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

That book isn't peer reviewed science and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who cares about the veracity of their statements.

So what? Does no peer review equate to false? Notice the issue anyone has with the author is his interpretation of the figures, no one is questioning the figures. Why?

I have already explained the basics of how evolution actually works and why it works to eliminate harmful mutations, if you are going to keep on stating the same things and ignoring the replies then the other posters who are calling you a troll are right.

How does evolution work? By Natural selection? The all- purpose answer.

I am only interested in hard scientific data not creationist flim flam.

The data is from ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function. In the critiques that have been posted or linked no one is doubting the atlas. Now apply the same to the evolutionist who when he finds a bone creates a whole creature and environment from it. Who is flim flamming.

Unfortunately for you I studied geology and you couldn't be more wrong, I live not far from the jurassic coast, fossils are very common there. Perhaps you could come and point out those fossil rabbits because I (and everyone else who has ever actually studied fossils) have never found one.

For anything to have been fossilized to the extent that we have the feathers of a bird, or the scales of a fish, or a fish eating a fish the fossils had to have been buried right away. This does not happen every day. They were buried quickly most likely during a cataclysmic event. Note Karoo Formation of South Africa that contains 800 billion vertebrates such as reptiles. And many of those creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together.

You should do yourself a favour and actually read some proper reference books on geology and fossils because you clearly know nothing about the subject. Do you really think that scientists just make up things, do you know how the scientific method works and how peer review works? Do you know what I mean by empirical data, falsifiability or reproducability? Do you know what scientists mean by hypothesis and theory?

I have read books on both subjects. As to “scientist” making things up. Let’s see.

Pakicetus Inachus

When found in 1983 by PD Gingerich it was immediately declared to be a primitive whale based on fragments of one skull. Nothing below the skull was found at that moment to support the idea that it was a sea creature. The assumptions were based totally on skull fragments.

Based on fragments, it was described as having a semi aquatic life style and illustrated on the front cover of the prestigious journal ‘Science’ as an aquatic mammal absent of hind legs.

When additional fossils were found Pakicetus has a four footed skeletal structure similar to that of wolves or mesonychids.

Rodhocetus.

There is discrepancy between the reconstructive description of Rodhocetus and the fossil evidence. The reconstruction had a whale fluke but there was no fossil evidence to confirm this.

When PD Gingerich was asked about the fluke discrepancy he said, “Well we don’t have the tail for Rodhocetus so we don’t know for sure it had a ball vertebrae indicating a fluke so I speculated it had a fluke.”

Also the flippers were drawn on.

When asked about the flippers, Gingerich said, “Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands and the arms of Rodhocetus and we understand that it does not have the kind of hands that can be spread out like a whale, and if you don’t have flippers I don’t think you can have a fluke and really power swimming, I doubt that Rodhocetus had a fluke tail.”

But it is still drawn with a fluke and flippers.

Really? What makes you think you are remotely qualified to make that statement?

Really? I need qualifications to question? Tell me what is the determining factor[s] that favors one species over another for survival? And if so, is there any evidence for it? No one knows. Since Natural Selection became the answer for everything, it is the answer for nothing.

Feathers didn't evolve from scales, do some research.

Let’ reword that for you. We do not have the creature with both scales and feathers.

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

When it comes to the issue of creation vs evolution any publication favoring either side will be heavily contested by the opposing side. It would be better to pick a point from the opposing publication and discuss it.
Flag Link Edit

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

There is nothing simple about a 1 celled organism. It is this type of misunderstanding that is leading you down the garden path to the shed of absolute nonsense.

I agree, a cell is very complicated. If Darwin knew about the irreducible complexity a cell has, I am sure he would have thought twice before publishing.

When people have worked these figures out, as in this case, the assumption to the calculations has been what is the likelihood of the sequences appearing, fully formed and all together in 1 neat package. That, of course, is what happens in creation accounts and is not what science teaches on these subjects. Another assumption is that amino acid sequences are randomly joined with no preference for order. This is wrong...yet again... Suffice it to say, there is a lot more to these calculations that is being revealed in your posts...

The calculations are based on Anatomy and Physiology 101, and Probability and Statistics 101.
To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup there are several combinatorial problems – probabilistic hurdles- to overcome. First, all amino acids must form a peptide bond when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. If the amino acids do not link up with one another via a peptide bond, the resulting molecule will not fold into a protein. In nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. In fact, when amino acid mixtures are allowed to react in a test tube, they form peptide and none peptide bonds with roughly equal probability. Thus, with each amino acid addition, the probability of it forming a peptide bond is roughly ½. Once four amino acids have become linked, the likelihood that they are joined exclusively by peptide bonds is roughly [1/2]^4. The probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages is {1/2}^149, or 1 chance in 10^45.

Second in nature every amino acid found in proteins [ with one exception] has a distinct mirror image of itself, there is one left handed version, or L form, and one right handed version, or D form. These mirror image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right handed and left handed isomers are produced with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into account further compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining, at random only L amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 150 amino acids long is [1/2]^150 or roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Starting from mixtures of D and L form the probability of building a 150 amino acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L form is, therefore, roughly 1 chance in 10^90.

Amino acids link together when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another. Notice that water is the byproduct of the reaction. [Condensation reaction].

Functional proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all, their amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements. In some cases, changing even one amino acid at a given site results in the loss of protein function. Moreover, because a there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small 1/20 [actually the probability is even lower because in nature, there are also may none protein forming amino acids.] On the assumption that each site is a protein chain requires a particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 150 amino acids long would be [1/20]^150 or roughly 1 chance 10^195. 1chance in 10^195.

Very simple, high school level.

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

Anders Andersen

For those who want a quick impression of the 'Evolution in crisis' book:

When it comes to the issue of creation vs evolution any publication favoring either side will be heavily contested by the opposing side. It would be better to pick a point from the opposing publication and discuss it.

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

Question, is Finklestein a proper representation of what an atheist is?

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

I just assumed that Stephenmyers was a sock puppet!

Had the same feelings about Darwin being the atheist messiah.

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

cofty

@stephenmyers complaining that natural selection does not explain the origin of DNA is like complaining gravity doesn't explain rainbows.

In order for natural selection to work, DNA had to be there first.

DNA proves that all living things evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years

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.

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

cobweb

There is an umbrella. Google atheism and you get a box defining it as: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism incorporates both ways of thinking. An atheist may make a positive statement about the non existence of a deity.

True Atheism.

Personally, I will say that I have a lack of belief in a God

Stepping from strong atheism to soft atheism; soft espouses “lack of belief” or “absence of belief” which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belive. Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God.

in the absence of any evidence. It is a rational approach to demand evidence to be provided before accepting something as true. It is up to the believer to produce that evidence before assuming that thing's existence.

That would lean towards Agnostic.

My position is that it is more technically accurate to state a lack of belief in God. Just like it is more technically correct to say, I have a lack of belief in Santa Claus. But I have no issue really with saying Santa Claus doesn't exist because without any evidence why should I even consider it?

There is an interesting thing about life, it is that it does not start with reason and ends with faith. A child’s mind is very limited and does not inform the child for the reason of her trust, but as she runs into her father’s arms she does so because of an unspoken trust that those arms will hold her. A child begins with faith that is then proven by reason. Over time that trust will be tested, and it is the character of the parent that will establish that trust to be wise. One starts life believing in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Zeus, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster but overtime reason proves them wrong. My faith has substance, it is rational, based on the confirmed knowledge that Jesus has proven who He claims to be, God incarnate. Some accept by faith, I by reason. My faith is not orphaned by reason.

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

cofty

In relation to DNA "information" is nothing but a metaphor

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

Caedes

What makes you think that you get to define what atheism means? The reason I am an atheist is because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods, I have not seen or heard anything that makes me think that the claims of theists hold any merit whatsoever. You are welcome to show me some evidence if you think you have something.

That sounds more Agnostic than Atheist. Agnostics sit on the fence.

I would also disagree with your statement that atheism is unique, personally as a rational human I accept that theism covers a wide variety of positions from people who claim to speak to god, know that he exists, believe s/he/it exists, think that on the balance of probabilities god does exist all the way through to not sure/ vaguely spiritual, I don't think it is up to me to define the meaning for those people other than a belief in god. So tell me where do you sit in the theism spectrum?

I am a Christian by science, logic, reason and faith.

Now you on the other hand don't seem to have read or understand the wide variety of positions that atheists hold, I would say that my position is probably common to most atheists and that my definition would be accepted by most as well.

Notice you label theist as ‘other than a belief in god.’ What would be the antithesis of that statement? “other than the non-belief in god. ” It does not come with stipulations, such as " because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods,