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 Shepherdless

My apologies you are correct.

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

Rainbow-troll

I thought I did, but okay. In your OP you claim that there is no correlation between differences in cytochrome c amino configurations and the evolutionary tree and then, ignoring all the other genetic and fossil evidence, you conclude that this disproves evolution. You really don't see the fallacy here?

No, because cytochrome c is a means of measuring the differences across the evolutionary tree. Any other means of measuring the difference is more subjective than anything.

Just because there is no correlation between speciation and cytochrome c mutation, it does not follow that evolution is false. Some genes mutate while others stay the same over eons if time. Genes are distinct. It's not an all or nothing deal. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Maybe because you're just a troll who likes to argue? If so, I can respect that; but at least put some work into it.

The problem with this argument is that if cytochrome c did not mutate then there should be no difference. If mutate slowly over time we should see the pattern, but we don’t.

As to arguing and troll I notice something rather funny. You and several others here call me a troll who likes to argue. But notice it originates from you and them calling me names, attempting to push buttons in order to get me mad. Why? Can any of you hold a descent adult exchange of ideas? Or are posters here accustomed to taking the last position of ignorance and attach my character. Either way I have thick skin.

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

LoveUniHateExams

God is sovereign, He can create as He wishes; He chose to create in six days [emphasis mine] - this is not supported by the fossil record.

Be honest, was this given as evidence or personal opinion. Hint = I was asked for my opinion.

Darwin places the ‘Creator’ at the beginning, and it was He that ‘breathed’ the laws of natural selection into each living creature. Seems he was attempting to graft his theory into the creation account - no, Darwin was not attempting to do that. Darwin just didn't know much about abiogenesis, that's all. 'Creator' in this instance merely means the unknown, nothing more.

Read again.

There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. [Darwin]

But maybe these other quotes made by Darwin would help

"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."

"I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted."

Sorry it is an accepted fact, Darwin believed in God.

What is evolution based on? Drawing together desperate lines of observational evidence and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence - this is what makes evolution so strong, so solid, the multiple lines of evidence.

Not multiple lines of experimental, repeatable evidence but observational evidence, and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence.

Example: Pakicetus Inachus to a modern whale based on the arrangement of cusp on molar teeth. Positioning and folding of the ear bones within the skull.

Kinda the opposite of what you've done. You've chosen to focus on cytochrome C (an apparent anomaly), ignoring the massive amounts of evidence for evolution. You believe in a creator God but there's no evidence for His existence.

This massive amount of evidence is subjective and unmeasurable. Cytochrome C is measurable. It is not an anomaly but evidence that macro evolution never took place.

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

WhatshallIcallmyself

Have they? Who cares, I was referring to the critique of the particular book that contains the basis for the argument that you used in your OP. What I gave you was sufficient for you to question the basis for your argument. What I gave you explained what your author actually wrote and why what he found was to be expected using evolutionary Theory. In other words it removes the premise for your OP. Your beliefs are based on straw men.

Notice one common thread on this forum. Rebuttal keep focusing on the most insignificant point made on the post. Again is that all I posted. I read the critique, very subjective, but not much on Cytochrome C.

Again I will post what the author had to say about it. Maybe you can answer my question.

Denton makes a show of cytochrome-c amino acid substitution numbers appearing to divide all life into typologically distinct classes. But this kind of division is to be expected, considering that we derived the numbers from contemporary organisms, and not from fossilized organisms. [talkorigins.org]

One has to ask, if we are measuring the difference of cytochrome-c amino acid in the evolutionary hierarchy why do we have to use fossilized samples vs the latest samples?

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

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Thanks for all that information on dating rocks, Please note, we are not discussing geology, but Cytochrome c. In this discussion the age of rocks is irrelevant" - TWM
It is very relevant to this discussion because you said:
"What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the fossil record at about the same time."
You suggest that Cytochrome c infers all living creatures appeared at the same time (I assume in an attempt to justify a belief in the genesis creation account) yet the geology conclusively shows this is wrong. So yes, showing you how other branches of science contradict this thought of yours is relevant.

I see the problem. Should not be. "What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the fossil record at about the same time." Rather should read. . "What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the earth at about the same time."

thankyou.

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

David_Jay

Towerwatchman,

This has nothing to do with the Jewish understanding of Genesis: I read from this part of Genesis in Hebrew every Shabbat during Kiddush. I read and speak in Hebrew daily and been speaking it since childhood. None of what you write is correct. You don't speak Biblical Hebrew, do you? I'm Israeli, and I speak several Jewish dialects along with Hebrew.

Notice you did not show me where I was wrong. Why?

I am both a Jew by heritage, from Judean and Cohen (Levitical) stock. It is not my opinion that Jews in general accept evolution. Note the official pew research center information on this at http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/. So it is not an opinion after all. I'll bet you can't admit you were obviously wrong here. And since you were wrong here, where else?

Unless the majority of the 'subject population' in the world are polled the results of any survey would be subjective. =Opinion.

Note that this is not a self-centered issue I raised. It is definitely one that bothers almost all Jews:
http://washingtonjewishweek.com/34907/judeo-christian-values/news/national-news/http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/yoris-news-clips/theres-no-such-thing-as-judeo-christian-values/2013/12/26/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2014/12/31/the-absurdity-of-the-phrase-judeo-christian/ Again you are wrong and uneducated about this. And if you were wrong here, where else in your comments?

According to you, you are Israeli, so you are communicating the Israeli sentiment. Seems Israelis find it offensive when Christians attempt to make a connection with Jews. After reading this I come to the conclusion that us Christians, especially the ones in the US should honor that. So the next time your Arab neighbors cross your borders, us Christians should stay away.

All educated people know that Jews don't follow the JW pattern of providing "scriptural proof" for their convictions.Our religion is not based on the Jewish Bible or Tanakh (we don't call it the "Hebrew Scriptures" ). The "proof text" system was developed by Marcion of Sinope, a Christian heretic of the 2nd century. JWs and other Christians who are "Bible-based" revived Marcionism and it's "prove it from the Scriptures" approach. Jews don't follow Marcion, a Gnostic.

Wow, when I discussed different subjects with Jews, [in the US] they quote the Hebrew scriptures extensively.

Unlike the religion of Bible-based Christians, Judaism isn't based on Scripture. We compose Scripture based on our religion. Our religion grows and evolves as history and science does. So we are not stuck reading the Bible as if we have to still live in the past or use it to provide "scriptural proof" of our beliefs like the heretic Marcion.

Wow now you are a religion that evolves over time as history and science does. Tell me does you god evolve over time also? Let me tell you who else evolves over time JW and Mormons. The problem with evolving is what was true yesterday can be declared untrue today. What was unacceptable and punishable by death yesterday can be accepted today. No foundation. Never heard of Judaism evolving.

And regardless if you were raised in it or not, if you are really an exJW then that means you were once baptized as one. I know a lot of people raised in the JW religion who don't ever join. But if you did, then you still joined a cult. If not, then you lied about being an exJW.

So what if I joined when I was young. Does that have any consequences on me now? No.

But you weren't lying about being mean. You are that. You are acting just like a forum flamer, an Internet troll who because they fail to make it in the real world have to put on a display on the Internet.

How do you know I failed in life? Really? Just for the record I hold a degree in Theology and Medicine. As to business I have enough to live off of till I die, and at the same time keep my extended family comfortable. I have been married for 32 years, happily. All my children have graduated from universities and hold degrees. My life has been very successful, fulfilling, and I am very happy, and I give all the credit to my God. Unlike you and most character assassination on the internet, you are probably living in your mother’s house as a basement dweller, living out your existence in the virtual world. BTW I am only mean to those that are rude. When I became a Christian I did not tattoo ‘Kick me’ on my forehead.

Notice I have been very polite with you, and you slowly inch by inch have become rude.

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 Coded logic

Hahaha, you're citing a quote from the 1800s as being authoritative on the topic? Really?

Let’s follow your reasoning to a logical conclusion. Since you invalidate anything written in the 1800, then logically you are invalidating “On the Origin of Species…”. Note the first Archaeopteryx was found in 1860 so the quote was written post 1860, Darwin published 1859. Hint, just because something is old it does not invalidate it. Truth is true at any time and anywhere. 2+2=4 has been true from the beginning of time.

Why don't you read the finding of experts in the field of archaeology, taxonomy, and stratigraphy instead of the empty assertions a someone who was not an expert in the field and never researched Archaeopteryx? Why don't you read what those who actually have taken the time to do their due diligence (research, analysis, peer review, and publication) have to say instead of just cherry picking quotes that tickle your ears?

I read hundreds of these, they all have one common thread; someone's 'subjective' interpretation of the evidence. But what is unique to evolution is the amount of imagination that is used. All you have here is a bird. It appears and disappears as you see it. If a transitional fossil where are the before and after stages?

But since you don’t like anything from the 1800, let’s read the following again.

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.’

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 shepherdless

Towerwatchman, you say you cant accept most Christians do not believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer"

Never said that, I accept everyone. It is their beliefs I do not accept.

Just as an example: I was brought up in a strict Catholic family, and went entirely to Catholic schools, taught by a mix if priests, nuns and secular teachers (mostly practising Catholics). (I have never been a JW - I found myself married to one.) I can specifically remember the point being made at school many times that Genesis should not be read literally. I remember one Jesuit priest saying it was "childish" (exact word) to think it literally occurred.

I went through that also. I was taught the Bible and evolution in Catholic School. Let’s take it one stop further. Jesus quoted extensively from the OT; therefore acknowledging their validity. When it comes to Jesus I don’t argue. Now is there anything in the creation account ‘found in Genesis’ that hints to evolution. That somehow the days are not literal days but periods?

In Genesis day is interpreted from [yowm /yome/] which translates as “day” 2008 times, “time” 64 times, “chronicles ” 37 times, “daily” 32 times, “ever” 17 times, “year” 14 times, “continually” 10 times, “when” 10 times, “as” 10 times, “while” eight times, “full always” four times, “whole” four times, “alway” four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. The semantic range of a word is all the possible meanings of that word in the given language. Yome’s semantic range is restricted to only five meanings. 1.a period of light in a day night cycle, 2. a period of twenty four hours 3. a general or vague concept of time. 4. a specific point of time 5. a period of a year.

The fallacy in Day Age lies in the supposition that the meaning of “yome” in the context of Genesis is much broader than Genesis allows and attempts to explain into Genesis a different meaning from its semantic range. To properly interpret the meaning of a word, the meaning must be determined by how it is used in the specific context, not by possible meanings in unrelated contexts. It should be noted that when yome is used for a period of time it is heavily modified by other time indicators such as the word for year or month.

And even in those cases, it is that others time unit word that gives its length of duration, not the use of yome.

What is ignored is the interesting pattern yome has in Genesis 1 in the original language, which is not reflected in English translations. The first day has a cardinal number [one] with a definite article, “the” others have ordinal numbers [second, third, fourth]. Genesis 1:5 begins the cycle of the day, with the creation of day and night. Evening is the transition from light/day to darkness/ night and morning is the transition from darkness/night to light/day. Having an evening and a morning amounts to having one full day. Hence, the following equation is what Genesis 1:5 expresses, 1 evening + 1 morning = one day. Therefore, by using a most unusual grammatical construction, Genesis 1:5 is defining what a day is, a simple 24 hour period.

From talking to people and a bit of research, I can not identify ANY mainstream Christian religion that rejects evolution. The only ones I can identify that do reject evolution, are the fundamentalist ones, mostly from the USA. I do agree, however, that pre-Darwin or thereabouts, most Christians were creationists. The majority of Christian I know and have known do not believe in evolution. You were probably born in USA, or at least exposed to a fundamentalist US religion from a young age. You were almost certainly indoctrinated with the "creation story" right from when you were a little baby. Your entire terms of reference for how you view the world around you, stems from that indoctrination.

You have part of it right. I am in the US and have been brought up believing in the Creation story. But notice something about human nature, it starts with faith and then it is replaced with fact. Yes I was brought up believing the literal account of creation. I don’t believe it because someone told me to believe it when I was six. It is based on science, logic and reason.

1. Science does support, and I do believe in micro evolution; but science does not support macro evolution. That is more imagination than anything.

2. Science point more and more to an intelligent designer.

3. Jesus’ extensive use of the Hebrew Scriptures verified their truthfulness.

You seek evidence to support your viewpoint (aka confirmation bias). You are good at debating, and seek further comfort by projecting your views on others and shouting them down if they disagree.

Communication is about 30% verbal and the balance nonverbal. It is hard to comprehend the tone when reading a post. It is never my intention to shout anyone down, but there are some here, and in almost any forum, that find their enjoyment in being rude. Those I have zero consideration.

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 Rain_bow Troll

So you think you have demolished the entire theory of evolution over a single protein? Your flaccid argument is typical of creationists: obsess over a single anomaly while totally ignoring the weight of fossil and genetic evidence.
If you really wanted to keep God in the picture then, instead of attacking a theory as well supported as evolution, you should target Materialism's weakest conjecture: that nonliving molecules can somehow spontaneously organize themselves into self-replicating nucleotides

We call this opinion. Instead of telling how bad I am doing, why not show me. How about addressing the main topic, the OP.

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 Anony Mous

In this thread I am not arguing for any specific deity but Intelligent Design at most. So please address the topic below.

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.