Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman 205 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Coded Logic

  What you have is a fish with five unique bones . . .
  - TWM

  Except, of course, that their bones aren't "unique" are they? Did you notice the hand bones in Ticktallik are the same bones we see in the hands of every reptile, bird and mammal alive today?

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  . . .
  But it doesn't stop there does it? Prior to the Tiktaalik, we don't see ANY land animals do we? And as we move up through the geological column we see these "unique fish" looking more and more reptilian.

  
  

  . . . and someone's opinion based on comparative anatomy that it is a transitional species.

  Except, of course, that it's not based on "someONEs" opinion is it? Rather, it's based upon evidence, research, peer review, and scientific consensus isn't it?

  
  http://courses.washington.edu/bio354/Paper%203.pdf

  http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060405/full/news060403-7.html

  http://www.academia.edu/407901/Tetrapod_Trackways_From_the_Early_Middle_Devonian_Period_of_Poland

  Comparative anatomy will always be gray and ambiguous.

  Except, or course, that it's neither of those things is it? Instead, far from being "ambiguous" we know that Comparative Anatomy is a scientific field of study - subject to all the rigors and scrutiny imposed by the process' or verification and falsification.

  And isn't it also true that Comparative Anatomy is based upon work done by scientists who are experts in their fields and who have spent decades researching their respective findings? Scientists who understand the difference between Homologuous, Analogous, and Homoplastic Structures - just to start with the basics. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

  And isn't it also true that the findings of Comparative Anatomy are backed up by modern day DNA sequencing? Please tell me, how a whole scientific enterprise - one that's been demonstrated to be a reliable method for making determinations about species - can be called "gray" or "ambiguous"?

  Just a thought, but before you go dismissing the work of an entire field of study - perhaps you should learn something about it first

  We all know you don't have a bone to pick with Comparative Anatomy because you have well researched and informed opinion. Rather, the only reason you're objecting is because it conflicts with you preconceived notions about creationism.
  

  We DON'T see you running around saying "particle physics is just someones opinion". Or, "chemistry will always be gray and nebulous" even though they're based upon the exact same types of inferences and deductions as Comparative Anatomy.

  What you have is hundreds of fossils that demonstrate a common designer.

  
  

  Alright, I'll bite. How do these hundreds of fossils demonstrate a common designer? And what empirically reliable method did you use to make this determination?
  
  

  
  
• 

  Coded Logic

  • Stop hiding in the obscure, gray, subjective world of comparative anatomy, and step in to the objective world of mathematics and genetics.
    -TWM

    I think there's something deeply dishonest about you making this claim. Multiple people on this forum - myself included - have attempted to engage you on the mathematics and genetics. I even went so far as to post the actual calculations used and the different methodologies.

    Instead of addressing any of the points raised, you instead copy and pasted this multiple times:

    Let’s talk about chimp to man. Evolutionist say that the difference between man and chimp is 1.5 %. Does not seem much. What we need to find out is how much is much. When we hear that there is a 1 ½ % difference between man and chimp it seems not to be much. But we must take into account what 1 ½% exactly means. If there are three billion base pairs in a human 1 ½% calculates to 45 million base pairs or 15 million codons. It is estimated that it would take 10X10^21 mutations to get five condons to mutate in the right order. One and half percent does not look like much but when analyzed, it becomes overwhelming evidence against man ever evolving from a chimp.

    
    
    Let me be as clear as I possibly can
    
  • . . .
    THIS:
    
    
  • . . .
    Is NOT this:
    
    It'd be like if I explained the complexities of a Saturn V Rocket and someone said, "Well I don't think we ever went to the moon because a pogo stick could never jump that high."
    
    Likewise, after I went into the science and mathematics of Mitochondrial DNA, the X Chromosome, Allele Frequencies, and Endogenous Retro Virus' - for you to bring up how much DNA we share with chimps, and then turn around and object to what I said on those grounds - is absolutely bone headed and doesn't come even close to addressing to the very real science I raised.
    
    Once again, let me be clear: Pogo sticks are NOT what we used to get to the moon. And overly simplistic shared DNA stats are NOT how we use genetics to demonstrate common ancestry.
    
    If you want to talk about the mathematics and genetics than let's talk about the mathematics and genetics. But in order for us to do that you're going to have to stop hiding behind this cheap strawman that you've concocted.
    
    Nobody is going to be able to have a meaningful conversation if you don't engage with them honestly.
    
    
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  TWM -

  I hope you take note of Coded Logic's post above...
  
• 

  cofty

  TWM has left the building.
• 

  Coded Logic

  Thanks for the shout out WSCM.
• 

  konceptual99

  Absolutely. Brilliant.
• 

  konceptual99

  Interestingly enough data analysis is exactly what has resulted in a new paper being presented that questions the classic two groups of dinosaurs - bird hipped and lizard hipped.

  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/t-rex-gets-new-home-shakeup-dino-family-tree

  The work is causing some waves and the hypothesis may yet be proven false however the interesting thing is how the conclusions have been reached.

  It is not possible to examine dinosaur DNA to work out the genetic relationships but it is possible to examine different traits in the skeletons and process this massive dataset to look for similarities and patterns.

  The author of the paper was interviewed in a recent BBC Radio 4 Science programme and he is expecting his findings to be rigorously challenged because this is how science works but is nevertheless a great example of how mathematics can be scientifically used to understand the evolutionary process.
• 

  Finkelstein

  What's this transitional species bullshit anyways ?

  
• 

  NathanM.

  But we must take into account what 1 ½% exactly means. If there are three billion base pairs in a human 1 ½% calculates to 45 million base pairs or 15 million codons. It is estimated that it would take 10X10^21 mutations to get five condons to mutate in the right order.

  
  

  Towerwatchman has been spamming the internet with this same bogus argument for years. He claims nobody has addressed - this is total rubbish. He frequently engages in plagiarism to this end, and it is impossible for him to admit he is wrong about anything. But he is not telling the truth when he claims nobody ever addresses his claims.

  
  

  His claims have been utterly demolished in every forum I have seen him copy-paste them in.

  
  

  Take the quote above - surely, anyone with high school biology can see something is off in it.

  
  

  Anyone with college biology is certain something is off.

  
  

  And anyone that has taken genetics KNOWS that it is 100% nonsense.

  
  

  
  

  1. He asserts that all of the mutational differences between human and chimp are only in human

  2. He asserts that ALL of the mutations are in coding regions

  3. He asserts that all of the mutations must add codons

  4. that these codons must be "in the right order"

  
  

  1-4 are utter nonsense. In actual fact, the vast majority of all mutations are in noncoding DNA. since humans and chimps have BOTH been evolving 'away from' each for the same amount of time, and we both have roughly similar generations times, humans and chimps 'split' the difference mutation-wise.

  He has also claimed and been 100% incapable of addressing, much less explaining, that all 'trait changes' REQUIRE at least 1 brand new structural protein, and each new protein requires at least 300 new nucleotides 'in the right order.'

  In summary, TWM is monumentally ignorant of the very subject matter he pontificates on, and as we can plainly see in this thread, he is arrogant and condescending and it is his ignorance that makes him this way - he doesn't know enough to know that he is wrong.

  
  

  
  
  
• 

  NathanM.

  Nobody is going to be able to have a meaningful conversation if you don't engage with them honestly.

  
  

  EXACTLY.