Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Thank you ILoveTTATT2.

  I tend to review topics in multiple sources and then try to write it up as succinctly as possible. TalkOrigins is an excellent resource. I think I mostly used Dr Zachery Moore's podcast transcript for this one but he does refer to TalkOrigins.

  If every animal had identical amino acid sequences in their cytochrome C proteins that would be consistent with creation. If they all had unique sequences that would be helpful to creationism as well. The evidence for evolution is that the degree of difference can accurately be predicted by the closeness of evolutionary relationship of species. That is very powerful evidence.
• 

  Je.suis.oisif

  Cofty, I said I've learned a valuable lesson, and that means looking into subjects and becoming better informed. I want to also develope critical thinking abilities. I'm going to show respect and appreciation for your series of evolution facts. Starting with No1. Thank you
• 

  Fencing

  That's one of the most fascinating things about watching Creationists "debate". And I've seen this replicated across all kinds of other venues and forums. They rarely ever will stick to one topic and debate it. They'll throw random nonsense around ("I didn't evolve from no rock!"), and when someone tries to get them to focus and discuss a specific objection, they jump all over the place and do everything possible to avoid discussion.

  James Brown is a PRIME example of this, in this very thread. When pressed to express what, exactly, his argument against the specific subject is, he runs away, spams the thread with multiple hours of videos that don't even address the subject, and throws out more red herrings than a fishing trawler dropping off its catch.

  It's almost like they're afraid to debate rationally...
• 

  Nimble duck

  "If all living things evolved from a common ancestor then we can make a prediction about the differences between the Cytochrome C protein in different species. We would expect them to differ from each other in a predictable way that mirrors their evolutionary history."

  Pseudoscience BS ...like I was saying. You make up high sounding blather and try to pass it off as science. There is no "evolutionary history" to match. That cart is in front of the horse and it don't run.

  "Predictable " ...please.

  
  
• 

  Simon

  Nimble duck: you are exactly the kind of person that creates the stereotype of "religiot".

  You have no argument, so you just resort to insults in an attempt to distract from your lack of any argument or anything of value to add to the discussion.

  We are still learning about our past - ever time there is a discovery we put together more pieces of the jigsaw of knowledge and put another nail in the coffin of the real pseudoscience - the ancient religions that tried to pass off superstition and ignorance as special knowledge but we know the emperor has no clothes.

  You try and pass that turkey off as the answer to anything, it don't fly, the cart of evolution ran your lame god over and the horse took a shit on him for good measure as he ran behind.
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Nimble duck -

  It's only sounds like "high sounding blather" to you because you haven't the knowledge to understand what is being said.

  
  
• 

  Nimble duck

  This site is called "jehovah's-witness". Now, it used to be that JWs who were hurting and looking for answers would stumble on to this site and get pointed in the right direction.

  I would really like to know how many JWs have come here, seen what it has become, -a bastion of evolution-, ... and leave.

  What remains but the evolutionists talking to themselves, patting themselves on their own backs.

  And the hurting JWs go elsewhere.

  Personally, you will never convert me to your evolutionist religion. Not a chance.

  And I did not attempt to convert anyone here to theism. I pointed out early that I don't give a ratz azz if you want to believe in unicorns.

  I am intelligent enough to know that it would be a complete waste of time to try to convince you all that we didn't come from monkeys. You all admit that the proof is still to be discovered and you continue to believe. So...
  

  Yes, I could debate point be point... I'm not stupid, and you hurling insults doesn't make it so.

  Hey, my employer pays me very well for what I do. I must know something LOL

  I know this, this debate has gone on a long time and if you evolutionists here were bright enough to see that plenty of smarter people have debated this as far as courtrooms and come up short of consensus, then you all would simmer down and show some humanity.

  This thread is like a Sunday morning talk at Kingdom hall. Cofty started out with his many points... like he was at the podium. And he wants to convince everyone, like a preacher.

  THAT is not an open and honest, two-sided discussion. It's a ramrod.

  So, now that certain people have arrived here, I will depart and Cofty can continue his attempt at making new converts.

  But you are NOT helping any JWs.
  
• 

  cofty

  you are NOT helping any JWs

  My Inbox suggests otherwise.

  You are leaving because I publicly challenged you to a sensible conversation on a topic of your choosing..
  
  
• 

  wizzstick

  people have debated this as far as courtrooms
  

  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Decision
  

  Hmmmm.
  
• 

  hooberus

  Quote from Opening post

  "If all living things evolved from a common ancestor then we can make a prediction about the differences between the Cytochrome C protein in different species. We would expect them to differ from each other in a predictable way that mirrors their evolutionary history.

  This is exactly what we find.

  The more distant any two species are from each other in evolutionary history the more differences there are in their amino acid sequences." End Quote
  

  Where are you saying this "evolutionary history" is located? From what I read from evolutionist sources, evolutionists take living creatures, look at their similarities, and from these construct hypothetical evolutionary trees from them. The construction of these tree "phylogenies" is based on the assumption of evolutionary common descent and based on the prinicpal of coming up with the hypothetical tree that requires the least amount of changes not consistent with common descent [ie. the least amount of so called "convergence"].

  Now, if evolution were somehow "known" to be true then such an exercise might be useful in coming up with the most likely version of evolutionary history, but it is not in itself an objective extant "evolutionary history" since its based on living creatures combined with the assumption of evolution.