For those who want a quick impression of the 'Evolution in crisis' book:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution%3A_A_Theory_in_Crisis?wprov=sfla1
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman 205 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Anders Andersen
-
WhatshallIcallmyself
"In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sr. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10^40K." - TWM
There is nothing simple about a 1 celled organism. It is this type of misunderstanding that is leading you down the garden path to the shed of absolute nonsense.
When people have worked these figures out, as in this case, the assumption to the calculations has been what is the likelihood of the sequences appearing, fully formed and all together in 1 neat package. That, of course, is what happens in creation accounts and is not what science teaches on these subjects. Another assumption is that amino acid sequences are randomly joined with no preference for order. This is wrong...yet again...
Suffice it to say, there is a lot more to these calculations that is being revealed in your posts...
-
-
Caedes
Apologize for the amount of time it took to find it. It is from "Evolution A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton. His source is ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function [1972 edition]’.
That book isn't peer reviewed science and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who cares about the veracity of their statements.
It is not that simple. It is estimated that it takes 10x10^21 mutations to get five codons to mutate in the right order to fold in the right form to accomplish the function.
I have already explained the basics of how evolution actually works and why it works to eliminate harmful mutations, if you are going to keep on stating the same things and ignoring the replies then the other posters who are calling you a troll are right.
But that is not what we see. The difference between a cyclostome and fish [75%], amphibian [81%], bird [78%], marsupial [76%] and mammal [73%]. Notice mammals are closer to cyclostome than a fish. What this leads to is that all living things appeared at the same time.
I am only interested in hard scientific data not creationist flim flam.
They seem to all have died in one cataclysmic event.
Unfortunately for you I studied geology and you couldn't be more wrong, I live not far from the jurassic coast, fossils are very common there. Perhaps you could come and point out those fossil rabbits because I (and everyone else who has ever actually studied fossils) have never found one.
You should do yourself a favour and actually read some proper reference books on geology and fossils because you clearly know nothing about the subject. Do you really think that scientists just make up things, do you know how the scientific method works and how peer review works? Do you know what I mean by empirical data, falsifiability or reproducability? Do you know what scientists mean by hypothesis and theory?
Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing.
Really? What makes you think you are remotely qualified to make that statement?
If it was transitional the feathers would be half way between scales to feathers, but it is not.
Feathers didn't evolve from scales, do some research.
Lecomte du Noüy believed in the supernatural and even if he believed in evolution his hypotheses were roundly discounted by the scientific community of his day.
-
towerwatchman
Anders Andersen
For those who want a quick impression of the 'Evolution in crisis' book:
When it comes to the issue of creation vs evolution any publication favoring either side will be heavily contested by the opposing side. It would be better to pick a point from the opposing publication and discuss it.
-
towerwatchman
Whatshallicallmyself
There is nothing simple about a 1 celled organism. It is this type of misunderstanding that is leading you down the garden path to the shed of absolute nonsense.
I agree, a cell is very complicated. If Darwin knew about the irreducible complexity a cell has, I am sure he would have thought twice before publishing.
When people have worked these figures out, as in this case, the assumption to the calculations has been what is the likelihood of the sequences appearing, fully formed and all together in 1 neat package. That, of course, is what happens in creation accounts and is not what science teaches on these subjects. Another assumption is that amino acid sequences are randomly joined with no preference for order. This is wrong...yet again... Suffice it to say, there is a lot more to these calculations that is being revealed in your posts...
The calculations are based on Anatomy and Physiology 101, and Probability and Statistics 101.
To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup there are several combinatorial problems – probabilistic hurdles- to overcome. First, all amino acids must form a peptide bond when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. If the amino acids do not link up with one another via a peptide bond, the resulting molecule will not fold into a protein. In nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. In fact, when amino acid mixtures are allowed to react in a test tube, they form peptide and none peptide bonds with roughly equal probability. Thus, with each amino acid addition, the probability of it forming a peptide bond is roughly ½. Once four amino acids have become linked, the likelihood that they are joined exclusively by peptide bonds is roughly [1/2]^4. The probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages is {1/2}^149, or 1 chance in 10^45.Second in nature every amino acid found in proteins [ with one exception] has a distinct mirror image of itself, there is one left handed version, or L form, and one right handed version, or D form. These mirror image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right handed and left handed isomers are produced with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into account further compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining, at random only L amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 150 amino acids long is [1/2]^150 or roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Starting from mixtures of D and L form the probability of building a 150 amino acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L form is, therefore, roughly 1 chance in 10^90.
Amino acids link together when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another. Notice that water is the byproduct of the reaction. [Condensation reaction].
Functional proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all, their amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements. In some cases, changing even one amino acid at a given site results in the loss of protein function. Moreover, because a there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small 1/20 [actually the probability is even lower because in nature, there are also may none protein forming amino acids.] On the assumption that each site is a protein chain requires a particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 150 amino acids long would be [1/20]^150 or roughly 1 chance 10^195. 1chance in 10^195.
Very simple, high school level.
-
-
Finkelstein
When trying to have an openly honest discussion with someone who constantly uses only selectively biased information to support their own preconceived position, your really not having an openly honest discussion,
From witnessing the threads topics that towerwatchman has started, this is all one gets out of it ......
-
towerwatchman
Caedes
That book isn't peer reviewed science and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who cares about the veracity of their statements.
So what? Does no peer review equate to false? Notice the issue anyone has with the author is his interpretation of the figures, no one is questioning the figures. Why?
I have already explained the basics of how evolution actually works and why it works to eliminate harmful mutations, if you are going to keep on stating the same things and ignoring the replies then the other posters who are calling you a troll are right.
How does evolution work? By Natural selection? The all- purpose answer.
I am only interested in hard scientific data not creationist flim flam.
The data is from ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function. In the critiques that have been posted or linked no one is doubting the atlas. Now apply the same to the evolutionist who when he finds a bone creates a whole creature and environment from it. Who is flim flamming.
Unfortunately for you I studied geology and you couldn't be more wrong, I live not far from the jurassic coast, fossils are very common there. Perhaps you could come and point out those fossil rabbits because I (and everyone else who has ever actually studied fossils) have never found one.
For anything to have been fossilized to the extent that we have the feathers of a bird, or the scales of a fish, or a fish eating a fish the fossils had to have been buried right away. This does not happen every day. They were buried quickly most likely during a cataclysmic event. Note Karoo Formation of South Africa that contains 800 billion vertebrates such as reptiles. And many of those creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together.
You should do yourself a favour and actually read some proper reference books on geology and fossils because you clearly know nothing about the subject. Do you really think that scientists just make up things, do you know how the scientific method works and how peer review works? Do you know what I mean by empirical data, falsifiability or reproducability? Do you know what scientists mean by hypothesis and theory?
I have read books on both subjects. As to “scientist” making things up. Let’s see.
Pakicetus Inachus
When found in 1983 by PD Gingerich it was immediately declared to be a primitive whale based on fragments of one skull. Nothing below the skull was found at that moment to support the idea that it was a sea creature. The assumptions were based totally on skull fragments.
Based on fragments, it was described as having a semi aquatic life style and illustrated on the front cover of the prestigious journal ‘Science’ as an aquatic mammal absent of hind legs.
When additional fossils were found Pakicetus has a four footed skeletal structure similar to that of wolves or mesonychids.
Rodhocetus.
There is discrepancy between the reconstructive description of Rodhocetus and the fossil evidence. The reconstruction had a whale fluke but there was no fossil evidence to confirm this.
When PD Gingerich was asked about the fluke discrepancy he said, “Well we don’t have the tail for Rodhocetus so we don’t know for sure it had a ball vertebrae indicating a fluke so I speculated it had a fluke.”
Also the flippers were drawn on.
When asked about the flippers, Gingerich said, “Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands and the arms of Rodhocetus and we understand that it does not have the kind of hands that can be spread out like a whale, and if you don’t have flippers I don’t think you can have a fluke and really power swimming, I doubt that Rodhocetus had a fluke tail.”
But it is still drawn with a fluke and flippers.
Really? What makes you think you are remotely qualified to make that statement?
Really? I need qualifications to question? Tell me what is the determining factor[s] that favors one species over another for survival? And if so, is there any evidence for it? No one knows. Since Natural Selection became the answer for everything, it is the answer for nothing.
Feathers didn't evolve from scales, do some research.
Let’ reword that for you. We do not have the creature with both scales and feathers.
-
Finkelstein
Creationists like to postulate about where are the intermediate fossils if evolution does occur ?
Here end of discussion.
