ecco
Veteran Member
Not to be rude, but you have a very poor understanding of the process of evolution.
Again, not to be rude but you might want to invest $7 and get...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fascinating!
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Not to be rude, but you have a very poor understanding of the process of evolution.
Again, not to be rude but you might want to invest $7 and get...
ecco
Veteran Member
That's what is referred to as honesty.
Conversely...
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society publications have made a series of predictions about Christ'sSecond Coming and the advent of God's Kingdom, each of which has gone unfulfilled. Almost all the predictions for 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918 and 1925 were later reinterpreted as a confirmation of the eschatological framework of the Bible Student movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, with many of the predicted events viewed as having taken place invisibly. Further expectations were held for the arrival of Armageddon in 1975, but resulted in a later apology to members from the society's leadership.
Where do you get the idea that religion in general and JW in particular is noble when unscrupulous men use it as a means to line their own pockets?
ecco
Veteran Member
What happens when JW's disagree with doctrine?
Jehovah's Witnesses, disfellowshipping and shunning, including family members
Disfellowshipping and Shunning
Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowship those deemed unrepentant wrongdoers, for practices such as disagreeing with Watchtower doctrine, smoking or fornication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline
Personal "shepherding visits" are intended to encourage members of the congregation, though may also include counsel and correction, then or on a subsequent visit.[4][5] Two elders (or an elder and a ministerial servant) may schedule and perform a particular shepherding visit on their own or at the direction of the body of elders.[6]
Disfellowshipping and Shunning
Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowship those deemed unrepentant wrongdoers, for practices such as disagreeing with Watchtower doctrine, smoking or fornication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline
Personal "shepherding visits" are intended to encourage members of the congregation, though may also include counsel and correction, then or on a subsequent visit.[4][5] Two elders (or an elder and a ministerial servant) may schedule and perform a particular shepherding visit on their own or at the direction of the body of elders.[6]
cladking
Well-Known Member
Unless they're tenured peers can lose their livelihood when they are excommunicated.
ecco
Veteran Member
Does it "seem" to you because you believe the JW party line? Is it something you are hoping is true?
Attachments
I have tried a number of times to get a million dollars, one cent at a time, but every time I have lost my cents.
I think she is anti-science. Or at the very least, cherry picking science and declaring the science she does not like is not science.
The theory of evolution and the study of evolution are science. You do the math.
Thanks. Sounds delicious. I will have to guess on the neighborhood, but if the ribs smell as good as they look, I may not have to guess too much.
That could be pro-science, albeit with some misunderstanding tossed in.
Macro-evolutionary change occurs over extensive periods of time. Large changes that would lead to the evolution of higher taxa are not observed to occur at or even near human-scale time frames.
Dogs evolved from wolves in Asia somewhere between 15,000 to 40,000 years ago and no record of direct observation of that evolution exists. We know about dogs after the fact of their divergence through the evidence found in fossils, genes, other biological parameters and, to some extent, cultural artifacts.
I am not certain what this means. Whether fast or slow in occurrence, if observe species at two different points on a timeline, there could easily be species in the intervening time span between the two points. Speciation generally takes a long time to occur. Often on the order of many 10's or 100's of thousands of years. The fastest known occurrence is in the speciation of the cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria in Africa, where nearly 700 endemic species are known to have evolved in approximately 15,000 years. You may be confusing evolution with one of the theories describing differences observed in the mode of evolution for some groups. The thoery of punctuated equilibrium states that speciation occurs rapidly over a short period of time, followed by extended periods of stasis, where speciation occurs incredibly slowly or little at all. Examination of the evidence does show that this appears to occur. Some taxa of dinosaurs for instance or coelacanth fish. It is important to realize that the time scale is geological time and what is short on that scale is still an incredibly long time on the human scale, and in reported instances, is in the millions of years. Punctuated equilibrium is not established to occur in all species and is part of the argument of the mode of evolution and not a theory refuting the existing theory of evolution.
Behavior is a suite of traits that varies with the organisms in question. Traits include many physical and biological parameters. Size, shape, color, vestiture, disease susceptibility, temperature range, tactile response, chemosensitivity, reproductive output, longevity, and an almost endless list that varies in context to the organisms in question. Variation in a population is selected by the environment and those individuals in the population with traits favored by selection have a higher degree of reproductive success. The environment acts as a screen allowing those individuals with the greatest fitness to reproduce successfully at a rate disproportionate to the average of the population. Over time, those selected traits become fixed in the population. This process repeated over time can lead to speciation. Continued divergence from the ancestral taxa over increasing spans of time can lead to the formation of higher taxa.
This is what is observed to occur in nature and what is mimicked by plant and animal breeders to select traits desirable to people.
I have no idea what this means. It is not a description of speciation as it is understood in science.
Dogs evolved from wolf stock from initial naturally occurring genetic variation within wolves. Originally, humans would have been part of the environmental selection that brought humans and dogs together. From there, we have instituted artificial selection in developing the myriad breeds we have today.
A population bottleneck is a sudden reduction in variation arising from an near extinction-level event. It does not apply to the appearance of novel variation in a population.
This is correct. Wolves did not suddenly start giving birth to dogs. As with the evolution of any new population, there was a gradual occurrence over time of variation, selection and fixation of traits as dogs diverged from the wolf stock. There would be a continuum of variation and selection over 15,000 to 40,000 years going from wolf to wolf-like to dog-like to dog.
Not exactly. It would be much closer to my simplified description above.
Darwin was amazingly correct in many things with his original formulation of the theory of evolution. He was an excellent observer and accumulated a massive volume of evidence that was best explained by the theory. He did what no one else had done before. He came up with a mechanism that drives evolution. Since he formulated this theory prior to the development of genetics, molecular biology and population biology, it is amazing how much he was still able to get right.
Experiment and observation continue to support Darwin's theory to this day. Proof is not a standard of science.
I have no idea what this means. It sounds made up and says nothing that I can discern.
Survival of the fittest was coined by Herbert Spencer to describe his understanding of evolution. Darwin did include it in later printings of "On the Origin of Species" but it is a poor description of fitness and modern biologists have moved away from the use of it. Today, we refer to the fitness of individuals in the context of reproductive success. Being less fit does not mean lethal or that no reproduction can occur. If, on average, individuals with certain traits that are under favorable selection by the environment, reproduce more offspring, there are more of their genes available for continued successful reproduction.
His theories have become the foundation of modern biology. What society chooses to do with those theories and the evidence they explain is out of the hands of Darwin and outside the scope of the theory. The theory is hardly the foundation of modern society.
There is no way of knowing what is wrong by definition in a contrived phrase that has no meaning outside of what you, as an individual, may conceive it to be. Neither knowing your definition of that phrase nor what you mean by it, one cannot agree with you here.
It could be, but it is mixed with anti-science, since what she chooses to exclude for subjective reasons is still science. I concede that a person can choose to do this, but any arguments about science fall apart due to the irrational basis on which they are built.
I like the pictures of the animals entering the ark and the two lions both have manes. Not sure how they were supposed to reproduce after the flood, but Noah was apparently much more inclusive than the modern people that believe the story is real.
What assumptions are those?
Hard to say, since you do not mention them.
Not at all. The fact that we do not have a model to describe the evolution of consciousness, does not mean it did not evolve. It is a difficult to find fossil evidence of consciousness, but neurobiologists and evolutionary biologists along with many other fields of science are researching it as we converse. Genetic bottlenecks are also not ignored by biologists and they are used hand in hand with other evidence to demonstrate evolution. The current state of the cheetah population is explained by evolution, genetics and a couple of population bottlenecks that occurred at different times over the last 20,000 years. The extant population of cheetahs has such limited variation that organs can be moved around within it without concern of rejection. Were someone of a mind to carry out such a bizarre exercise.
Missing link is a popular term and has little value in scientific work or discussions about evolution. Transitional fossil form is a somewhat better term and, at least, more useful as a general description. Examples are known from the fossil record for horses, whales, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, dinosaur to bird, fish to tetrapod and on and on. There are a plethora of them El Guapo.
For some groups only and this "sudden" is on the geological time scale, so relative to you and I, not very sudden at all.
cladking
Well-Known Member
cladking
Well-Known Member
That's very convenient. Just look at what does exist instead of what doesn't and then everything that can exist, does exist.
I keep mentioning them and they all keep getting ignored.
The biggest one is that Darwin assumed populations were stable over the long term.
Consciousness is life and all life is consciousness. All individuals are alive and only individuals are alive. All thought is individual. Except for purposes of reproduction there's no such thing as "species" to the individual. If you take a bad perspective anything can be invisible, even something so fundamental as change in species (which is really just a different batch of individuals)(with no missing links because there's no such thing as a missing link).
I am trying to understand what you are saying here, but it makes no sense to me. Selection that leads to speciation does not lead to fatality. I do not know what you mean by individuals behaving like the species.
Biological response to gradual changes in the environment is part of the mechanism that leads to speciation.
Extinction events are demonstrated to be very rapid environmental changes that exceed the rate of natural selection to drive adaptation to those changes. Traits that are selected include, but are not limited to behaviorally-based traits.
I have no knowledge of this example, but breeding of mammals has not lead to the artificial evolution of new species to my knowledge. However, there are known examples of very recent speciation due to hybridization in plants. The hybridization was not from the intentional action of human intervention.
Do you have a citation for the example you mention?
I'm not sure which annoys me more. Those that say QM is counter-intuitive because they use classical concepts and they don't work, or those who clearly don't understand the first thing about *real* QM and start making connections to energy or consciousness or some other nonsense.
OK, you're probably right. The hucksters are worse. They're making money off promoting their nonsense and selling it to the unwary.
To label her as "anti-science" could cause enmity.
To deal with errors & other differences as they occur
is more peaceful.
I was hoping for a response with some substance, but this says nothing that can readily be discerned without decrypting a lot of loose verbage.
From examination of fossils, many observations can be made regarding, morphology, structural homology, age and location. From these observations determinations of relationship are made and when viewed as a whole these reveal change over time from one transitional form to the next. Certainly, predictions can be made and have been made about the type and condition of fossils that should be expected to fill in gaps, but there is no consideration of fossils that are not known to exist or to possibly exist.
It sounds like you are hybridizing a misunderstood version of evolution and the evidence with a philosophical world view and coming up with something that is simply a belief system.
I have been looking at your posts on this thread and see no mention of them.
Stable in what regard. He developed the theory based on the change in populations that he observed. The assumption you are claiming is at odds with what Darwin actually did.
You may want to define and explain what you mean here. It looks more like some metaphysical belief system than anything based on evidence.
Species is a concept and human construct that has utility for finite work, but has descriptive limitations across time.
Are bacteria conscious? Not by the standard that humans are conscious. Their behavior exists in the form of response to stimuli. They move away from or toward temperature, salt, water and other gradients depending on physiological traits.
What does "take a bad perspective anything can be invisible" even mean. How does that relate to evolution and speciation?
It has been established through observation that intermediates between species exist. There is no question about that. Only denial.