf to peruse for free.  If any wants a hard copy sent to them. I will send them one for 4.00 inclusive of the cost of the book and free mailing included to anywhere in the Continental USA or Canada.  Believe me there is no profit motive in this.  But here it is to read in .pdf for free.  It's only 80 pages long.  I would be interested in any criticism of it because such criticism will help me to edit the book further to make it more effective for our next printing which wil be very soon. (Lord Willing).

http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_icc_evolution.pdf

email me at b i b l e d o o r @ r o g e r s . c o m (take out spaces) if you wish a copy sent. I will give you further details.

 

 

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'll tell you what. If you

I'll tell you what. If you are looking to see whose claims hold water better, I shall debate you on the topic of evolution, if you start another thread. There is only one condition. Don't link-throw. I used to spend copious amounts of time kicking the crap of out of creationists only to find that they would just throw me links. So, you start a new thread. Start with a criticism, I'll go through it...back and forth...and we shall see who knows more about biology. Do not give me a PDF file, since those cannot be quoted. Write something yourself, I'll respond, and may the smarter one win.

However, if you do wish to have a discussion about evolution, I always ask a prelimanary question. This is merely standard procedure. You must prove to me that you understand what evolution is. The theory of biological evolution is actually constituted around 5 theories. These 5 distinct theories constitute the centrality of evolutionary biology. Being able to list, and, in one sentence each, describe each of these theories, is an absolute must (high school level knowledge). It takes less than one paragraph.  If you cannot answer this question, or you answer incorrectly, I will automatically disregard you as totally incapable of having a discussion on this matter.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:He [God] says

Whitefox wrote:
He [God] says elsewhere "Lean not unto your own understanding".


Peter Pan said, "I do believe in fairies, I do, I do."
 

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious, Whitefox, how

I'm curious, Whitefox, how do you resolve the troubles with Paul? He's openly antagonistic toward the Twelve, including telling his congregation not to listen to the Gospel brought to them by Cephas (Peter). He doesn't tell the story of his own conversion the same way twice, he directly contradicts Christ's own teachings toward faith v works, as well as contradicting Christ's attitude toward the sinner (Christ tells those who question him that he has come to minister to the sinner, as a doctor to the sick; the healthy, after all, don't need him. Paul, by comparison, tells his congregation that they must ostracize a sinner in their midst and give him bodily over to Satan).

How do you reconcile these things?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Umm ok

So far I have read the first few pages....the arguements so far against evolution......are ummm....daft to say the lest. Especially since one of them discredits not finding any relationship between fish and amphibian, reptile to bird and reptiles to mammals, umm yes there are fossiles that have been found to show the relationship between fish and amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammals (which one of them is Therapsida) however since you used a reference of 1972, shows pretty much the outdated information that you are using on evolution. The reptile to bird is the Archaeopteryx, way back in 1861, and since then there has been 7 more finding and confirm that it is legit, and the other findings 30 to 40 million years younger than the Archeopteryx, which proved the evolution theory correct about birds, they were found in Spain and in China if you like to do some research. The fish to amphhibian is again well documented, with the earliest find being the Panderichthys. Second humans aren't the summit (again the information is incorrect, there is no summit, there is a beginning and then it branches out, think the bottome as the root of life and evolution and everything else is the branches of a tree in which we are part of, but there is no on top). I will continue to read, but I am not even a scientist (just interesting in science no formal training) and I can pick apart the errors, forget the professionals, they will tear this to shreds....and this i the first few pages. Of course I am ignoring all bible crap that is included since none of it is actual evidence of creation.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:I'll tell

deludedgod wrote:

I'll tell you what. If you are looking to see whose claims hold water better, I shall debate you on the topic of evolution, if you start another thread. There is only one condition. Don't link-throw. I used to spend copious amounts of time kicking the crap of out of creationists only to find that they would just throw me links. So, you start a new thread. Start with a criticism, I'll go through it...back and forth...and we shall see who knows more about biology. Do not give me a PDF file, since those cannot be quoted. Write something yourself, I'll respond, and may the smarter one win.

However, if you do wish to have a discussion about evolution, I always ask a prelimanary question. This is merely standard procedure. You must prove to me that you understand what evolution is. The theory of biological evolution is actually constituted around 5 theories. These 5 distinct theories constitute the centrality of evolutionary biology. Being able to list, and, in one sentence each, describe each of these theories, is an absolute must (high school level knowledge). It takes less than one paragraph.  If you cannot answer this question, or you answer incorrectly, I will automatically disregard you as totally incapable of having a discussion on this matter.

Please make an exception when you are dealing with a person who says they are the author of a .pdf.  I am the publihser fo the "Evolution" .pdf.  Its author died several years ago. I have read the material several times and am prepared to defend it.  You said you cannot quote from it. By all means do so.

http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_icc_evolution.pdf

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hi Whitefox. Yeah, PDF files

Hi Whitefox. Yeah, PDF files are a pain  ......  no copy / paste , for one thing.

  Does anyone recommend a free online converter to HTML ?????

  Some are here in Google,

 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Converting+PDF+files+to+HTML&btnG=Search

  BTW, Lots of Youtube videos blow creationism to smithereens  ..... Is there something unique I missed Whitefox ? 

 ..... Yeah, gawed is everything, way amazing !

Science studies gawed, Philosophy summarizes, Religion spins.   

     


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Hi

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Hi Whitefox. Yeah, PDF files are a pain  ......  no copy / paste , for one thing.

  Does anyone recommend a free online converter to HTML ?????

  Some are here in Google,

 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Converting+PDF+files+to+HTML&btnG=Search

  BTW, Lots of Youtube videos blow creationism to smithereens  ..... Is there something unique I missed Whitefox ? 

 ..... Yeah gawed is way amazing !    

     

The only thing I shy away from is encouraging the copy to be able to be edited by an unauthorized editor.

You can cut and past from .pfs into Word.  I've done it.  I will try now to see if I can cut and paste here.

 

This booklet has been prepared and distributed in the hope that it may be of help to those who are bewildered and confused in regard to the theory of evolution.

 

It worked but the font is big.

 

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You said you cannot

Quote:

You said you cannot quote from it. By all means do so.

You misunderstand. I was not referring to copyright. I was referring to the fact that when the PDF is opened, it is indicated to be read-only, at least on my computer. What I want, for example, is for you to take maybe one point, or argument, and then we can go through it, and then the next one, and so forth, to see who has the better established position. Use the PDF by all means. But nonetheless, I think it was a fair question to answer before any discussion is initiated. Too often, I start an evolution discussion with someone, ask them what they understand by evolution, and get a horribly confused answer. Maybe I shall rephrase the question I put above.

What do you understand by "the theory of biological evolution"? This is not a trick question and should not take more than 1 paragraph to answer.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't want to derail this

BMcD wrote:

I'm curious, Whitefox, how do you resolve the troubles with Paul? He's openly antagonistic toward the Twelve, including telling his congregation not to listen to the Gospel brought to them by Cephas (Peter). He doesn't tell the story of his own conversion the same way twice, he directly contradicts Christ's own teachings toward faith v works, as well as contradicting Christ's attitude toward the sinner (Christ tells those who question him that he has come to minister to the sinner, as a doctor to the sick; the healthy, after all, don't need him. Paul, by comparison, tells his congregation that they must ostracize a sinner in their midst and give him bodily over to Satan).

How do you reconcile these things?

I don't want to derail this thread with this particular sidebar. But I will be glad to do it with you on SKYPE. My SKYPE ID is BIBLEDOOR.  I will say here.  Paul was a murderer of Christians prior to his physical encounter with Jesus in the desert which turned his life 180 degrees.. Not well trusted. Secondly he took the message of our Lord Jesus Christ to its logical conclusion as prophecied in the old testament.  The Old Testament teaches that the Gentiles would enter into the faith of Abraham.  Paul understood this and persued its fulfillment. The other Jewish followers were slow in recognizing Pauls authority but finally they did after 14 years recognize him as the Apostole to the Gentiles.  Regarding the fulfillment of Prophecy from the Old testament that Gentiles (non-jews) would become followers of the faith of Abraham, I wrote a tract.

http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_promised_seed_sm.pdf

 

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Of course he forgot to

Quote:
Of course he forgot to mention that he was referring to the Origins of Species, and that it has stood up to scrutiny of the modern court as there have been various cases involving the teaching of creation and creationlists trying to remove evolution from schools, but all those cases have been tossed out against creationlists as Evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of modern courts.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the statement "wouldnt' stand up in modern courts" refers to the "truthfulness" of evolution . . . i.e., a jury trying evolution on a "true"/"not true" . . . if this is analogous to the "guilty"/"not guilty" of the US court systems, then saying "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "objectively innocent," merely "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Civil cases would have a lower standard.. but, let's stick with the criminal level.

So.. assuming that evolution was put before the court to judge whether it was "true"/"not true beyond a reasonable doubt"--then I'm not so sure it would "stand up."  The cases, as far as I know, that deal with evolution were not whether evolution was true.. but rather whether it could be excluded or whether creationism could be included without running afoul to the 1st amendment of the US constitution.

As a theory . . . of course the process of evolution is directly observable . . . whether or not "evolution," as a theory, and as intended to be defined for the purpose of this hypothetical, included the inferences that a modern species of animal evolved from another, extinct, species of animal, is not made clear.  I'm assuming the latter though.. giving this guy the benefit of the doubt...

And if I'm correct, then, like I said before, I'm not sure it would stand up--i.e., I do not believe a court would find that X-modern species evolved from Y-old-historic species "is true beyond a reasonable doubt" based upon the "X->Y transition" seemingly apparent in the fossil record.  An analogy would be the finding that X murdered Z based upon the inference taken from the fact that X definitely murdered A, and Z is merely the final link in murders B -> Y, each of which progressed from the one before that in both "time and manner"--a progression that is similar to the progression we see in many other criminals of who we are sure they killed each individual.

I don't think it would hold.. of course, I realize, that there is much other evidence besides the fossil record to support the idea that X species evolved from Y--still, I think they all fall into the same category of looking out a process directly observable in the present, collecting a series of facts about past, and then inferring the line can be drawn from one to the next to the next based upon the inference that the present observable process necessarily acted in such a way.

Note.. I don't necessarily have a problem with evolution.. perhaps a little bit with abiogenesis (a separate theory).. this argument, then, is really more just devils advocate.  I usually try to stay out of conversations about evolution.. because of my horrid understanding of the theory. Smiling

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Ok read some more....laughed some more too

Why is it that practically all the quotes against evolution are on average over 40 years old? Most of the arugements so far have been shown to be false in the past 40 years, heck the last 10 years with genetic testing has shown evolution to be correct as well, forget the rest of the massive evidence for evolution. As well the part of Man's Place in the Universe...when this was edited....was no new scientific finding checked out? There scientists are now finding planets similar to earth, even some they believe to have water, with the approximate size of earth and distance from it's sun similar to that of earth, i mean COME ON RESEARCH RESEARCH RESERACH, this is MASSIVELY important when trying to debunk something, I mean this information about the planets has come in the last 2 years. Also man is not the end product, man is the product of this enviroment to date, however we continue to evolve and will continue until there are no more humans (which either we became extinct or we evolved into something else should we live as a species that long) As well what are you implying that evolution has no purpose, last time I check evolutionary process was to have a species adapt to it's envioroment through various processes including survival of the fittest (for it's enviroment), mutation, and adaptation. To continue life is a purpose, man has just added it's own purposes. Which again that statement in this document is crap.

Oh and the second law of thermodynamics, yeah that one arguement, if only there was a form of energy being given to us say in a big ball of fire and energy in space that could give energy in the form of heat and light, that plants could use to get energy from and cells as well could use this heat and light energy and yeah, wow it would be an amazing thing since this ball of fire would itself follow the second law of thermodynamics, that as it gave off energy it was diminished. Oh wait we do we call the sun, the entropy part has now been demolished.

The rate of human population arguement another arugement that is demolished by simple understanding. We are limited by our food and water requirements, if there isn't enough food for humans to increase then they won't. It wasn't like we had supermarkets and farms 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago we had just started farming as species. The next part of course is having enough food for a large population, as well the fact that there was stilll disease in plants to deal with, famine (which hey we still have the problem today) and well not being able to control the weather and times of draught could destroy a population (which it has) pestilence as well, war, natural phenomenas such as tsunamis, earthquakes, volvanos floods (all which could destroy crops) that would limit human population growth, as well the rate of survival of new borns has only really dramatically decreased in the 20th century. With the help of medicine and technological help.

So at this point I am going to stop reading the document, it is filled with massive amounts of ignorance of science and the basic principles of which evolution stands on, it is lack of any new arguements or information against evolution, instead is merely rehashes old arugements and really those arguements have been dealt with in the past 40 years for the most part, many even earlier. So i say distribute it, heck it's worth a good laugh as is. Again I am not a scientists and I was able to figure out ways to show the errors in this document.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Latincanucks

Reply to Latincanucks comments.

Thanks. I appreciate your comments. It seems the book was originially written in the 60's then updated in the 80's by its author who used to head up "International Chrsitian Crusade" which I am now in the process of becoming the one to head it up. We could not get him to update it again as He died.  The book went out of print over a decade ago.  Your coments confirm the process we are now in to have a 10th section added to the book by a new Scientist which will discuss D.N.A.. I am informed by this person who right now will remain unnamed that evolution within a species is demonstrated by DNA but not accross species. There are still barriers or "gaps" in evolution.  Christians do not put their trust in the gaps, Athiests do who adhere to "Evolution" as their philosophical framework of life.  It is the Christians unwillingness to trust the Gaps that inevitably cause them to become Crreationists.  And it is the studied Christian who realizes that God reveals a young eart in the Bible that I mentioned earlier.

I believe the added Chapter when it is available will reinforce the other 9 chapters becasue of the "Gaps" still being in place even when tracing DNA accross species.  I am trusting that sometime in the fall we will have that added chapter.

If you can read on and point out other "laughs" as you call them I will only benefit from your comments as we endeavor to prepare the next release of this booklet.

Thanks for your help so far.

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I have written on the Second

I have written on the Second Law of Thermodynamics so many times. I see no reason to do so again. This is, therefore, my official encapsulation for the relationship between entropy and life. Everyting I wrote here is my own:

Let us imagine a box, a system closed off from the universe, with a cell inside it. The cell in a box is a closed system with a fixed amount of free energy. This system will have a total amount of Energy denoted E. Let us suppose the reaction A to B occurs in the box and releases a great deal of chemical bond energy as heat. This energy will increase the rate of molecular motions (transitional, vibrational and rotational) in the system. In other words it will raise the temperature.

However, the energy for these motions will soon transfer out of the system as the molecular motions heat up the wall of the box and then the outside world, which is denoted sea. Eventually, the cell in a box system returns to it’s initial temperature, and all the chemical bond energy released has been transferred to the surroundings. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the change in energy in the box (denoted ∆Ebox or just ∆E) must be equal and opposite to the amount of heat energy transferred out, denoted as h. Therefore ∆E=-h.

E in the box can also change during a reaction due to work done in the outside world. Suppose there is a small volume increase in the box (∆V) which must decrease the energy in the box (∆E) by the same amount. In most reactions, chemical bond energy is converted to work and heat. Enthalpy(H) is a composite function of work and heat, (H=mc∆T). Technically it is the Enthalpy change (∆H) is equal to the heat transferred to the outside world during a reaction, since Enthalpy is the composite function in question. In the equation above “c” simply refers to the specific Heat Capacity of the Material in question, such that the SHC is the amount of energy required to be inputted into the system to raise the temperature of one gram of the substance in question by one Kelvin (note that we can also measure this in terms of moles instead of mass, termed molar heat capacity). In the language of the First Law of Thermodynamics, we would express such like this:

Where Q=∆U-Wo, Q=mc∆t or (for molar heat capacity) Q=nc∆T

So, ∆H is a quantity expressing the SHC multiplied by the temperature change and by the mass of the substance in question. Since SHC is simply a measure of Energy change per Kelvin per Gram (or per mole), ∆H is simply a quantity expressing the change in energy of a system in question, where ∆H is roughly equivalent to the heat energy lost in a reaction.

Reactions with a +∆H are endothermic, and ones with -∆H are exothermic. Therefore –h=∆H. The volume change in reactions is so negligible that this is a good approximation.

Let us consider 1000 coins in a box, all facing heads. It is a closed system, which, by definition, does not exchange energy input or output with the rest of the universe. States of high order have low probability. For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins. The second Law of thermodynamics is a probability function dictating that energy, regardless of how hard we try, always “spreads out” by which we mean that it becomes converted into less useful forms that are probabilistically very, very difficult to retrieve back into ordered states. This governs our lives. Eggs do not unbreak, glasses do not unshatter, entropy is highly directional, for it predicts, in any given system, there to be only one ordered state and a vast amount of disordered states, such that the probability of a disordered state is logarithmically greater than those of ordered states. Specifically, heat, being random hubbub of molecular motion, is the most singularly chaotic and disordered form of energy, and ultimately, therefore, almost impossible to retrieve into ordered states. There is a critical equation governing this to be described below.

We need a quantitative unit to measure entropy, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

∆S= R log PB/PA

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu). But that equation is normally used for chemical reactions which change the entropy of a system because they change the energy distribution, from highly ordered packets of free energy in reactive chemical bonds to vastly more disordered, probable heat energy released. On Boltzmann’s tomb there is a famous epitaph:

S=klogW

Note that k and R should not be confused.

Once we begin to consider the nature of ordered systems, the probabilities in question become mind boggling. Consider a book with 500 pages, if unbound, and tossed into the air, what is the entropy change associated? The 500 pages all in correct order represent a single ordered state. 1/W. The number of disordered states is vast, truly and utterly beyond comprehension, for the number in question is (500!) or 500 factorial, which means 500 x 499 x 498 x 497....x 1, where n! is expressed as n x (n-1) x (n-2) x (n-3)...(n-(n-1)) This number is 1.2 x 10^1134, or to make it more visually holding:

1220136825991110068701238785423000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000

Entropy therefore is a measure of the probability associated with a system, and an increase in entropy in invariably a tend towards more probable states, by which we mean less ordered states. When we consider entropy in relation to Enthalpy, we realize that highly disorderd states are vastly more probable than highly ordered states, since there are simply so many more than there are ordered states. At any rate, when we consider that it is the nature of all things to head probabilistically towards the lowest energy state, one might ask why, in fact, all things do not immediately do so. Why does paper not spontaneously combust? Paper is an ordered state. Ash and gas, disorder and vastly more probable. The oxidized ash and the escaping carbon dioxide never reconstitute themselves into paper. Clearly, there is vast favorability associated with this combustion? So why do we not all spontaneously combust. The answer is activation energy, for a reaction to occur requires a certain energy level be reached that systems in their stable state normally do not attain unless prompted to do so, such as by being supplied by a fire, in this case. Activation energies are the principles upon which catalysis work. Most reactions in the body could only take place inside an oven without catalysis. Occurances into lower-probability states still need energy inputs into the system in order to coax the reaction to fall towards the lower probability state. In the case with a bound book, the book will not spontaneously disorder itself, but once given the necessary energy (unbind it and toss it into the air). For any reaction where the Free-energy change is positive, which thence cannot proceed with spontaneity, not only a vault over an energy barrier required, but also then, state B is less probable than state A, as opposed to a favourable reaction, where upon the completion of an energy barrier, the free energy drops such that the reaction proceeds spontaneously, hence, if I toss a book, unbound, into the air, I have provided the activation energy, and the rest proceeds spontaneously. If I drop an egg off a table, I have provided that activation energy such that the reaction may proceed spontaneously, but I cannot do the same for attempting to reconstruct the shattered egg, for such is expressly forbidden by the laws of probability.

All this means is that the probability distribution for a set of particles in a system is given as that most particles do not have enough energy to complete a chemical reaction. This graph, called the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution, is central to chemistry and statistical mechanics. The number of particles that have a certain range of energies is given by integrating the area between the two values we want to measure.

In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1. The state probability after the box is shaken vigorously is about 10^298. Therefore, the entropy change when the box is shaken is k log 10^298, ∆S is positive in this example. It is reactions with a large positive ∆S which are favorable and occur spontaneously. We say these reactions increase the entropy in the universe.

Ultimately, regardless of whether we are talking about gas molecules or coins in a box, or book pages, the reason for the increase in entropy will come, as mentioned, because high entropy states are states with a greater probability. To understand this it is necessary to distinguish between microstates within a closed system and macrostates. The former are measures of the particles themselves, velocity, position, etc. Macrostates are measures of variables of the system, temperature, pressure, volume, etc. Pressure serves as an easy variable to explain. Imagine a box with a slit in the center where both sides are of equal volume and are filled with gas molecules, one side having 6 times the number of molecules than the other. Thus, assuming constant temperature, it follows that by the combined gas law, that side will have 6 times the pressure of the other. This is effectively a restriction on the number of possible microstates that the system could take, because there are fewer ways to arrange the molecules such that one side has six times the pressure of the other. This is called a potential or a thermodynamics inequilibrium. It is the basis of our understanding of S=klogW. Once the barrier is released, the molecules will tend to equilibriate, since this represents the macrostate where the greatest number of microstates, hence the greatest probability, could represent, one of equal pressure throughout the system. Hence we say the system moves towards equilibrium. As we shall soon see, so do chemical reactions, and this is the basis of all chemistry, including that of biological life. A diagram works well to illustrate this principle:

The number of microstates for the given macrostates is given in the diagram. Establishing them ourselves is a simple exercise in combinatorial mathematics.However, whoever made the image is probably using a different criterion for permutations, since it seems obvious at first sight that for the first example, there should be (8!) permutations, or 40,320 possibilities, and the other number of microstates should increase accordingly (it may be that the image-makers have excluded the order-criterion, while I have incorporated it, resulting in my computing of (10!) combinations for the final macrostate. The point to take away is that high entropy states have a greater number of microstates corresponding to a single macrostate. This, basic probability, is the reason that things tend towards disorder.

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

∆Ssea =h/T

We must now look at a critical concept: Gibbs Free Energy (G)

When observing enclosed systems, we need to know whether or not a given reaction can occur spontaneously. The question regarding this is whether the ∆S for the universe is positive or negative for the reaction, as already discussed.

In the cell in a box system there are two separate components to the entropy change in the universe. The ∆S for the inside of the box and the ∆S for the surrounding sea. These must be added together.

For example, it is possible for an endothermic reaction to absorb heat therefore decreasing the entropy of the universe (-∆Ssea) but at the same time cause such a large disorder in the box (+∆Sbox) that the total ∆S is greater than zero. Note that ∆Suniverse=∆Ssea+∆Sbox.

For every reaction, ∆Suniverse must be >0. We have just encountered another way to restate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In this case, the reaction can spontaneously occur even though the sea gives heat to the box during the reaction. An example of this is a beaker of water (the box) in which sodium chloride is dissolving. This is spontaneous even though the temp of the water drops as it is occurring.

This allows us to predict the nature and course of reactions, and also the free energy associated with the reactant and product in question. For a reaction to proceed, at the end of it, as a result of the reaction, there must be an increase in disorder in the universe, even if the reaction itself produces an island of order inside the cell. The laws of probability do not allow for this to be reversed. It would be analogous to eggs unbreaking. When we consider that a reaction can be predicted like this, if the ∆G of the product is greater than the reactant, the reaction will proceed spontaneously. If not, the reaction must be coupled to one which is, and that drives biological life.

This is given by the following formula

∆G=∆G(s)+RTlog{B}/{A}

What this basically says is that the change in free energy in a reaction will be equivalent to the free energy change under standard conditions for the products and reactants (available to be consulted in any data booklet), where R is the gas constantt, T is the temperature in Kelvin, and {A} and {B} are the concentration of A and B in mol/liter respectively.

Many chemical reactions are wholly reversible. If A can become B, there is no reason that B cannot become A. Indeed, most reactions do not go onto completion. They reach a point where the rate of backward reaction and forward reaction are equivalent (this can only be established in a closed system), and thus the concetration of product does not increase. Such a system is said to be in a system of dynamic equilibrium and the ratio with which the products are in with the reactants at the point of equilibrium is called the equilibrium constant or the Kc. The magnitude of the Kc will determine the free energy change. For some reaction aA+bB=>cC, then

Kc=[C]^c/[A]^a[B]^b

Note that this also depends on the molecularity of the reaction, which in turn determines the stoichiometric coefficients of the reaction.The higher this ratio, the more product is needed over reactants to establish dynamic equilbrium, meaning the probability of A becoming B is high, whilst that of B becoming A is low. We say that this reaction tends to completion and that it has a negative free energy change in the forward direction. Thus it has an equal and opposing free energy change in the back direction.

If B has a much lower G value than does A, and so is more probable, whilst B becoming A again is improbable. On the other hand, in biochemistry, reactants and products are violently colliding in the cytoplasm all the time, and this can provide the activation energy necessary such that B might return to A even though this is normally impossible because of the activation energy barrier. Consider a reaction with 100 molecules of A and 100 molecules of B. As A favourably turns into B, there will begin to be a large excess of B over A, and therefore, with the random collisions associated with molecules, a small amount of B will turn back into A. When the concentrations of the two are such that the rate of conversion of A to B is exactly the same as B to A, we say the reaction is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This is very useful because it allows us to calculate the concentrations of A and B and the standard free energy change if we so desire. Because thermodynamic equilibrium means ∆G=0, then the equation becomes:

-∆G(s)=RTlog(B)/(A)

For which we can rearrange to make the concentration the subject, where (B)^b/(A)^a would now represent the equilibrium constant for some reaction aA=>bB. The ratio of B over A such that the reaction proceeds in equilibrium raised to the power of the respective stoichiometric coefficients is this Kc. The greater this ratio, the greater the free energy loss, and the more favorable hence probable A to B becomes.

Now:

{B}/{A}=e^(-∆G(s)/RT)

For example, if a reaction A to B had an equilibrium constant of 10^5, it would mean that 10,000 times the number of molecule B would be needed over molecule A in order that the precise rate of A to B is equivalent to the rate of change of B to A, and then the two would be considered in chemical equilibrium. And, in that case, the free energy change would be precisely zero. The concept of free energy, or G, is what will be examined next.

The most useful composite function is Gibbs Free Energy (G) which allows one to deduce ∆S in the universe due to the reaction in the box. The formula is: G=H-TS.

For a box of volume V, H is the Enthalpy (mc∆T) T is the absolute temperature and S is the entropy. All of these apply to the inside of the box only. The change in free energy in the box during a reaction is given as the ∆G of the products minus the ∆G of the reactants. It is a direct measure of the disorder created in the universe when a reaction occurs. At a constant temp, ∆G= ∆H+T∆S. ∆H is the same as –h, the heat absorbed from the sea. Therefore

-∆G= -∆H +T∆S or -∆G=h+T∆S Therefore -∆G/T=h/t+∆S

h/T still equals ∆Ssea but the ∆S in the above equation is for the box. Therefore.

-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

A reaction will spontaneously proceed in the direction where ∆G<0, because it means that the ∆S will be >0. They are inverse functions of each other. For a complex set of coupled reactions involving many molecules, one can calculate ∆G by adding the ∆G of all the different types of molecules involved before the reaction, and comparing that to the ∆G of all the molecules produced by the end of the reaction.

∆Ssea +∆Scell =∆Suniverse

The entropy of the local system can decrease, providing the entropy of the global system increases. It was Schrodinger who realized that decreases in entropy and the construction of high-order patterns (measured by Gibb's Free Energy) are the result of a very important function in the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that for any concentric set of systems, decreases in entropy in local systems can be attained by a correspondingly larger increase in entropy in the total system.

But all high-order systems are open, otherwise they would be unsustainable. A closed system does not allow the crossing of heat, matter, energy etc across the boundary from the surrounding to the system. The necessity of all low-entropy systems is an influx of free energy, the expenditure of which is always compliant with thermodynamic, which allows for "order islands", that is, pockets of increasingly high order called the local system where the whole system (assuming closed) tends towards disorder. This is why the net entropy is always >0.

Now that we know all that we do about entropy, we must ask ourself precisely what the argument is and how entropy has anything to do with evolution. Although evolution is not directional, the history of life on Earth observes a general trend via which more biologically complex creatures, like humans, are the distant descendants of less complex ones, those that came first, prokaryota, etc. To someone who misunderstands the principles just outlined, this is a very crude analogy to the unshattering of an egg. However, this is not the case. Biological evolution is a generalized process that operates on entities which already generate order from disorder, biological entities. Yet as has just been exhaustively detailed, these entities existence are perfectly compliant with the laws of thermodynamics. All cells, in effect, are in a race against time, the inevitable disordering that occurs as a result of probability. If a bacterial cell dies, the processes running which generate order within the cell at the expense of order in the universe stop, and so the cell rapidly becomes disordered. The DNA starts to break and fragment and knot, the cell starts to swell due to osmosis since the pumps are no longer operating, and it will either reach a new osmotic equilbrium or burst. Live cells will order their internal components, and maintain an ordered system and generate more ordered systems out of less ordered ones, at expense of the surroundings. Thus to state that evolution violates thermodynamics would be redundant if true (it isn't). Life is an order generating process which works against the grain of thermodynamics because it contributes to the entropy of the surroundings. This process is only possible because biological life in turn operates via a series of chemical reactions that allow for order generation via intermediate reactions which contribute more disorder to the universe. The sustaining power behind this is the sun. It is no coincidence that the first life forms that appeared were cyanobacteria. Phototropism necessarily predates organotrophism, since the latter requires a preexisting stock of organic material which in turn must be generated in an order-generated process fed by an external source of energy. Photons are the stores of energy allowing for this process to occur, for via photosynthesis the plant produces glucose, via which it in turn runs the necessary mechanisms to stay ordered. This in turn allows for the development of organotrophes. It is no exaggeration to say that virtually all biological life depends on phototrophes. Evolution is simply a process operating on these order-generating systems. To state it would be in violation of thermodynamics would thus be redundant since it operates by definition upon processes which generate order, which, as we have seen, is permissible.

The thermodynamics equations that allow for evolution operate on the same mathematical principles that allow for other order-generating systems like reproduction etc. Entropy measures probability associated with ordered systems, but ordered systems, far from being random results of a vat number of possible microstates, are forced to be created as pockets of order, like us, in a disordering universe, because, ironically, of precisely the same principles. This is, in essence, what entropy is, a probability measure, but the probability only matters when the system is closed, which is why anyone who wishes to understand the principles must first understand that:

∆Ssea+∆Scell=∆Suniverse, whereby:

∆Suniverse>0

But the entropy of the local system can decrease, as long as a corresponding increase in entropy in the whole system obeys the second law, which dictates that ∆Suniverse for every reaction always>0. When S=KlogW, wherever W is vastly higher than the number of ordered states, it indicates, when ordered states are discovered, the entropy is lower. That’s what ordered states are, low entropy, hence low probability. But that probability function applies to a system where the total energy is increasingly progressing towards uniform distribution, the lowest energy state, like the universe. We do not live in such a system. Our system is supplied by a constant influx of free energy by a massive free energy generator which simultaneously generates vastly more entropy into the surrounding environs: A sun.

The mathematics, in short that dictate that you can drop salt into water and increase its order are the same mathematics which allow for the replication of DNA, the generation of a tree from a seed, the evolution of life. The Earth is an island of order fed by a influx of Gibb's Free energy, which, if you understand the logarithmic relationship between it and entropy, it should be easy to understand that the precise and quantifiable mathematics which allow for the coexistence of order-generators (like life) in an increasingly disordered universe is permitted. It is to these principles that you owe your very existence, since if they did not hold, a device of monstrously low entropy like a cell let alone a multicellular organism could never be generated:

Biological Life is a system of very high order, generating very high order, but at the expense of the universe overall. Without the laws of thermodynamics forcing things to take their lowest energy states, biology could not possibly functions. Proteins would not fold properly. Enzyme catalysis would not work. Bonds couldn’t form, reactions could not proceed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the functions associated make systems of extremely high order maintaining and producing this high order bound to expend a great deal of disordered heat energy into the surrounding system in order to continue functioning. This is the basis upon which carrier packets like NAD and ATP work. Systems of very high order can be generated in a universe which must progress towards disorder. Free energy can be created within a local system (like a cell) so long as the reaction required to do this forces the expenditure of significantly more disorder into the universe than order is produced in the local system. Without this, not only could evolution not occur, nothing could occur. Gas clouds would not collect, stars would not form, planets would not form, life would not form. Biological life is utterly forcibly complied with thermodynamics. Allow me to demonstrate:

The concept of an energy carrier molecule is very central in biochemistry. We have discussed before the concept of reactive bonds and groups in chemicals, that is, certain bonds and groups in certain molecules are very reactive, and when broken, release a great deal of energy, and such reactions are exothermic. Here, this is precisely what is employed. Eventually, the stepwise oxidation of glucose produces a set of energy carrier molecules which are used to drive biosynthetic reactions in a manner that we shall soon see. These energy carriers therefore act as the principle metabolic “currency” of the cell, distributing energy to where it is needed across the cell to fuel its processes and sustain its existence. We will be examining how energy carriers are produced from the stepwise oxidation of glucose after discussing what energy carriers are.

How do Energy Carriers Work? It is probably best to describe the universal principles upon which they work before going into each individual energy carrier molecule.

We have already met the concept of activation energy, and that the key purpose of catalysts, of which the biological ones are called enzymes, is to lower the free activation energy. However ,catalysts can only do that. That is, if the free energy of the product is still greater than a reactant, they cannot force such a reaction to occur. They cannot make a thermodynamically unfavorable reaction favorable, they can only make favorable reactions occur spontaneously. Or, rather, Imagine a dam which holds water back from a waterfall. The catalyst can remove the dam, thereby making the water flow downward, but cannot force the water to flow upwards.

However, energy carriers, technically, can do something similar to what I just described. That is, they can make a thermodynamically unfavorable reaction favorable. We have already met this entropy equation:

-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

That is to say, therefore, that in any reaction, the overall result of the reaction must be to increase the disorder in the universe, or it cannot occur. However, providing that the system in which the reaction occurs is open, an ordering reaction ( an endothermic reaction will disorder the system and order the surroundings and vice-versa for an exothermic reaction) can occur, just so long as the reaction causes a larger increase in entropy in the whole system than the decrease in the local system.

This central principle underlies biology. In this way, we can view ordered systems as pockets of order contributing to and in a universe progressing towards disorder.

Energy carriers will be the principle driving force behind the thermodynamically unfavorable reaction by ensuring that its occurances entails a release of greater disorder in the universe a a whole. The principle reactions that such energy carriers drive are polymerization reactions, and they often do so by means of contributing a reactive bond or chemical group which releases a great deal of energy, thereby contributing to the disorder of the universe, while simultaneously creating local order within the cell. Such a principle is called coupling reactions. To get a better understanding of coupling reactions, imagine rocks which fall off a cliff. No useful work is obtained by rocks falling off a cliff, but such a reaction is favorable and will occur spontaneously, that is, once pushed, rocks will fall off a cliff of their own accord. Now consider lifting a bucket of water. A bucket of water rising off the ground is thermodynamically unfavorable, and will never occur spontaneously.

But now imagine that a paddle wheel is placed on the ground which raises the buckets of water when the wheel is turned. Imagine now that the rocks falling from the cliff turn the paddle wheel and so raise the bucket of water.

In this analogy, the paddle wheel plays the role of the energy carrier molecule, the unfavorable reaction such as polymerization is represented by the bucket being raised off the ground. The favorable reaction represented by the rock falling is the breaking of the reactive bond on the energy carrier, which releases a great deal of energy.

We have already met the concept of reactive bonds being used to push reactions in one direction. We met it in lecture two, at the very end, regarding hydrocarbon polymerizations. The reactive double bonds of the monomers opened to link to form polymers. Because this reaction stabilizes the molecules by creating single covalent bonds, the reaction is favorable and will occur spontaneously. A similar idea is used with energy carriers being used to drive polymerization.

All energy carriers are molecules of which one part or group has a highly reactive group or bond which is donated to the monomer subunits undergoing polymerization. The release of energy makes the polymerization energetically favorable. The chemical potential energy in the ATP is used to drive a polymerization which could otherwise not occur and simultaneously cause such a large disordering effect on the universe as to increase the total entropy in the universe, in the form of heat energy released. So it is that everything your body does, replication of DNA, production of gametes, transcription, translation, nerve cell firing, etc. serves to increase the entropy of the universe. 

Since energy carrier molecules carry a single reactive bond or group, the rest of the molecule can be thought of as a “handle”, so to speak. This being the case, one of the principle outcomes of stepwise oxidation to produce energy packets is to “replenish” the molecule by means of the addition of the reactive group on that molecule. That reactive group is then used to drive anabolic processes. This can be schematically represented like this:

Figure 1.27 A Schematic representation of how energy carrier cycles work, the central feature of metabolism

I suppose now is a better time than ever to consider what precisely these molecules are, and what their handles are. Let us consider what is surely the most ubiquitous energy carrier, an energy currency used by virtually all known biological life, and the main product of the stepwise oxidation of glucose, a molecule called adenosine triphosphate.

This molecule consists of three groups we are already familiar with. The base (adenine), the sugar (ribose) and the phosphate group (triphosphate). The reactive group that provides the energy packet is the third phosphate. The phosphate bond in question is called a phosphodiester bond. The breaking of one phosphodiester bond releases a large amount of energy, roughly 11kJ/mol. It is used to power a large amount of cellular reactions. Let us take a simple example. The release of the energy willbreak off the last phosphate group, thereby leaving:

ATP=> ADP + Pi

WHere Pi is inorganic phosphate

ADP is adenosine diphosphate and ATP is broken into ADP + Pi via the opposite of condensation, that is, we already met condensation discussing polymerization. When polymerized bonds are formed, water is expelled, but when bonds are broken, water is consumed. Hence the central reaction of ATP breaking into ADP + Pi is termed hydrolysis, since it is "splitting by water", as shown:

Note that the consumed water molecule is incorporated into the inorganic phosphate and the ADP. That is, when the Pi splits off, it leaves exposed chemical groups that are polar, and will pull a water molecule apart, to form an OH group and an H group, that will "seal the gap" so to speak on the exposed faces of ADP and Pi.

Suppose I wanted to form a bond beween molecules A and B. Typically, in biology, bonds are formed between an exposed OH group on one molecule, and an H group on another molecule, so the two molecules would be denoted A-H and B-OH.

This reaction is unfavorable. Bonds like this are thermodynamically unfavorable and cannot occur spontaneously. The reactant has a lower free energy than the product. In this case, the energy carriers play the role of the waterwheel already described. The energy carrier reactive group’s bond is broken from the handle, which forms an inorganic phosphate, and so the reactive bond displaces the OH group on molecule B, forming this: B-O-PO3.

The bond between molecule B and the phosphate is very reactive. That is why it will form spontaneously, since the product has a lower free energy than the reactant, since the splitting of ATP releases a great deal of energy. And so, the reaction will proceed via the reactive intermediate phosphate bond. That is to say, the following reaction:

A-H + B-OH => A-B + H2O

Is an unfavorable condensation reaction. We already met the concept of condensation. It is the method of polymerization of all types of biological polymers. It cannot occur by itself. However, via an intermediate, the following reaction occurs:

ATP => ADP + Pi

B-OH + Pi => B-O-PO3

B-O-PO3 + A-H => A-B + H2O + Pi

 

Note that “Pi” is the denotation for inorganic phosphate.

The Pi is then used again, being joined back to ADP to form ATP. However, this condensation reaction of ADP + Pi => ATP is energetically unfavorable, since ATP has a higher free energy than ADP. The replenishment of the ADP handle is done through the central metabolic pathway of the stepwise oxidation of glucose.


"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Remember wild Fred Hoyle ,

Remember wild Fred Hoyle , his star dust ideas on earth life beginnings / rejecting chemical evolution ?  But I thought what the heck's the difference. What isn't star dust !!??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

Oh, the lover, truly "self taught musician",  interesting Joni Mitchell, who grew up isolated .... she didn't know standard guitar tuning, she made up her own (as many as 50 variations) .....did her own thing on piano too ..... Jazz giant, Charles Mingus called her before his death and asked her to record a CD album with him.

From her Lyrics

"We are stardust

Billion year old carbon

We are golden

Caught in the devils bargain

And we've got to get ourselves

Back to the garden"

      The song,  "Woodstock" ~ Joni Mitchell     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SjqGfe-yM

   Joni was so cool, most everyone loved her ..... read here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Mitchell#Influences_on_other_artists

 - Sorry for getting so romantically off topic ... again - (giggles and teary joy) 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
That's fine

But every arguement creationlists bring, get brought down because of the ignorance of it all, you will have to come up with something new. So far I haven't heard anything new from any creationlist. Oh and no evidence of god either.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:I don't want

Whitefox wrote:

I don't want to derail this thread with this particular sidebar. But I will be glad to do it with you on SKYPE. My SKYPE ID is BIBLEDOOR.  I will say here.  Paul was a murderer of Christians prior to his physical encounter with Jesus in the desert which turned his life 180 degrees.. Not well trusted. Secondly he took the message of our Lord Jesus Christ to its logical conclusion as prophecied in the old testament.  The Old Testament teaches that the Gentiles would enter into the faith of Abraham.  Paul understood this and persued its fulfillment. The other Jewish followers were slow in recognizing Pauls authority but finally they did after 14 years recognize him as the Apostole to the Gentiles.  Regarding the fulfillment of Prophecy from the Old testament that Gentiles (non-jews) would become followers of the faith of Abraham, I wrote a tract.

Sorry, I don't use SKYPE. I will, however, start another thread for this.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But every arguement

Quote:

But every arguement creationlists bring, get brought down because of the ignorance of it all, you will have to come up with something new. So far I haven't heard anything new from any creationlist. Oh and no evidence of god either.

It is spelled "creationist". You've mispelled it so many times.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Ok thanks

I never was a great speller, but thanks anyways, creationist....won't forget it.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
So... Whitefox... are you

So... Whitefox... are you going to tell deludedgod what you understand about the theory of evolution? Or are you going to continue to ignore the very reasonable request of knowing the basics of what you argue against?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Now now... let's be

Now now... let's be reasonable. The man might not have the time to check internet forums and compose lengthy replies while at work. It's only been 13 hrs since his last reply, and I'd guess most of that was spent asleep.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Now now... let's

BMcD wrote:

Now now... let's be reasonable. The man might not have the time to check internet forums and compose lengthy replies while at work. It's only been 13 hrs since his last reply, and I'd guess most of that was spent asleep.

He gave me quite a challenge. I was off enjoying our civic Holiday called "Canada Day" today. I believe you celebrate July 4rh. I will be building a deck, Revamping a Turbo 87 T-Bird with my son this week that I put in storage for 10 years. Have new front end for it. Needs new windshield, needs welding in rear shock tree, Needs hing welded on door and we'll start all the sanding and priming stuff on it.  Putting a new finish on my boat to ready it for sale. The week is full of 12 hour days planned until Saturday.

I will try to respond on the weekend. Sorry for the delay.

I will only have time to stick with this thread after that for awhile. God Bless.  He can do that even without your permission or will for Him to do so.

The Bible says "We love Him because He first loved us. Even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."  Even befofre we respond appropriately to Him he volunteers his love toward us.

Ray,

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3931
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:The Bible

Whitefox wrote:

The Bible says "We love Him because He first loved us.

That and you won't be tortutured in Hell for all eternity. Aren't you really just being a devine ass kisser to get heaven instead of hell?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox, I vote that you

Whitefox, I vote that you acknowledge Deludedgod's question.  It's really simple.  What are the five fundamentals of evolutionary biology?

You don't get to prance in here claiming to know about evolution and then just not answer when someone challenges you to prove it.   Put up or shut up.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
GOD is everything sin

GOD is everything, sin included. WE are god, we are "condemned to be free", we are god, God is all physics, we are the god physics of life where Love is our law.

Paisley says God is love .... I say , "and a whole lot more" ...... I AM what I AM , all god , where nothing is separate .... I AM alive where love is the law ....

   Buddha said be nice to ourselves, why worry about god? ..... no lies, trust your own common sense,  wisdom.  

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:He gave me quite a

Quote:

He gave me quite a challenge.

A competent high school biologist could answer in less than 20 seconds. When the 5 theories are put together in the combined Theory of Evolution, the answer can be given in one sentence.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
No secrets DG. I need that

No secrets DG. I need that sentence .....


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Pssst... IAGAY... We want

Pssst... IAGAY... We want him to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  We can't give the answer away yet.  When he admits that he believes what he wants to be true, not what he knows to be true, we'll tell you.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Well Hamby , was just

Well Hamby , was just wanting to stop that book from publication. Hey Whitefox, let's think this over .... hey the kids man .... only the truth .... please please .....


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Tumbleweeds roll aimlessly

Tumbleweeds roll aimlessly through the middle distance as the huddled group of atheists await the return of the great white fox, dragging behind him on a sledge the accumulated bunkum of a lifetime, his collection of unfounded ideas and, in his navel, the inconsequential fluff that is known to be his actual knowledge of the evolutionary process.

 

A pointed finger from one causes them all to focus their scrutiny on a single point far out in the searingly arid and lifeless wastes they know as the Demented Desert but which the locals call - almost in terror - "faithlands". In  the distance they espy the miniscule but unmistakeable vultures patiently circling over their invisible quarry, the only evidence for which is the rising cloud of dry and phlegmatic dust raised by the burden which their adversary has chosen to drag behind him throughout his life. "He is coming," whispered latincanuck, almost as if to himself. "It must be him. At last!"

 

The unearthly silence, so innocently broken, now disappears completely and violently in a cacophony of noise as Deluded God, woken by latincanuck's news, hurriedly begins to arrange his notes, books, essays and other sundry evidences into a pile of logical sequence before him, rebuttals to the left, questions to the right, and in the centre his most treasured and complicated pile of all, his proofs .

 

But just as suddenly as it had been shattered, the benign and ethereal silence is restored and Deluded God's frantic rustling stopped by the faintest touch of Hamby's hand on his arm. "Relax, DG," he says, indicating the vultures as they swoop in unison from their lofty sentinel and dive on their unseen feast out in the distant wastes, the dust cloud that had signalled their adversary's faltering progress evaporating in the same instant and borne away on the faintest zephyr. It is all over in a moment. "You won't be needing those now, friend. Come on, put them away. Latincanuck, it's your round. After all, you started this."

 

They turn and leave behind them the barren wasteland of faithlands and its latest victim. A mere ten paces across the car park, through the swing door, and they are once more ensconsed around their favourite table at the Rational Bar&Diner cheerfully ordering three ice cool beers from the attractive waitress (why are the rational women always the most goddamned attractive?). A silent toast is raised to the ignorance outside the cosy bar's window. They chuckle.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy