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

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.

Apologize for the amount of time it took to find it. It is from “Evolution A Theory In Crisis” by Michael Denton. His source is ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function [1972 edition]’.

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.

It is not that simple. It is estimated that it takes 10x10^21 mutations to get five codons to mutate in the right order to fold in the right form to accomplish the function.

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

But that is not what we see. The difference between a cyclostome and fish [75%], amphibian [81%], bird [78%], marsupial [76%] and mammal [73%]. Notice mammals are closer to cyclostome than a fish. What this leads to is that all living things appeared at the same time.

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.

Why don’t you see large amounts of fossilization? What happens when a fish or sea creature dies today? We have all seen the results, the body floats on the surface of the water or sinks to the bottom where it is devoured quickly by other fish. Or how does a dead fish lie on the bottom of a lake for hundreds of years until it is fossilized? Of course, that does not happen in real life, only in the fertile and desperate minds of evolutionists. But the fossil fish are often found very well preserved in sedimentary rocks. What we do have are many creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together. They seem to all have died in one cataclysmic event.

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.

The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct on is the determining factor[s]. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or dis advantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.

Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual which reproduce the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.

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.

Yes Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a tapestry of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. What is it suited for? A life of crawling on the ground or under rocks? Or suited for a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees? The features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. If it was transitional the feathers would be half way between scales to feathers, but it is not. Just this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.

‘… 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 (N.Y. 1947)] Evolutionist Lecomte du Noüy.

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

The sequences are remarkably similar across species, especially at certain positions.
For example, every one has a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80. Clearly, evolution selects against any change at these positions. In addition, numerous sites display a limited number of changes, in most cases allowing only residues with similar properties. For example, residue 98 can be only leucine, isoleucine, or valine - all lipophilic residues.
Likewise, His18 (shown in the graphic above), which coordinates to the heme iron, is conserved throughout.The implication is that the strongly conserved residues contribute significantly to the structure and function of the protein. Other positions contribute very little and are highly variable; evolutionary drift randomizes these residues. Note that human and chimpanzee sequences are identical, and macaque and spider monkey are very similar to the human/chimpanzee sequence. This implies a common and relatively recent evolutionary divergence...

Let’s use your evolutionary tree as an example of evolutionary hierarchy, with the bottom being the common ancestor and the end branches being the creatures alive now. You are measuring the difference horizontally, across the branches, I am measuring vertically [over time.]

If the evolutionary line such as Chordates to Tetrapods to Mammals to Primates to Hominidae to Homo were true, including the multitude of transitional forms, we should see an ever widening gap in portage from the simplest to the most complex. But we do not.

Again the difference between a cyclostome and fish [75%], amphibian [81%], bird [78%], marsupial [76%] and mammal [73%]. Notice mammals are closer to cyclostome than a fish.

When we look deeper into the nucleotide sequences then we find an even greater example of evidence for common ancestry. Humans and chimps differ by 4 DNA letters but the very same amino acid sequence. The same pattern is repeated throughout life demonstrating gradual evolution over millions of years.

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.

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

Coded Logic

Hahaha, well I suppose I should be happy that you've changed your position from Archeopteryx is "just a bird" all the way to Archeopteryx is "just a bird with unique features". I guess that's progress. But, if we're being honest, it's NOT just a bird with unique features is it? It's a "bird" with features that are inherently reptilian. It's a "bird" with the exact sort of features we would expect to see during a speciation event in which "birds" were much more like their dinosaur precursors. Not only that, if you'll recall, you were the one to bring up morphological and anatomical differences. I'm not sure it's really fair to cry foul (or perhaps, in this case, fowl) now that it's "too subjective" a topic since you've decided you don't like where the evidence is leading.

Yes Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a tapestry of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. What is it suited for? A life of crawling on the ground or under rocks? Or suited for a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees? The features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. If it was transitional the feathers would be half way between scales to feathers, but it is not. Just this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.

‘… 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 (N.Y. 1947)] Evolutionist Lecomte du Noüy.

These are each independent methods of studying various aspects our DNA to determine hierarchy. For example, evolution predicts that our closest cousins are chimpanzees', followed by guerrillas and then orangutans. And when we look at our mitochondrial DNA (this is what's used in paternity and ancestry tests) we observe the exact same thing. The same is true when we look at the family lines along the x-chromosome. We find that human's closest cousins are chimpanzees followed by guerrillas and then orangutans. Next, we can do something very different. We can see what endogenous retrovirus' (ERVs) we share with other animals. According to evolution, we should expect that any ERVs we share with orangutans we'd also share with guerrillas and chimpanzees since orangutans are our most distant ape cousins. And, conversely, we'd expect that there would be some ERVs we'd share with chimpanzees and guerrillas that we don't share with orangutans. Guess what? This is exactly what we observe! Lastly, we can look at allele frequencies (or, more broadly, genotype frequencies). And the species with which humans have the lowest number of genetic variants is . . . you guessed it, chimpanzees! Wow, what a stunning surprise. Want to wager which species might be next closest? Or next closest after that? Why guerrillas and orangutans of course!

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.

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

redvip2000

But that's not true. Your started the thread denouncing atheism, which means that implicitly your position is that there is a god of some sort.

No, my position could be Agnostic.

The issue of intelligent design is not necessarily the same as that of the existence of a god. I can just as well say that maybe the first form of live on earth was designed by space pixies. I can be an atheist and still believe that nonsense as well.

Think about it, all you have done is move the goal post back. The question now becomes ,”where did the space pixis originate from?”

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

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.

When discussing worldviews Atheism comes up unique. It seems that many want to be under the umbrella of Atheism but do not agree on its definition. Atheism is affirming the nonexistence of deity.

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

Anony Mous

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You quote: "they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes" and then ask why you're not allowed to use the same argument to propose a divine entity. Divine intervention is exactly the definition of "unknown or exotic causes".

I am evoking intelligence not deity. But I do believe following the evidence to its conclusion.

We know pretty well how life started and developed and between the 1950's have replicated various requirements of it in the lab without requiring unknown or exotic causes. Yes, we can create all the prerequisites for life (including self-replicating enzymes, the components of DNA) in the lab, when exactly life forms or chemical components become "life" is a difficult question and given recent developments I am pretty sure we will be able to make start developing single cell organisms in the next few decades. We even have a pretty good model of how the Universe started - at no point does any of it require divine intervention, it's just stuff that happens all the time in the Universe.

Notice all that took place under the guidance and supervision of intelligence.

And if you think salts and snow flakes aren't complex, again, you have no idea.

I am referring to information capacity to structure.

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 Earnest

Thankyou for addressing the OP

Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.

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

cofty

You said you would not hesitate to obey god's orders to commit mass killing of women and infants. You think that infanticide is a moral good as long as you can convince yourself that it is god's will. Never lecture an atheist about morality again.

Really, what was the stipulation in the question? ‘If I was in Joshua’s army’. Any other time the answer would be no. Nice try, BTW that stunt you tried to pull, proves character.

But for the reader.

Since we are using the account in the Bible let’s keep it within the parameters of Christianity. God offers everyone eternal life. This come with some conditions, believe certain things, and live a life accordingly. Very simple. That a sounds like a great deal. I live life accordingly for approx. 70 years and my reward is eternal bliss. Now the flip side. If I offend God there a punishment. The Canaanites were not innocent. They were a vile people who practiced some of the lowest form of immorality. (Lev. 18:25). God waited patiently for hundreds of years [Gen 15:16] but the Canaanites did not repent. When judgement fell God like a surgeon amputated the cancer. At this time Israel was unique. Never before or after has there been a theocracy, Israel was ruled and directed by God, and God’s extermination was a direct command from God. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God.

There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. If I was in Joshua’s army it is justifiable. If tomorrow I hear a voice that tells me to kill, it would be murder.

You make God out to be this beast by taking verses in isolation. But let’s look at the whole picture. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed ( Heb. 11:31). And in the Gospels Jesus who is God sacrifices Himself taking our place, taking upon Himself the punishment that we justly deserve.

Let’s talk about morality, since you seem to consider yourself such a moral atheist. Tell me what side of the abortion issue do you take? Since you detest the killing of children in the Biblical accounts, do you detest the murder of innocent children that could survive outside of the womb if they were allowed to be born vs aborted?

The problem the atheist has here is that any moral denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. Human life is special, it has intrinsic value. But on the atheistic view there does not seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that make this statement objectively true. Since every individual passes out of existence when they die, what ultimate value can life have? Mankind is thus no more significant that swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. When the lion kills he does not commit murder, why then do the Homo sapiens commit murder?

Notice you are using Christian values that are not supported by an atheistic worldview in order to denounce Christianity.

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

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.

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

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

It does not take much pondering to notice that Cytochrome C in each creature did not come close to evolving as the creature did. Do you really thing that it quantifiably a horse can only be 5% different that yeast, or the difference between pigeon and tuna is 1%.

The problem you have is that this is a really good example of evidence of common ancestry. If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor.

That statement would be true if the statement was complete. Cytochrome C is a good example of common ancestry, if the proportion of difference between creatures is close to the proportion of difference between the cytochrome C in each.

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.

The problem you have here is that every creature that we have record of disappearing, disappeared as it appeared on the fossil record. No transitions. What does the evolutionist say. They are all transition species. Following your logic everything is a transitional species.

This is simply not correct, for example humans and chimps share more or less identical DNA sequences coding for cytochrome C.

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 to 21 power 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.

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.

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

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.

No I have a source = cytochrome c. You use it in an attempt to prove common ancestry, why can I not use it? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

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.

Where I got the data I am not 100% sure, it was a long time ago, probably 3 presidents ago. Some suggested it was 'Evolution: A theory in crisis' written in 1985 by M.J. Denton. I searched for the book and did not find it, but I am pretty sure it is the book. As to the Denton’s research and results, no one is doubting it.

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.

What are these intermediate species to? A better life form? Are we evolving up? Down? Or across? You are the first evolutionist who seems to disagree that over time we are improving.

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

All the supposed intermediate fossils disappeared as they appeared. There is nothing that an evolutionist can point to in order to show the different stages of lizard to bird. It is all speculation with a dash of imagination.

10) You have not disproven evolution, there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93)

Someone actually measured that?

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.

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%.

This isn't what we see and you haven't provided any evidence to prove that what you are claiming is true.

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

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

The amino acid sequence and the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c beautifully confirms and refines the tree of life. What a strange topic for a creationist to raise. I can only assume it is an attempt to poison the well with one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.

Notice nothing scientific in the above text. All opinion.

BTW that is a nice tree. Again any interpretation is subjective, How can measure anything using the tree?