<p>back to the entropy thing......you're right...the larger a molecule, then the higher the entropy...BUT....the length of a molecule does not make it larger than a compound with fewer atoms...it depends on electronegativity and repulsive forces along with atomic radii. For example...a molecule of BaF2 is smaller than the ionic compound NaI.....furthermore.... many amine molecules are more stable than your average covalent molecule and they tend to compress to a further degree, while repulsive forces tend to make covalent molecules expand.</p>
<p>"Okay, sorry about the double post. Below is a dang good be all end all refutation of creationists' anti-abiogenesis claims:"</p>
<p>What kept the pre-life polymer from starting a gray-death endgame before the game of life even started, then?</p>
<p>"again, even the rate of reaction is small, formation is possible given the long period of time, and peptide bonds are facilitated by enzymes."</p>
<p>another contradiction of the evolution theory. enzymes my friend are proteins, and very very complex ones so for a peptide bond to form in a catalytic enzyme one needs an enzyme, but how can you have an enzyme if you can't even clump together 50 or more amino acids to form even a simple protein.</p>
<p>"the length of a molecule does not make it larger than a compound with fewer atoms...it depends on electronegativity and repulsive forces along with atomic radii. For example...a molecule of BaF2 is smaller than the ionic compound NaI.....furthermore.... many amine molecules are more stable than your average covalent molecule and they tend to compress to a further degree, while repulsive forces tend to make covalent molecules expand."</p>
<p>please explain your point a little bit clearer. I dont see how the length or stability of atomic bonds validate lower entropy for amino acids</p>
<p>"another contradiction of the evolution theory. enzymes my friend are proteins, and very very complex ones so for a peptide bond to form in a catalytic enzyme one needs an enzyme, but how can you have an enzyme if you can't even clump together 50 or more amino acids to form even a simple protein."</p>
<p>not all enzyme (catalyst) are proteins.</p>
<p>"please explain your point a little bit clearer. I dont see how the length or stability of atomic bonds validate lower entropy for amino acids"</p>
<p>the larger the molecule is, there are more ways for it to be positioned in space at a given time, thus less certainty about its structure.</p>
<p>"not all enzyme (catalyst) are proteins."
if we are restricting ourselves to biochemical catalysts then all enzymes are proteins. please give me a few enzymes that are not made up of amino acids.</p>
<p>"the larger the molecule is, there are more ways for it to be positioned in space at a given time, thus less certainty about its structure."
just because there are many different possibilties for a molecule to be arranged does not mean that one of the many "correct" structures will have lower entropy than the other.</p>
<p>you have to compare moleculars in the same class, and we went over this before, ENTROPY didn;t matter if H is good enough</p>
<p>"if we are restricting ourselves to biochemical catalysts then all enzymes are proteins. please give me a few enzymes that are not made up of amino acids."</p>
<p>the original carbon catalysts are not protein at all. links have been lost of course, we have a different earth today.</p>
<p>this discussion is fruitless. you won't prove science wrong using your half-A S Sed ideas about science (if you have not throughly examined evolution before, you don't have a right to talk), and i won't alter your faith.</p>
<p>science itself proves evolution wrong. people like you think that creation theory demands blind religious faith with no rational and scientific thinking. the probability of a modest size protein forming is 1 in 10^300. that is 1 followed by 300 zeroes. in the realm of practicality any probabilty more than 1 in 10^50 is refered to as 'zero probability'. evolutionist following their own blind materialistic philosophy use circular logic saying " well if we exist, then evolution HAD to have happened". no matter how many billion years you give it, life cannot form on its own.</p>
<p>@homie: Visit the abiogenesis website I posted. Read it thoroughly. Afterward, just try to repeat your last post with a straight face.</p>
<p>well...with larger atomic radii, the individual atoms have more room to viabrate back and forth, so they're more likely to be softer with a higher level of atomic disorganization. Electrons are more spread out, so it's easier for them to break their bonds/form new ones...the more positions a bond can be in determine varying characteristics of the substance itself...larger atoms have looser bonds....i'll use group 1 elements as an example...as you proceed down the group, the elements become softer and softer and they also increase in reactivity....this increase in reactivity is directly related to atomic radii, which in turn is directly related to entropy. The higher the entropy of a substance, the easier it is to break bonds between atoms of the same substance to form new compounds....when you move towards groups 5-7(nitrogen-halides) the situation is reversed, because there is a higher emphasis on electronegativity.....as you move UP the group, the more entropy an element has....because of dispersion forces....the less electronegative a substance, the larger amount of dispersion forces.....that explains why phosphorus is solid and nitrogen is a gas / sulfur is a solid and oxygen is a gas......entropy INCREASES as you move up the group, because the atoms become more negative...the more negative a charge, the higher amount of electron-electron repulsion, the higher the level of entropy.</p>
<p>Don't know if it's been said, but the entropy thing holds true for evolution when one considers energy output/conversion/etc, as humans are terribly inefficient at getting energy out of food, etc, whereas less develped organisms are much more proficient at this. This would indicate a moving towards a greater state of disorder in evolution, especially when one considers heat death, the evolution of humans would fall in line with that (ie. more useful work being converted to very useless heat). </p>
<p>And again, for the third time I would like to say that evolution does not prove or disprove the notion of God. </p>
<p>And believing that "the Flood" is responsible for early development is perhaps the most foolish thing I've read in a while, and I'm a fairly devout Christain. Seriously, you'd be hard pressed to find any sane Christian who would believe in the Flood (ie as caused by God), as the story is largly based on the Gilgamesh epic and was used to illustrate a moral, recreation story to the early Israelites. </p>
<p>Please, don't make me go Biblical theologian on you...because you're twisting my faith and making it appear foolhardy and ridiculous. </p>
<p>Also the big question: what about dinos? Humans and good ol' TRex were separate eras, and dino fossiles have been dated quite far back, kind of difficult to argue with a literalits/foolish take on the Bible.</p>
<p>So it makes me foolish to take God at face value?</p>
<p>To me, it's more foolish to try to find hidden motives behind God, as if we could one-up Him...</p>
<p>i think it's foolish to take everything in the blible literally, some of them are actually metaphors.</p>
<p>i am not Christian and I do not believe that the current Bible (or Bibles) we have today are the original revealed word of God. Therefore I will not try to uphold or deny Christian claims about the Flood or dinosaurs.</p>
<p>"the entropy thing holds true for evolution when one considers energy output/conversion/etc, as humans are terribly inefficient at getting energy out of food, etc, whereas less develped organisms are much more proficient at this. This would indicate a moving towards a greater state of disorder in evolution, especially when one considers heat death, the evolution of humans would fall in line with that (ie. more useful work being converted to very useless heat)."</p>
<p>on the one hand you are saying that from simple bacterium to human beings, disorder is increasing because of decrease in energy output. yet the transition from ancestrial bacteria to humans is supposed to show increasing complexity(and please do not confuse increasing complexity with increasing entropy).</p>
<p>I am not talking about complexity of structure, I am speaking of energy output/conversion and how efficient an organism can transfer energy into useful work rather than allow it to be lost as mere heat (research Heat Death if you're interested). Humans are inefficient compared to other "simpler" organisms at performing this task, therefore disorder is increasing in terms of the percentage of energy that's converted into something useful. </p>
<p><quote>To me, it's more foolish to try to find hidden motives behind God, as if we could one-up Him...</quote></p>
<p>If you have had any Scripture study at all, you would know that there is more than one way (literal) to interpret Scripture. You have to understand that there is a historical context, an allegorical context, a moral context, etc along with base literal interpretation. </p>
<p>Now, forgive me for delving this far into religion, but the belief holds (and I believe it to be true) that the Bible was writeen vis a vis divine inspiration by Moses and other prophets of the time. Now, God during Old Testament times was trying to lead His peopel to salvation/the Promised Land, and he needed to spread his word. Naturally though, being fairly primitive peoples, he could not speak about His divine nature and hope to be understood, therefore He had to communicate with the peopel through means/terms they understood. He had to work within their concepts of time, place, etc as well as their historical knowledge- and since most of the Israelites would have been familiar with the Gilgamesh epic, is was used as a basis to teach moral truths. There is some literal meaning behind it, say that humans did literally turn away from God, therefore a recreation or revamping of religion was needed, and God communicated this process through the Gilgamesh epic. </p>
<p>OK, I'm tapped right now on my Biblical theology, but my point is that God does not speak simply through the literal just as Jesus spoke through parables, so it is foolhardy to look at the Bible from just one perspective. </p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>obviously, energy conversion in humans is more inefficeint than in some single celled bacteria because in humans, there are multiple stages in which energy is converted as compared to a process in one bacteria. Energy is lost in converting raw material to chemical energy, storing it, and transferring it to where it is needed. This is much larger in humans than in bacteria because the energy that's created is not immediately used up, but stored which loses energy thus lowering the actual output.</p>
<p>anyways, i'm not even talking about biochemical processes, just one simple chemical process where a bunch of gases is forming an amiino acid. the higher entropy of the gases will not on its own react to form a molecule with a significantly lower entropy</p>
<p>Lets just consider that amino acids or organic molecules formed. Somehow by luck or chance or spontaneously but not by god or external force. Then, how did LIFE evolve? Ok u can have a DNA or RNA or something similar. When and how did these things debvelop to perform specific functions like proteins and when and how did the ability of survival and reproducibility form? What is the simplest species that can survive and reproduce and is not dependent on other organic life forms? Because back in the times of early earth and life formation, there couldnt have been anything parasitic or carnivorous or anything like that since there wouldnt have been any other life forms. So, anything "trying" to survive would've had to depend on energy and inorganic substances. What would've been the first LIFE FORM????
THIS IS REALLY CONFUSING. We cant even prove or disprove the spontaneous formation of amino acids and simple organic molecules!! How can we answer such questions??? I truly do not believe in GOD and stuff. I'm a Hindu and the stories of our gods and people date way back before christianity. So, there are more miraculous hapennings. Many unimaginable ones. Each religion has its own theory on formation of life. None can be proved or disproved. Only Science must create a truly provable theory.</p>
<p><quote>So, anything "trying" to survive would've had to depend on energy and inorganic substances.</quote></p>
<p>Yes, there is energy from inorganic substances, such as sunlight. In our modern world, heterotrophs such as plants depend on sunlight for energy.</p>
<p>Anyway, the debate on the origin of life is hardly a debate of Christianity vs. Science. There are many Christians who believe that God used evolution as a tool to form this Earth. Also, like somebody mentioned above, the account in Genesis doesn't have to be taken literally. In fact, Biblical scholars have been interpreting the account of creation in many different ways before Darwin was even born (i.e. far before evolution was even thought of). Furthermore, even Darwin himself was a Christian. Therefore, being a Christian certainly doesn't mean you can't believe science's explanation of the origin of life.</p>