by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I draw the conclusion that a Creator could be responsible for guiding the process, others may feel this is evidence of evolution without external guidance. What do you think?
Well guided evolution could at least partially explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. But then again, if all powerful, why would God use such an inefficient creative method?
Lack of transitional forms? Have you read up any scientific literature on evolution? This is a very basic misconception, for EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil.
guided evolution could at least partially explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record - Vander
#11 Tiktaalik
An amazing fossil discovery illustrates the transition of life from sea to land.
#14 Joey Goes to Oz
Fossil evidence for the origins of marsupials found in Antarctica exactly as predicted.
#16 Aquatic Mammals
An excellent sequence of fossils illustrates the evolutionary journey of whales from land to sea.
#18 Fish Fingers
The evolution of limbs is mapped out in an amazing sequence of ancient fish fossils.
#20 Lucy in the Sky...
An exceptional fossil of a 3 million year old hominid.
#23 Faunal Succession...
The consistent sequence of fossils found in the rocks can only be explained by evolution.
#24 The Origin of Your Inner Ear...
How the bones that reptiles eat with became the bones that we hear with.
There is an embarrassment of riches of transitional species. Try reading something written by a paleontologist in the past decade. You could start with Donald Prothero's "Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters".
Richard Thanks for the PM, I wanted to reply in PM but it's not working today.
Sorry it's taken me 2 days to reply I have been busy. Sorry you don't feel able to participate. It's a real shame. I am posting my replies today. Hopefully it will end the debate, having a high post count isn't really a badge of honour on a thread like this.
Parhaps you would enjoy facebook more. Look me up....Sam Powell I have two accounts, so send a friend request to them both. This invitation is for Richard only he knows who he is. Unless I have sent you my details in the past.
Sam xx
I am posting my replies today.
Edge of seat, bated breath .....
Sorry Cofty and OzGirl and everyone waiting. I was sick today after I bought my laptop and subway sandwich, I ended up in A and E, but I am better now and just got home. I am free tomorrow UK time about 3pm
I conclude this thread is guided for maximum attention by the OP.
Kate I think you still don't get the significance of a point that I explained pages back.
1 - A catalytic reaction results in linear growth of the end product.
2 - An autocatalytic reaction results in exponential growth of the end product.
3 - Amino acids are autocatalytic.
4 - A tiny difference in the size of two competing populations of autocatalytic molecules will be amplified exponentially.
F.C. Frank postulated this as a solution to homochirality in 1974 and Kenso Soai first proved he was correct with a groundbreaking experiment in 1995. He has continued to confirm his results in a series of experiments and papers since then.
In his latest success he started with a chiral mixture with a tiny 'ee' (enantiomeric excess) of just 0.00005%. Following the autocatalytic reaction the 'ee' was over 99.5%.
The puzzle is solved.
Like others, you can't even maintain an open mind that makes no conclusion. You seem to have to maintain a belief yet you cannot explain, reason or justify this belief. It's so nebulous, so woolly and abstract that you are even prepared to suggest that it's an entity of your own definition. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position. If not, then it has to be the most bonkers position I have heard in a long time. – K99
You have misunderstood my position because you haven’t told me why the coin toss simplification is a narrow minded, inexplicable reason to have the opinion that guided evolution is more probable than unguided evolution. Saying I am bonkers for believing in God is kind of prejudicial. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to call people narrow minded on this thread, if I have already apologised for calling cofty narrow minded?
Do you think all people that believe in God are bonkers? Do you know any believers that are not bonkers?
Personally I think Dawkins is bonkers.
Because no coin toss is influenced by previous tosses nor influences future tosses. In autocatalysis, the initial toss completely determines the outcome. There are no more tosses, it's all physics and chemistry happening according to well known rules. – Viv
This is all the more reason why a coin toss is a good example. 2p always is influenced to be heads, and 5p is always influenced to be tails. Being influenced infers guidance. The initial toss in a 10p or 20p is always influenced the same way to always 50/50, the 10p with a slight imbalance always and the 20p always exactly 50/50. The well known chemistry rules, guide the toss. Just like cantleave has already said a few pages ago.
Cofty gave an outline on page 23. I was wondering if you would be able to take a few minutes of your time to post an outline of your main points, please.Is the coin toss illustration the outline of your main points? Are there any more main points to come or do I already have the lot? – OzGirl
Sorry to take so long to reply. There are more main points
Skip to Summary and main points
I am going to explain it in terms of a coin toss and probabilities. Cofty, I know you think it’s NOTHING like a coin toss. I saw your caps lock comment before you deleted it, using caps lock doesn’t substantiate your point. Explain succinctly why a coin toss explanation is wrong. If you prefer to use caps lock to explain it feel free to do so, but caps lock has no bearing on any information I read.
I am going to assign…………….
l-enantiomer = heads
d-enantiomer = tails
Alanine = 2p
Glucose = 5p
Methanol = 10p
Tartaric acid = 20p
The size of the coins has no bearing on scale in relation to the size of the molecule. I just assigned the coins randomly. You could invert the assignment too if you like.
Toss a 2p 100 times autocatalysis always occurs you get 99 heads
Toss a 5p 100 times autocatalysis always occurs you get 99 tails (never heads)
Toss a 10p 100 times autocatalysis never occurs you get 48 heads 52 tails or 52 heads 48 tails (slight imbalance)
Toss a 20p 100 times autocatalysis never occurs you get 50 heads 50 tails (never an imbalance)
The probability of these results without guidance is lower than the probability of these results with guidance. Each different coin or chemical will always yield the same results.
Belief in God for me alone is based on my knowledge as a chemical analyst. I am not a scientist, or chemist. I only have experience in quality control analysis. In my opinion no one can prove god does or doesn’t exist. In my opinion we should respect everyone regardless of religious beliefs unless they want to kill us because of those beliefs.
Some Atheists can be very forceful with their opinions and some believers can be forceful too. In an ideal world we would all respect each others beliefs, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
The only reason I commented on this thread, is the danger that a new member, a new lurker came and saw that post title and without the means to fact check it was misled. Kate this is VERY dangerous. – Snare
I agree if people believe without checking facts they could be misled, it was not my intention to mislead new lurkers.
We are pals Kate, this isn't personal. But let's be frank. You are out of your depth scientifically and you really don't have sufficient training, education or knowledge to discuss this or make these conclusions, decisions.- Snare
Yes we are pals, I do consider you one of my friends from this site. You’re right I don’t have sufficient education to write a peer reviewed paper with these conclusions, but Cofty doesn’t either. He has not studied any sciences at university level like you, me and canteave have. He does not declare his qualifications on the forum in spite being asked multiple times.
You believe, you have faith, as assured expectation of things 'hoped' for. This can't be mixed with science – Snare
We are pals yes, I can do what I like now within reason, I have free speech, I don’t need hard facts, I am not making extraordinary claims, I am simply explaining to an atheist,K99, why I have the opinions I do, and I mixed faith and science together. No big deal. It’s just Sam’s ideas.
This is why people get angry at threads such as this. – Snare
I didn’t realise people were angry, I was simply answering a question, it was not my intention to provoke anger Snare. I apologise.
Kate I think you still don't get the significance of a point that I explained pages back.
4 - A tiny difference in the size of two competing populations of autocatalytic molecules will be amplified exponentially. - cofty
Putting it in bold doesn’t make it true. Cofty I think you still don’t get the significance of a point that I explained three years ago. In racemic mixtures there is a tiny difference in size of “the competing populations” or the l- and d- enantiomers and the molecules do not amplify exponentially. Only in meso compounds is there no tiny difference.
Cofty, did you study Chemistry at university like me? If not I find your chemistry posts not credible to me. If others find them credible then fine. Ask cantleave he will tell you your chemistry is wrong.
In racemic mixtures there is a tiny difference in size of “the competing populations” or the l- and d- enantiomers - Kate
Yes that is what I said.
and the molecules do not amplify exponentially.
If the reaction is AUTOcatalytic they amplify exponentially. Why are you avoiding this simple irrefutable fact? Oh wait a minute I think I might know why.
Only in meso compounds is there no tiny difference.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the price of fish as you well know.
Ask cantleave he will tell you your chemistry is wrong
I am sure he won't. No disrespect to Cantleave but I am more interested in things that Kenso Soai wrote in a peer reviewed paper.
I don’t need hard facts - Kate
On page 7 you admitted to being biased and "twisting facts".
I believe intellectual honesty and using facts carefully really matters. By your own admission you don't. Therefore this conversation is doomed to failure.
