Posts by Caedes

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

Caedes

Atheism is not a statement that there is no god, it is a statement that no theist has provided empirical evidence of a god or gods.

Since your definition is flawed then so is the rest of your OP.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

Caedes

You keep on using those figures and still haven't actually stated a source for them, if you had any understanding of basic scientific principles you would understand why they are being dismissed.

However you are looking at one protein, and it is being coded by a ubiquitous gene. What that means is that it is coding for a very basic function, one that is common to all life.

Since there are lots of ways of functionally coding for this protein (as I mentioned before) then if life were unrelated then you would expect that there would be a wide variety in how it is coded.

What we actually see is that it is coded in a very similar way and that the small differences reflect how related any two organisms are. The more closely related the the two organisms are then the coding will be increasingly similar.

if the proportion of difference between creatures is close to the proportion of difference between the cytochrome C in each.

It is.

All species are transitional in regards to moving along a particular branch of the evolutionary tree. The first part of your sentence shows that you still have no real understanding of how fossilisation works or how evolution works. I'll sum up the key points, fossilisation is rare, fossilisation of rare species is even rarer. The evolution of species happens to groups of organisms not individuals, for a strong selection mechanism to be happening then lots of that group are dieing and a small number are surviving. So we wouldn't expect to see a lot of fossilisation but we do see it.

Let's assume your figures for the differences between man and chimp are correct for a moment, so what you are saying is that we need a method to sieve out all the useless mutations that are harmful. Let's then look at the title of Darwin's book On the origin of species by means of natural selection. What does the second part of that title tell you about what happens? That's right, the successful genes are naturally 'selected' (by not being in a dead organism) so there you have your method to sieve out the harmful mutations. Then all you need is a population breeding like rabbits and you have evolution.

Seem to be going against ‘evolution by natural selection’, and ‘survival of the fittest.’

No, we are merely fit enough to procreate in this environment in exactly the same way that dinosaurs were fit enough to procreate in theirs and that sea slugs are fit enough to procreate in theirs. You are misunderstanding what Darwin meant.

No I have a source = cytochrome c.

No, the source of your figures would be the source of your information, the book, the study, the dataset. You could be plucking those figures from the air since you have not stated where you got them and I have no way of checking that your facts are correct.

Where I got the data I am not 100% sure,

I doubt your figures and it is up to you to categorically state your source if you don't want people to reject your figures out of hand. Since you cannot state 100% then I would assume that you have the figures wrong. You don't even state what the percentages are actually of.

That is funny because I have never met one that does claim we are 'improving' The example I was referring to were Lamprey. As I have stated already evolution happens along evolutionary branches and all organisms evolve down into species (there is no across by definition and you can't travel back up the evolutionary tree since that would be going back in time).

It is all speculation with a dash of imagination.

No, you are incorrect, modern birds do not show the reptilian features shown in primitive birds like archeopterix and archeopterix shows bird like features not seen in true reptiles. That is not speculation, you can see the fossils for yourself.

there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93)

Someone actually measured that?

Yes, would you like the source of that information?

Again it is not radically different. I would expect radical cytochrome c difference between a carp and horse to a carp and a bullfrog. But they are both 13%.

They aren't radically different because they are related! Your figures are still incorrect!

The data in the post is real. No one argues the numbers, they all seem to argue the interpretation.

I am arguing with your numbers or at least with how you are presenting them. It may be that you have misunderstood them or have got them from a non-scientific source (traditionally this makes up around 100% of creationist 'science' writing in my experience)

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

Caedes

Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

1) Whilst I would agree that it is not mathematical, morphological characteristics were used extensively in compiling taxonomic trees (In fact that is precisely the meaning of taxonomy) which have incidently, broadly coincided with more modern phylogenetic trees.

A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.

2) It can if you are looking at the two for more than just a visual comparison, for example someone has already shown on this thread the morphological differences between modern birds and archeopterix, it may have looked like a bird but there are important differences that mark it out as a transitional species.

On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.

Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion.

3) The problem you have is that this is a really good example of evidence of common ancestry.

No sequence or group of can be designated as intermediate with respect to the other group. They are equally isolated from the members of other groups.

4) This is simply not correct, for example humans and chimps share more or less identical DNA sequences coding for cytochrome C and it is generally true that sequences are similar in more closely related species than in species with similar performance requirements (for example bat cytochrome C is more similar to human than to bird) which is what we would expect if morphological differences where what drove the difference (as you seem to be suggesting)

If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor.

5) Firstly it is important to object to the use of 'higher forms', from an evolutionary viewpoint we are not a 'higher form'. You also seem to misunderstand hierarchy, there isn't an evolutionary 'hierarchy', there is a taxonomic heirarchy but that goes the wrong way for your point. Presumably because you are viewing evolution with a theistic bias to assume that humans are some sort of pinnacle of evolution.

Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.

Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%

No trace of traditional evolution at the molecular level. Man is as close to a lamprey as a fish.

6) No, we are more closely related to fish than lampreys, you have to go much further back along the evolutionary tree to find a common ancestor between us and lampreys than to find one between us and fish. Again you have no source for your figures above.

Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.

Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.

7) Again you have no source for this data? Because you are admitting that sequences for cytochrome C vary in your examples and then claiming that they are all equidistant to fish cytochrome C. By what measure are they equidistant if they vary? I suspect that your data is not from a scientific study since it disagrees with every thing I have read on the subject and doesn't appear to be internally consistant.

On the evidence of protein sequences the lamprey cannot be classified as primitive with respect to other vertebrates, nor considered and intermediate between higher vertebrates and none vertebrates.

8) This is because you assume that evolution is a process with a destination and that there is a hierarchy. They are an intermediate species in as much as they have shared features with two major orders and it is not clear which they are more closely related to.

If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.

9) They are intermediate forms found, be honest and admit that you have decided to discount the examples given to fit your biases.

10) You have not disproven evolution, there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93) and it is a fundamental protein so we would expect that heredity would largely account for differences in the coding, i.e. that it would be evidence of the relatedness of different organisms. Given the huge number of ways of coding this protein you would expect it to be radically different in different species if we weren't related. This isn't what we see and you haven't provided any evidence to prove that what you are claiming is true.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Caedes

Does the catholic church still subscribe to a young earth timeline?

I enjoyed the link in John Mann's post, to paraphrase 'shit, evolution is true, bollocks, it's incompatible with our view of the creation of man! waffle waffle...!'

87

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur?

by shadow in

evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.

fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.

the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".

Caedes

And as per usual you are wrong, even worse you think that others understand as little about the subject as you do.

caedes aside from the playground insult does that mean you disagree then?

Yes, I disagree with your statement about natural selection looking strained. Simply stating that you are wrong or don't understand something isn't a playground insult. If I said that when talking about science you were the equivalent of a monkey with a typewriter then that would be a playground insult, but I prefer not to stoop to that kind of thing.

87

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur?

by shadow in

evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.

fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.

the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".

Caedes

what I am trying to say viv is that natural selection is starting to look a liittle strained (sic)

And as per usual you are wrong, even worse you think that others understand as little about the subject as you do.

21

Evolution vs Creation.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

looking at the board, i see so many long threads on " evoultion vs creation " ect, ect.. therefore if " your" qualifications are only those of " an" uneducated j.w, may i ask one question?.

q) what makes you feel you are now qualified to comment with absolute ,authority on any discussion?.

i ask the above question because for most of us " ex-witnesses " logic is still words written in the pages of an awake" magazine.

Caedes

My qualifications are not those of an 'uneducated JW' and I have read a lot of books on evolution. However I would have no problem with someone who doesn't have those advantages take part in a conversation on the subject. I would also add that if you are genuinely asking a question then there are quite a few people here who can give you a really good well-informed answer on the topic.

If you had an engineering question you would be better off asking me (an engineer) than the cleaner, the only difference between us is that I studied engineering. It's the same thing with evolution, studying the subject makes your opinion worth more than a layperson's opinion.

The really good thing about science is that if you don't agree then all you have to do is study it yourself and you can see the evidence. No scientist would suggest you accept something due to someone having the right credentials, they would suggest that having empirical evidence that supports a well reasoned theory is the pinnacle of science.

44

The Atheist Delusion

by looter in

jw
friends

atheist delusion.

just want to know what the ex jw community thinks about this video and also offer my pov.

the video was actually an advertisement on here.

Caedes

All the answers come but when those refuse the truth and say it's irrational, then there is no joy.

You must be some type of narcissists to say the things you say and not have no regret whatsoever. Evil.

You say that atheists have no joy and then start calling people narcissists and evil. I think it's looter who seems to have no joy.

44

The Atheist Delusion

by looter in

jw
friends

atheist delusion.

just want to know what the ex jw community thinks about this video and also offer my pov.

the video was actually an advertisement on here.