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 finklestien

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. As to seals being transitional please elaborate.

Flag Link Dislike Like

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 WhatshallIcallmyself

I think TWM is referring to a book called 'Evolution: A theory in crisis' written in 1985 by M.J. Denton. In this book this biochemist (I think) makes the same suggestions as TWM is now doing some 30 years later.

The OP was cute and past from notes used to write a term paper long ago. I believe George Bush was running for president that year. I searched in my library for 'Evolution: A theory in crisis' and did not find it. It could well be the book, over the years I have given away, thrown away and lost many books. Sounds familiar so let’s say it is.

This critique from talkorigins.org explains why M.J Denton is wrong; there is also a second review of his book linked on that page that makes for good reading to those interested.

Please note, on the topic of evolution vs creation, every book written on the subject has been criticized.

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 in the evolutionary hierarchy why do we have to use fossilized samples vs the latest samples? The latest samples would be the best choice.

To be fair, considering you are posting ideas that were debunked those 30 odd years ago when they were first asserted, you should be thankful of any attention and not dismissive of it as you are with Simon's contribution.

Debunked where? The above? Not even close. But if you have something that debunks the OP and not some publication, please post. I prefer the truth vs a lie. As for Simon that is not a contribution. I can post hundreds of videos that are either pro ID or anti evolution.

Also, you keep alluding that faith is needed to accept evolution. That statement tells me all I need to know about the level of your understanding of the work involved in the natural sciences...

My faith is based on science, math, logic and reason. Before I believe in my heart it has to make sense in my mind. My belief in ID is based on the sciences, logic and reason. What is evolution based on? Drawing together desperate lines of observational evidence and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence.

That takes faith to believe. I do not have that kind of faith.

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

My point is that your claiming to be a theist while claiming God did not create life via evolution presumes limits on your definition of God.

No it does not, in fact does the opposite.

Making God fit into such definite limitations is an attempt to create an idol. You don't have to build a literal golden calf to make God into a man-made image. You can do so by doctrine, saying that God can do such and such, but God cannot do this or does not do that. Humans who create definitions like "God does not create via evolution" are creating a god for themselves no different than the idolatry Christians claim to detest. How can a mortal have a complete comprehension of what God can and cannot and does not do in reference to creating life?

When it comes to the Judeo Christian God, He did not create via evolution, but spoke and it appeared according to the creation account in Genesis.

Answer me this: If there is a God, why can't God create by means of evolution? Why is the only possibility the one you are stating?

There is no evidence for macro evolution. It is all speculation. God is sovereign, He can create as He wishes; He chose to create in six days.

How do you know that your views of God and how God created life are correct? Even the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses claims that that they are not inspired and have made mistakes and that Christ never promised "perfect" spiritual food "at the proper time." If this is so, how can you guarantee that your view that God did not create the world by evolution is free of imperfections or complete?

First I am an ex JW, so I have no affiliation with them.

I believe it via to avenues.

1. Jesus: He verified that everything He said was truth via His Resurrection, this includes His statement that the Old Testament was true.

2. Science: The evidence proves more and more that the universe did not just popped out of nowhere or that we evolved from slim via time, but points to an intelligent designer.

And where does evolution teach there is no God? Charles Darwin was honored by the Church of England with a burial in Westminster Abbey for his achievements in this work. While Darwin was an agnostic, he never taught there was no possibility of God, and mainstream Christianity even embraced his work as offering the scientific answer to how life came to be. The Bishop of Carlisle stated in Darwin's memorial funeral sermon: "It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr. Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God."

In “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, Darwin did not try to explain the origin of the first life. Instead, he sought to explain the origin of new forms of live from simpler preexisting forms, forms that already possessed the ability to reproduce. His theory assumed rather than explained the origin of the first living thing. His masterpiece contains neither a single mathematical equation nor any report of original experimental research. He developed his theory by drawing together desperate lines of observational evidence and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence.

Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.

Darwin appealed to this principle to argue that presently observed micro evolutionary processes of change could be used to explain the origin of new forms of life in the past [macro evolution]. Since the observed process of natural selection can produce a small amount of change in a short time, Darwin argued that it was capable of producing a large amount of change over a long period of time.

The success of Darwin’s theory inspired attempts at ‘extending evolution backward’ in order to explain the origin of the first life. Darwin’s account of how species can evolved evokes a mindless process called natural selection, and excluded intelligent design.

I find that most people who take sides on this issue have never read Origin of Species or even seen a copy. Have you? Do you know what Darwin actually said? Most who have an opinion have never read Darwin's own notes or his views on how what he discovered applied to theological concepts. Most only know what they do from secondhand sources, or just through blurbs, cited quotes, or watching a television program or two. Suddenly such people believe they have enough information to form an opinion. Some people will even read books on the subject but still never the actual information written by Darwin himself. The issue of evolution is not one about whether there is a God or not, so it does only harm to the religionist who fails to educate themselves on the matter.

I never read “Origin of Species” but I have read “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. [Charles Darwin]

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]

Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species…” not “On the Origin of Life.’ In the passage above 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.

Afterwards Neo-Darwinism extended evolution backward to assume that the first life was a simple cell that evolved into the complex an diverse spectrum of live we see today, via the mechanisms of evolution.

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 Anders Anderson

'm sure you can point us to at least one peer-reviewed article, written by an expert in a relevant field, and published in a reputable scientific journal, that supports this claim? Or is it just wishful thinking by people who don't really know what they're talking about?

Why? Are you now incapable of processing information? The evolutionist love to point to Cytochrome c as proof of common ancestry because we all have it. But if that is true then the percentage of difference should increase as the evolutionary hierarchy widens. But it does not. For example

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

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

Only a four percent difference between Rhodospirillum rubrum and Horse, and Rhodospirillum rubrum and yeast. The difference between yeast and horse should at least be proportional to what I am physically observing., and I am not. What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the fossil record at about the same time.

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 Simon

The best you can do is present that fool.

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 Finklestien

‘… 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] Evolutionist Lecomte du Noüy

‘Since Archaeopteryx occupies an isolated position in the fossil record, it is impossible to tell whether the animal gave rise to more advanced fliers …’ [Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution] evolutionist Barbara Stahl

‘The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.’ [Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds] evolutionist W.E. Swinton

The above has been known for many years and the evolutionist still argues that the Archaeopteryx is a transitional species. But that is not all. 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.’

Further there is nothing in the fossil record before or after Archaeopteryx, but the evolutionist still peddles it as a transitional species.

You commented earlier about honesty. In all the years I have been discussing worldviews, the most dishonest are the evolutionist. They would lie before admitting to anything. Again I envy your faith, I could never come close to believing in ‘Once upon a time” tales.

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 David_Jay

To me I think it would speak more in the favor of God to design a universe in which life would develop via evolution, where life adapts, where it is flexible and free. That kind of life has a chance of going on and on, becoming stronger, smarter, ever more incapable of being snuffed out. That would more be like the life an eternal God would create. Such life can advance to a point of coming to understand God better as time goes on, whereas a static being could never hope to advance to really reflect the image of something as grand as an Almighty eternal Creator.

i believe in following the evidence till where it leads us. Following the evidence, this disproves common ancestry.l. What it proves is that the creatures we have now all appeared on the fossil record at the same time. It disproves common ancestry, and proves common designer.

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 Finklestien

There is in fact transitional fossils that have been found and discovered
It has to honestly accepted in view of a few things to the reason why transitional fossils are not found in abundance.
* Animals have to die in appropriate soil conditions for the skeletal remains to be persevered and fossilized over time. As its known the earth is in constant change in both environmental and geological conditions, so the chances of every living species to fossilize correctly is a physically impossibility.

Notice how you pick and choose what you want to address. Never the main topic but some obscure, gray area. Bottom line, there are no transitional fossils. Been waiting for one all my life. What we have is opinion, and a bunch of excuses. Again a applaud all evolutionist. For it takes more faith to believe all this fantasy about prebiotic soup, fish turning into lizards, and so forth till man, all lead by a dumb and blind processes, I could never have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

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

By the way cytochrome C is one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.

Why? Because we have it? How about addressing the fact that as we go up the evolutionary hierarchy we should expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.

But we don’t. Why? This does not prove common ancestry at all. What it proves is that the creatures we have now all appeared on the fossil record at the same time. It disproves common ancestry, and proves common designer.

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

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. We cannot do this by just looking at the physical features of the creatures. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.

Biochemical level.

On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.

Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. Cytochrome c is a highly water soluble protein, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain. Has a fundamental role in biological oxidation. Note found in a wide range of organisms from bacterial to mammals. It is about 100 amino acids long, has the same 3D configuration and possess an identical active site. What does vary between different organisms is the amino acid sequences. In Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Structure and Function there is a matrix with nearly 1089 entries showing the percentage sequence difference between thirty three different cytochromes taken from multiple species.

We can use cytochrome c sequences to classify species into groups and these groups do correspond precisely with the groups arrived at on traditional grounds. The sequential divergence becomes greater as the taxonomic distance between organisms increases. But each identifiable subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. 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.

If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor. We would expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage of difference as we move up the hierarchy of evolution. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.

But that is not the case.

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

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

As far as bacterial cytochrome is concerned there is no intermediate between it and other eukaryotic cytochromes.

Within the Animal kingdom.

Compare phylum Arthropoda with phylum Vertebrata. Percentage of difference.

Horse 27%, pigeon 25%, turtle 26%, carp 25%, lamprey 30%.

All vertebrate types, [from cyclostomes and mammals], are uniformly distant from the insects.

Compare lamprey [cyclostome] with jawed vertebrates. Percentage of difference.

Carp [fish] 75%, frog [amphibian] 81%, chicken [bird] 78%, kangaroo [marsupial] 76%, and human [placental] 73%.

No trace of traditional evolution at the molecular level. Man is as close to a lamprey as a fish.

But let’s go further up the evolutionary trail and see if there are intermediates.

Let’s compare a fish, with amphibian, reptile, or mammal.

Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.

Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.

Again an extraordinary mathematical exactness in the degree of isolation is apparent. Although cytochrome C sequences varied among terrestrial vertebrates, all of them are equal distance from a fish. No chronological sequence of evolution.

Can the same degree of isolation be quantified isolating other proteins?

Comparing hemoglobin between a snail and various vertebrates we find the following degree of difference.

Lamprey 85%, carp 87%, frog 87%, chicken 85%, kangaroo 85%.

On the evidence of protein sequences the lamprey cannot be classified as primitive with respect to other vertebrates, nor considered and intermediate between higher vertebrates and none vertebrates.

If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.

But some now argue the reason we find none in the fossil record is because every creature is a transitional species. That also has been proven false, for if single cell organisms, evolved into multiple cell, into fish, into amphibians, into reptiles, mammals and finally man we should see progression in the percentage of difference in cytochrome C between the hierarchies , but we do not. As other evolutionary ‘disciplines’ interpret the evidence with ‘fuzzy’ parameters and ‘gray’ guidelines, being more subjective than objective, bio chemistry differs with mathematical precision and disproves evolution.