NathanM.

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 7 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by NathanM.

• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NathanM.

  Finkelstein - Ah, I see.

  I have encountered him on another forum and discovered that he had made the exact same posts here.

  I see that you and others demolished his phony claims - good on you!
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NathanM.

  Towerwatchman, ever the humble servant of Jesus:

  Again the evidence points to an intelligent designer, you believe man crawled out of pond scum over millions of years. And you question ignorance.

  
  

  No, the evidence does no such thing, And actually, it is YOU that believes that a man crawled our of not pond scum, but dust. Do you not understand your own beliefs?
  
  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NathanM.

  In “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, Darwin did not try to explain the origin of the first life. Instead, he sought to explain the origin of new forms of live from simpler preexisting forms, forms that already possessed the ability to reproduce. His theory assumed rather than explained the origin of the first living thing. His masterpiece contains neither a single mathematical equation nor any report of original experimental research. He developed his theory by drawing together desperate lines of observational evidence and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence.
  Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.
  Darwin appealed to this principle to argue that presently observed micro evolutionary processes of change could be used to explain the origin of new forms of life in the past [macro evolution]. Since the observed process of natural selection can produce a small amount of change in a short time, Darwin argued that it was capable of producing a large amount of change over a long period of time.
  The success of Darwin’s theory inspired attempts at ‘extending evolution backward’ in order to explain the origin of the first life. Darwin’s account of how species can evolved evokes a mindless process called natural selection, and excluded intelligent design.

  Towerwatchman, the grand plagiarist, strikes again.

  The Above is lifted 100% from Meyer's garbage book, without attribution.

  Towerwatchman is known for this dishonesty. He tries to use this dishonest tactic to cover his own ignorance. ALWAYS google anything he presents that is not an insult or it more than 3 sentences long - there is a high probability that he copy-pasted it from some creationist source.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NathanM.

  The OP was cute and past [sic] from notes used to write a term paper long ago.

  
  

  Was this for an English class?

  
  

  if so, I think I encountered your brother on the EvC forum a few years ago.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NathanM.

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

  
  

  EXACTLY.
  
  
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NathanM.

  Towerwatchman really likes spamming the internet with his beloved Meyer copy-paste. But it does not seem that he understands the biology enough to assess whether or not what Meyer wrote has merit.

  Typical.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.