Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

so basically, what you are really saying, is that genetics don’t happen, or genetics don’t work? It is just magic?

Obviously genetics "happen."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'll bet scientists do not know how DNA came about. As my favorite Dr. Hawking said, (I paraphrase) maybe yes, maybe no -- and on and on goes the imagination...

More importantly, scientists will have no problem telling you honestly just how much they do and don't understand.
When they don't know, they just acknowledge ignorance instead of making stuff up and / or asserting magic without evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the point you don't get. I'm speaking ONLY of the lack of proof or reality of the theory of evolution.

Evolution factually happened and continues to happen.

You and the other animals share genetic ancestors. We know this from comparing the collective of DNA.
The same way we can demonstrate your sibling is your sibling and that you share ancestors, using only your DNA.

No matter what we do or don't understand about the absolute origins of DNA / genes, the above fact is what it is and no matter the actual correct explanation about origins, it won't change the facts.

If tomorrow you demonstrate that your god fashioned the first DNA strings, then still common ancestry of species is genetic fact.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do you hope to gain by endlessly rolling the dice going over the same ground that you have covered so many times before?

I've asked this and other creationists the same question multiple times and have not only never gotten an answer, but never saw one acknowledge that they saw the question, which is the clue I use to answer it for them - they're martyring themself before an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. It's not possible that they're trying to teach or learn, so what else can it be? Why else would one who knows virtually nothing about the science they come here to condemn subject themselves to such indignity?

I see no real justification for the concept

You never will.

Nature does not necessarily equate to the theory of evolution. I'm speaking ONLY of the lack of proof or reality of the theory of evolution.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, knowledge that will never be available to your closed and ineducable mind. You must believe that your god is pleased at your self-immolation here.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've asked this and other creationists the same question multiple times and have not only never gotten an answer, but never saw one acknowledge that they saw the question, which is the clue I use to answer it for them - they're martyring themself before an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. It's not possible that they're trying to teach or learn, so what else can it be? Why else would one who knows virtually nothing about the science they come here to condemn subject themselves to such indignity?

You never will.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, knowledge that will never be available to your closed and ineducable mind. You must believe that your god is pleased at your self-immolation here.

As your monider goes, It Ain't Necessarily So... Hey, have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've asked this and other creationists the same question multiple times and have not only never gotten an answer, but never saw one acknowledge that they saw the question, which is the clue I use to answer it for them - they're martyring themself before an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. It's not possible that they're trying to teach or learn, so what else can it be? Why else would one who knows virtually nothing about the science they come here to condemn subject themselves to such indignity?

You never will.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, knowledge that will never be available to your closed and ineducable mind. You must believe that your god is pleased at your self-immolation here.

What gods do you believe in?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As your monider goes, It Ain't Necessarily So

Moniker.

I'm guessing that that was a reply to the middle section of my response, "You never will" in response to your comment, "I see no real justification for the concept." Again, it's not clear that you meant evolution, since you were ambiguous. The post you responded to touched on more than one concept, but I'm answering you as if that's what concept you meant.

I disagree with your assessment that it ain't necessarily the case that you will never see justification for evolution. You have a stake in never understand that, and even if you lost your faith tomorrow and began studying evolution in earnest, you don't have the skills necessary to tackle a project like that. You'd need to be a critical thinker and have a substantial fund of scientific knowledge as a foundation.

Also, you probably have no interest in the science, or you would have learned it years ago. I get the impression that you ignored the sciences growing up, but later in life, thought it would be valuable to you to be conversant in the subject in your capacity as a Jehovah's Witness - perhaps when going door-to-door.

But that's fine. You obviously don't need that knowledge to function. It's unrealistic to think that you will eventually make breakthroughs in this material given your lack of progress after years of being spoon-fed information here on RF and still asking the same questions.

Look at the kinds of people debating you on evolution. They're all academics credentialed in STEM pursuits, and most are or were working professionals in them. You've got an entomologist, an anthropologist, two geologists, an astronomer, an engineer, and two mathematicians/logicians that I know of, as well as several articulate and knowledgeable people that I can't tell you about professionally apart from their scientific posting seems informed and it's clear that they studied and learned much about the sciences. My degrees are in biochemistry and medicine.

We're people that have loved the sciences since childhood. We watched Star Trek if we were alive and old enough in the sixties. We had chemistry sets and amateur telescopes. We subscribed to Scientific American. We learned science before we got to high school, exceled at it there, and then off to university for some more scientific education. And we continued to learn after graduation. Most of the earth science, quantum physics, and cosmology I know comes from paperback book sold at places like Barnes & Noble written for interested lay people.

But for others, all of that is boring or too difficult, and such people never learned what a transistor or a ribosome are and do. Like I said, that's fine. Nobody needs to know any of that, but realistically speaking, our window of opportunity there doesn't remain open forever if indeed becoming conversant in the sciences was ever possible for them. My high school friends were a smart bunch of college-bound professionals, but they all became lawyers, because reading comprehension and critical thought are not enough if there's no aptitude or interest in the sciences.

So, I recommend more realistic goals. If you can learn the basic tenets of evolution, which can be recited in a sentence with a few key phrases (natural selection acting on genetic variation in biological populations across generations). If you can understand all of that, that should be sufficient. Assuming that you want this knowledge for proselytizing, if you can say that and be able to answer others when they ask you what those terms mean, you'll have all you need. Also, don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution, don't use the word prove just in case you encounter people that know better, and drop the "gorillas remain gorillas." Trust me on this: all of those undermine you.

Here's a new word for you:

What gods do you believe in?

None. I see no real justification for the concept. Neither a god belief nor a religion would meet any need I have.

And that's a good thing. Sure, if it scratches an itch for you, you'll embrace it to meet some need unmet without it, and I don't begrudge you that solace. But is that an enviable position to be in? Many believers have exhorted me and others to try their god on for size, but that's like asking someone with perfect vision to try their glasses because they help them so much. It's nice that if one has a need that glasses meet that he or she should have them, but isn't it better to have n such need?

 

[YoursTrue]

Moniker.

I'm guessing that that was a reply to the middle section of my response, "You never will" in response to your comment, "I see no real justification for the concept." Again, it's not clear that you meant evolution, since you were ambiguous. The post you responded to touched on more than one concept, but I'm answering you as if that's what concept you meant.

I disagree with your assessment that it ain't necessarily the case that you will never see justification for evolution. You have a stake in never understand that, and even if you lost your faith tomorrow and began studying evolution in earnest, you don't have the skills necessary to tackle a project like that. You'd need to be a critical thinker and have a substantial fund of scientific knowledge as a foundation.

Also, you probably have no interest in the science, or you would have learned it years ago. I get the impression that you ignored the sciences growing up, but later in life, thought it would be valuable to you to be conversant in the subject in your capacity as a Jehovah's Witness - perhaps when going door-to-door.

But that's fine. You obviously don't need that knowledge to function. It's unrealistic to think that you will eventually make breakthroughs in this material given your lack of progress after years of being spoon-fed information here on RF and still asking the same questions.

Look at the kinds of people debating you on evolution. They're all academics credentialed in STEM pursuits, and most are or were working professionals in them. You've got an entomologist, an anthropologist, two geologists, an astronomer, an engineer, and two mathematicians/logicians that I know of, as well as several articulate and knowledgeable people that I can't tell you about professionally apart from their scientific posting seems informed and it's clear that they studied and learned much about the sciences. My degrees are in biochemistry and medicine.

We're people that have loved the sciences since childhood. We watched Star Trek if we were alive and old enough in the sixties. We had chemistry sets and amateur telescopes. We subscribed to Scientific American. We learned science before we got to high school, exceled at it there, and then off to university for some more scientific education. And we continued to learn after graduation. Most of the earth science, quantum physics, and cosmology I know comes from paperback book sold at places like Barnes & Noble written for interested lay people.

But for others, all of that is boring or too difficult, and such people never learned what a transistor or a ribosome are and do. Like I said, that's fine. Nobody needs to know any of that, but realistically speaking, our window of opportunity there doesn't remain open forever if indeed becoming conversant in the sciences was ever possible for them. My high school friends were a smart bunch of college-bound professionals, but they all became lawyers, because reading comprehension and critical thought are not enough if there's no aptitude or interest in the sciences.

So, I recommend more realistic goals. If you can learn the basic tenets of evolution, which can be recited in a sentence with a few key phrases (natural selection acting on genetic variation in biological populations across generations). If you can understand all of that, that should be sufficient. Assuming that you want this knowledge for proselytizing, if you can say that and be able to answer others when they ask you what those terms mean, you'll have all you need. Also, don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and don't use the word prove just in case you encounter people that know better.

None. I see no real justification for the concept. Neither a god belief nor a religion would meet any need I have.

And that's a good thing. Sure, if it scratches an itch for you, you'll embrace it to meet some need unmet without it, and I don't begrudge you that solace. But is that an enviable position to be in? Many believers have exhorted me and others to try their god on for size, but that's like asking someone with perfect vision to try their glasses because they help them so much. It's nice that if one has a need that glasses meet that he or she should have them, but isn't it better to have n such need?

It doesn't bother me at all. (per your comment "scratches and itch") Have a good one!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've asked this and other creationists the same question multiple times and have not only never gotten an answer, but never saw one acknowledge that they saw the question, which is the clue I use to answer it for them - they're martyring themself before an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. It's not possible that they're trying to teach or learn, so what else can it be? Why else would one who knows virtually nothing about the science they come here to condemn subject themselves to such indignity?

You never will.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, knowledge that will never be available to your closed and ineducable mind. You must believe that your god is pleased at your self-immolation here.

Not only is it this, but the idea that their particular belief is absolute, so there is no real need to learn anything. Just reject the science and claim there is no evidence.

 

[cladking]

As noted, if a concept cannot be answered - taught - in layman's terms, well then, I guess those interested can get a doctorate. By the way, I listened to Dr. Feynman's lectures some time ago -- he's very engaging and understandable.

If it's any consolation, to me it seems your knowledge of science isn't extremely strong but your understanding is better than some of your tormentors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it's any consolation, to me it seems your knowledge of science isn't extremely strong but your understanding is better than some of your tormentors.

No one is tormenting anyone here. Voicing recognition of fallacious thinking and rejecting empty claims is not torment.

I would say that most of the people that support science here understand it better than most and especially better than one or two others that seem to feel they are practically omniscient, and further, seem to make up their own facts.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one is tormenting anyone here. Voicing recognition of fallacious thinking and rejecting empty claims is not torment.

um, I think you have that wrong. Be that as it may, I have found some opinions here very interesting to a degree. You have your opinion on things and others may have a different opinion. Take care.

I would say that most of the people that support science here understand it better than most and especially better than one or two others that seem to feel they are practically omniscient, and further, seem to make up their own facts.

um, I think you have that wrong...but, you do know the song "Anything Goes," right? You have your opinion about things (whatever they are), others may have differing opinions. Thank you for expressing yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

If it's any consolation, to me it seems your knowledge of science isn't extremely strong but your understanding is better than some of your tormentors.

I appreciate your recognition. I guess to some, rejecting science must mean questioning the validity of or agreeing without question present statements. Not sure. Well anyway, regardless of the super handed attitude some exhibit here, I was referring to Dr. Richard Feynman's opinion about the teaching of science and his thought about explaining it so the layman can understand it. I listened to his lectures, he was quite engaging and understandable.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one is tormenting anyone here. Voicing recognition of fallacious thinking and rejecting empty claims is not torment.

I would say that most of the people that support science here understand it better than most and especially better than one or two others that seem to feel they are practically omniscient, and further, seem to make up their own facts.

I appreciate Dr. Feynman's attitude towards explaining complex ideas in layman's terms to those who may not be so educated about these things. be that as it may -- have a great day, Dan!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

um, I think you have that wrong. Be that as it may, I have found some opinions here very interesting to a degree. You have your opinion on things and others may have a different opinion. Take care.

um, I think you have that wrong...but, you do know the song "Anything Goes," right? You have your opinion about things (whatever they are), others may have differing opinions. Thank you for expressing yourself.

Honesty and knowledge are not torment. Recognizing that someone is repeating the same thing over and over as if it were never before discussed is not torment.

But I suppose "anything goes" right?

 

[Yerda]

It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.

You've got the idea.

Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Nope.

I hope you keep learning about this stuff. It gets more and more interesting the deeper you look.

 

[YoursTrue]

You've got the idea.


Nope.

I hope you keep learning about this stuff. It gets more and more interesting the deeper you look.

It can be intriguing. The more I see the less likely it seems that it just 'happened" by sheer physical forces with no intelligence behind it all. Nevertheless I can learn. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What have I learned from this thread and all the others that are pretty much clones of this thread covering the exact same ground the exact same way over and over and over and over?

I have learned much and come to many questions from what I have witnessed.

There are a few of people here that believe they understand science while having no background in science or apparent understanding of science in the general or the particular. I have seen no valid arguments or evidence indicating the existence of this background knowledge and understanding that these individuals regularly assert. In one or two cases, the knowledge that is asserted is so seemingly empty and baseless that I wonder how they could come to the view they express. It seems to me the expression of delusional views arising from evidence that has all the appearances to me to exist only from the manufacture of the individual mind. I see them as making up their own facts and claiming it is real and evidence. When questioned, the rambling that follows bears no relationship with the concept of explanation.

Would it be honest of me to recognize these claims as valid when I cannot find reason to? Would that be the Christian thing to do? Is it a reflection of poor character and flawed belief to recognize these failings as they are applied as evidence to assert opinions that are, entirely or almost entirely, fully uninformed?

Shouldn't a Christian recognize the flaws in the efforts of fellow believers as well as in those that don't believe? Equally, shouldn't a Christian recognize valid information and conclusions regardless if they come from a non-Christian source? Even an agnostic or atheistic source?

Is knowledge that doesn't come from a theist automatically invalid? Should a Christian dismiss valid knowledge from an unbeliever?

Should a Christian except claims that they know to be incorrect even if those claims come from a fellow believer? Should a Christian reject valid knowledge coming from fellow believers and attempt to dismiss those equal claims of belief as false, because those believers express this valid knowledge?

It seems to me, from these many, many carbon-copy threads, that recognizing the above facts or questioning them marks anyone that voices that recognition and asks those questions as insulting, false, flawed, untrue and tormenting.

Is it better for a theist, perhaps especially a Christian theist, to gain the best understanding they can of an issue to come to the best conclusions or should they behave like robots, without will, parroting the ideas and opinions they have been told they should parrot? Worse yet, should a Christian just believe that they know until that becomes a personal truth, the reality of which is evident only to others and hidden from the normal internal scrutiny out of personal bias? Should a Christian believe, accept and promote empty assertions and seemingly manufactured evidence to promote their personal religious views? Should the enemy of my enemy be my friends merely because their equally uninformed views are challenged by those with informed views?

From what I have seen from this belief in the personal sovereignty of knowledge of the uninformed, the conclusion is that having an uninformed opinion, especially coupled with personal belief, is equal to an informed opinion regardless of any associated belief of the informed. This uninformed view welcomes and desires the validation of others that are recognizably equally uninformed to support the perpetuation of this belief of being fully informed. They do not get this validation from the informed and seem resentful of the fact that their uninformed views should be questioned as baseless. Pointing out any flaws in evidence or thinking seems to mark one as an enemy to be ridiculed rather than examining the criticisms and determining if they are valid. The validity seems to be seen to exist absolutely a priori without need of any subsequent establishment.

My conclusion is that to be seen as informed, you have to placate, support, applaud, compliment and exalt the empty, baseless position of the uninformed. Otherwise you get all the passive aggression and mistreatment that can be mustered. So there is torment here. It just isn't from the direction that is being claimed that it is coming from.

 

[YoursTrue]

What have I learned from this thread and all the others that are pretty much clones of this thread covering the exact same ground the exact same way over and over and over and over?

I have learned much and come to many questions from what I have witnessed.

There are a few of people here that believe they understand science while having no background in science or apparent understanding of science in the general or the particular. I have seen no valid arguments or evidence indicating the existence of this background knowledge and understanding that these individuals regularly assert. In one or two cases, the knowledge that is asserted is so seemingly empty and baseless that I wonder how they could come to the view they express. It seems to me the expression of delusional views arising from evidence that has all the appearances to me to exist only from the manufacture of the individual mind. I see them as making up their own facts and claiming it is real and evidence. When questioned, the rambling that follows bears no relationship with the concept of explanation.

Would it be honest of me to recognize these claims as valid when I cannot find reason to? Would that be the Christian thing to do? Is it a reflection of poor character and flawed belief to recognize these failings as they are applied as evidence to assert opinions that are, entirely or almost entirely, fully uninformed?

Shouldn't a Christian recognize the flaws in the efforts of fellow believers as well as in those that don't believe? Equally, shouldn't a Christian recognize valid information and conclusions regardless if they come from a non-Christian source? Even an agnostic or atheistic source?

Is knowledge that doesn't come from a theist automatically invalid? Should a Christian dismiss valid knowledge from an unbeliever?

Should a Christian except claims that they know to be incorrect even if those claims come from a fellow believer? Should a Christian reject valid knowledge coming from fellow believers and attempt to dismiss those equal claims of belief as false, because those believers express this valid knowledge?

It seems to me, from these many, many carbon-copy threads, that recognizing the above facts or questioning them marks anyone that voices that recognition and asks those questions as insulting, false, flawed, untrue and tormenting.

Is it better for a theist, perhaps especially a Christian theist, to gain the best understanding they can of an issue to come to the best conclusions or should they behave like robots, without will, parroting the ideas and opinions they have been told they should parrot? Worse yet, should a Christian just believe that they know until that becomes a personal truth, the reality of which is evident only to others and hidden from the normal internal scrutiny out of personal bias? Should a Christian believe, accept and promote empty assertions and seemingly manufactured evidence to promote their personal religious views? Should the enemy of my enemy be my friends merely because their equally uninformed views are challenged by those with informed views?

From what I have seen from this belief in the personal sovereignty of knowledge of the uninformed, the conclusion is that having an uninformed opinion, especially coupled with personal belief, is equal to an informed opinion regardless of any associated belief of the informed. This uninformed view welcomes and desires the validation of others that are recognizably equally uninformed to support the perpetuation of this belief of being fully informed. They do not get this validation from the informed and seem resentful of the fact that their uninformed views should be questioned as baseless. Pointing out any flaws in evidence or thinking seems to mark one as an enemy to be ridiculed rather than examining the criticisms and determining if they are valid. The validity seems to be seen to exist absolutely a priori without need of any subsequent establishment.

My conclusion is that to be seen as informed, you have to placate, support, applaud, compliment and exalt the empty, baseless position of the uninformed. Otherwise you get all the passive aggression and mistreatment that can be mustered. So there is torment here. It just isn't from the direction that is being claimed that it is coming from.

We obviously have different viewpoints.

 

[cladking]

Shouldn't a Christian recognize the flaws in the efforts of fellow believers as well as in those that don't believe?

Excellent question.

The problem is that believers in science all have the same tactics; divide and conquer. Every heretic is beaten about the head with doctrine.

For strategic and tactical reasons I have found it advantageous to side with any heretic at all. Many of us are very easy to side with because we are essentially correct anyway unlike believers who have every answer.

When believers start addressing individual arguments it will no longer be necessary to support heretics. This will happen no time soon because most responses are canned and address not an argument but rather existing beliefs and assumptions.