Posts by towerwatchman

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.

towerwatchman

To Finklestien

‘… we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.’ [Human Destiny] Evolutionist Lecomte du Noüy

‘Since Archaeopteryx occupies an isolated position in the fossil record, it is impossible to tell whether the animal gave rise to more advanced fliers …’ [Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution] evolutionist Barbara Stahl

‘The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.’ [Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds] evolutionist W.E. Swinton

The above has been known for many years and the evolutionist still argues that the Archaeopteryx is a transitional species. But that is not all. A bird which is unquestionably a true bird has been found which dates (by the evolutionists’ own methods) at some 60 million years older than Archaeopteryx. This was announced in Science-News 112:198, Sep. 1977) The find was assessed as above by Dr James Jensen of Brigham Young University. The article also quotes Prof. John Ostrom of Yale:

‘… we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.’

Further there is nothing in the fossil record before or after Archaeopteryx, but the evolutionist still peddles it as a transitional species.

You commented earlier about honesty. In all the years I have been discussing worldviews, the most dishonest are the evolutionist. They would lie before admitting to anything. Again I envy your faith, I could never come close to believing in ‘Once upon a time” tales.

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.

towerwatchman

To David_Jay

To me I think it would speak more in the favor of God to design a universe in which life would develop via evolution, where life adapts, where it is flexible and free. That kind of life has a chance of going on and on, becoming stronger, smarter, ever more incapable of being snuffed out. That would more be like the life an eternal God would create. Such life can advance to a point of coming to understand God better as time goes on, whereas a static being could never hope to advance to really reflect the image of something as grand as an Almighty eternal Creator.

i believe in following the evidence till where it leads us. Following the evidence, this disproves common ancestry.l. What it proves is that the creatures we have now all appeared on the fossil record at the same time. It disproves common ancestry, and proves common designer.

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.

towerwatchman

To Finklestien

There is in fact transitional fossils that have been found and discovered
It has to honestly accepted in view of a few things to the reason why transitional fossils are not found in abundance.
* Animals have to die in appropriate soil conditions for the skeletal remains to be persevered and fossilized over time. As its known the earth is in constant change in both environmental and geological conditions, so the chances of every living species to fossilize correctly is a physically impossibility.

Notice how you pick and choose what you want to address. Never the main topic but some obscure, gray area. Bottom line, there are no transitional fossils. Been waiting for one all my life. What we have is opinion, and a bunch of excuses. Again a applaud all evolutionist. For it takes more faith to believe all this fantasy about prebiotic soup, fish turning into lizards, and so forth till man, all lead by a dumb and blind processes, I could never have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

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.

towerwatchman

To Cofty

By the way cytochrome C is one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.

Why? Because we have it? How about addressing the fact that as we go up the evolutionary hierarchy we should expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.

But we don’t. Why? This does not prove common ancestry at all. What it proves is that the creatures we have now all appeared on the fossil record at the same time. It disproves common ancestry, and proves common designer.

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.

towerwatchman

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. We cannot do this by just looking at the physical features of the creatures. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.

Biochemical level.

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. Cytochrome c is a highly water soluble protein, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain. Has a fundamental role in biological oxidation. Note found in a wide range of organisms from bacterial to mammals. It is about 100 amino acids long, has the same 3D configuration and possess an identical active site. What does vary between different organisms is the amino acid sequences. In Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Structure and Function there is a matrix with nearly 1089 entries showing the percentage sequence difference between thirty three different cytochromes taken from multiple species.

We can use cytochrome c sequences to classify species into groups and these groups do correspond precisely with the groups arrived at on traditional grounds. The sequential divergence becomes greater as the taxonomic distance between organisms increases. But each identifiable subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. 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.

If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor. We would expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage of difference as we move up the hierarchy of evolution. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.

But that is not the case.

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

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

As far as bacterial cytochrome is concerned there is no intermediate between it and other eukaryotic cytochromes.

Within the Animal kingdom.

Compare phylum Arthropoda with phylum Vertebrata. Percentage of difference.

Horse 27%, pigeon 25%, turtle 26%, carp 25%, lamprey 30%.

All vertebrate types, [from cyclostomes and mammals], are uniformly distant from the insects.

Compare lamprey [cyclostome] with jawed vertebrates. Percentage of difference.

Carp [fish] 75%, frog [amphibian] 81%, chicken [bird] 78%, kangaroo [marsupial] 76%, and human [placental] 73%.

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

But let’s go further up the evolutionary trail and see if there are intermediates.

Let’s compare a fish, with amphibian, reptile, or mammal.

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

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

Again an extraordinary mathematical exactness in the degree of isolation is apparent. Although cytochrome C sequences varied among terrestrial vertebrates, all of them are equal distance from a fish. No chronological sequence of evolution.

Can the same degree of isolation be quantified isolating other proteins?

Comparing hemoglobin between a snail and various vertebrates we find the following degree of difference.

Lamprey 85%, carp 87%, frog 87%, chicken 85%, kangaroo 85%.

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.

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.

But some now argue the reason we find none in the fossil record is because every creature is a transitional species. That also has been proven false, for if single cell organisms, evolved into multiple cell, into fish, into amphibians, into reptiles, mammals and finally man we should see progression in the percentage of difference in cytochrome C between the hierarchies , but we do not. As other evolutionary ‘disciplines’ interpret the evidence with ‘fuzzy’ parameters and ‘gray’ guidelines, being more subjective than objective, bio chemistry differs with mathematical precision and disproves evolution.

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.

towerwatchman

To Finkelstein

How about answering what was posted.

Let's see if I can understand this. An all-powerful, all knowing, being that created all from nothing, [nothing also includes the absence of empty space] put it all into motion finely tuned, somehow does not qualify because an asteroid, one upon a time, impacted earth?

Why?

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

towerwatchman

To venus

Science: No place for supernatural beliefs, Does not accept godmen or anybody unquestioningly, No miracle in science, Based on Method of Science, Makes testable predictions, Science is dynamic – evolves continuously, In science, truth is not somebody’s opinion. It can be verified, tested and validated. Built-in correction present, Questioning is one’s fundamental right, Scientists do not have any hesitation to admit that they don’t know, International, Unites the people, Guided by logic.

None of this is etched in stone. They all have one flaw, the honesty of the ones involved, and over the years I noticed one common thread. Most will not sacrifice either their prestige or position to go against what has been accepted by the majority of Academia.

Something else you should think about. Science is good but science is limited. Science tells us that if we give grandma poison she will die, but science does not tell us why it is wrong to give grandma poison.

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.

towerwatchman

To Village Idiot

Rather save my money, After reading multiple pro evolution books I noticed they all had a common thread. It was more speculation and imagination than science. I believe the following would address your book.

So let’s start with something easy. Proving that only Intelligence could have created life.

What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must the origin of life researcher ‘explain the origin of’? Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’ A block of binary code in a software program is information. DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotide bases that produce a specific effect; therefore DNA contains information. DNA sequences are improbable and specifically arranged to perform, this is functional information similar to CAD – CAM. Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from? Let’s bring cause and effect. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.

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.

towerwatchman

Finkelstien

This information refutes the claim by yourself that the omniscience creator is an intelligent creator which you positionally hold.

Let's see if I can understand this. An all-powerful, all knowing, being that created all from nothing, [nothing also includes the absence of empty space] put it all into motion finely tuned, somehow does not qualify because an asteroid, one upon a time, impacted earth. Similar to an doctor treating someone for pneumonia being disqualified because his patient coughed.

It is a pretty bad and weak argument. Sounds more like a spoiled child complaining.

99

2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

by towerwatchman in

2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

2 pe.

1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .

towerwatchman

To Cofty

Is this the best you can do? God is a God of love but also a just God. There would be no value if there was no justice. When God ordered Joshua to kill all the inhabitants He was using Israel as His tool to dispense justice. Why not argue the flood where God killed everything minus what was in the ark. Because in Joshua's account, the ugliness of sin is experienced. Now since I was in Joshua's army, and having experienced all the miracles from Egypt to then, and having seen how powerful God is, I would not hesitate to obey.

Why just dwell on this? This is between God and the inhabitants of those cities. If you are arguing that then you can and should bring into the equation, God offering you eternal life with no physical strings attached. Similar to winning the lottery and refusing to accept it based on a foolish argument favoring convicted criminals.