Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[ecco]

The average person is not an expert in many fields of study, and if a subject is presented in a simple manner, everyone can usually understand the basics of it.

That's true. That's why people can have a general understanding of relativity, aeronautics, biology and evolution.

Science objects to simplification because it takes years of study to adopt the the teachings and the language,

That is not true. Science objects when people look at the simplified versions and then disparage science by saying theories, concepts and findings are incomplete. That's something the Creos are taught to do.

It's nothing short of snobbery ... It's just bullying. Bullies are cowards....and they seldom operate alone. How dare we stand up to them and call them out on their unsubstantiated claims! ... Using scientific terminology is a way to dazzle ordinary people with science so that they can pass off their assumptions,

You complain when scientific arguments are presented at the level of lay people.
You complain when detailed in-depth scientific terminology is used.

IOW, you complain whenever it suits your purpose.

... Using scientific terminology is a way to dazzle ordinary people with science so that they can pass off their assumptions, hidden in the high sounding jargon. If the simplified version sounds suspect....it's because it usually is. There is no hiding the simple truth when you strip it down to the bare bones. You can't go wrong with the KISS principle.

You complain when scientific arguments are presented at the level of lay people.
You complain when detailed in-depth scientific terminology is used.

IOW, you complain whenever it suits your purpose.

...but science has no real proof for what they believe either...

Science has overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

EVIDENCE, Deeje, EVIDENCE. How many times must you be told that science deals in evidence, not in proofs? Every time you use the word "proof" you are just showing that your comments are disingenuous. If one's comments are disingenuous, what does that say about the poster?

 

[ecco]

I lost my best friend to cancer over 20 years ago, and even though she tried all sorts of natural therapies, none of them worked for her.

Do you really understand what you wrote? You just posted anecdotal evidence that "natural therapies" do nothing at all.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[ecco]

I wish she'd had the option to try cannabis back then. We'll never know.

The Internet is full of the testimonies of those who defeated cancer with cannabis,

Cannabis is a whole plant medicine which has an "entourage effect".....all the components can work together. Some components (Like THC) works better for some conditions and others (like CBD) treat different conditions. Different strains have different ratios. The human body has an endocannabinoid system that is designed to work with cannabis in just about every part of the body. It is a perfect medicine that can treat or cure many diseases

I guess Deeje is not the complete tool of the Jehova's Witnesses in all things...

All emphases mine

Drugs — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
What about marijuana—is it harmless? Some doctors have said that it is

David Powelson, M.D., formerly chief of psychiatry, Cowell Hospital, University of California, Berkeley, at one time advocated legalizing the use of marijuana. Later, after more evidence was available, he wrote: “I now believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug we must contend with: 1. Its early use is beguiling. The user is given an illusion of feeling good; he cannot sense the deterioration of his mental and physiological processes. 2. Its continued use leads to delusional thinking. After one to three years of continuous use, the pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the thought process.”—Executive Health Report, October 1977, p. 8.

Dr. Robert L. DuPont, former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the United States, who in the past was quoted as minimizing danger from marijuana, more recently stated: “... The other area is purely physical. Here the concerns range from the regular occurrence of chronic bronchitis among marijuana users to the very real possibilities of harmful hormonal effects, effects on the immune system and possibly even cancer.”—Montreal Gazette, March 22, 1979, p. 9.
​

Deeje says marijuana cures cancer. Official JW pronouncements say it causes cancer.

 

[ecco]

A Christian spouse does not get a divorce from their mate because they want to stop being a JW. What does give JW's grounds for divorce, is adultery. Even then, it doesn't have to lead to divorce. If the innocent mate is willing to forgive, they can work it out and stay together.
If the guilty party shows no remorse for breaking their bond -- and for breaking Jehovah's law, I might add -- the guilty one will be disfellowshipped (a person is disfellowshipped, not for what they do, but for their attitude about doing it.)

If they were disfellowshipped for another reason -- stealing, drunkenness, etc. -- there should be no divorce.

HC: "What does give JW's grounds for divorce, is adultery." For many years that was the law in this Country. Fortunately, legislators came to their senses and recognized that there were a lot of reasons for divorce.

When Sally left Harry...

OK, Harry. This whole JW thing is nonsense and your involvement in it is having a very negative impact on our children. Either you drop it or I'm getting a divorce.​

 

[oldbadger]

I wonder why you call it "the question".
There are a lot of questions, and, as is typical
in research, more answers bring more questions.

What question or questions about human evolution
do you have in mind, and, are any of them of
such a nature that-in your mind-they call into
serious question whether human kind evolved,
or, was created by a god, as is?

Hi........
I've heard of, and read about missing link(s) in just the evolution of mankind. This produces question(s).

One of the possibilities is that the acceleration of man's abilities, intellect etc was enabled by visiting intelligence. At the rate that we are advancing in technology I wonder what we will be able to achieve and do in, say, ten thousand years? If we survive ourselves, that is.

When I was younger mostly everybody thought that StarTrek episodes had gone too far with those handheld radios which could show both caller's 'on screen' as they talked to each other...... that was just ridiculous! Too far fetched...! But any kid can talk to mates like that now, or to their grandparents on the other side of the World.

So I for one don't laugh at such ideas now.

So...... yeah..... there are missing links alright, and we just can't fill the gaps at this time. I must look up what scientists like Prof Hawking or Cox think of such possibilities......

 

[ecco]

Okay, so in your world, is there anyone NOT involved in some giant global conspiracy? I mean, we’ve got doctors, nurses, technicians, dieticians, surgeons, ophthalmologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, paleontologists, paleobotanists, physicists, zoologists, ornithologists. Is that about right?

Evilutionologists! You forgot Evilutionologists!

 

[ecco]

Grammar pet peeves are hard not to correct. I grind my teeth whenever I see: "I could care less".

This one gets me quite often. Here is a slightly technical explanation:

If I were you - English Grammar

And a video that explains it in everyday terms:

Grammarly, while not perfect, works well in these forums. (and it's free)

 

[ecco]

So...... yeah..... there are missing links alright, and we just can't fill the gaps at this time.

You got it! You finally really got it! Congratulations.

Here is what YOU wrote. I added emphasis because you may not even realize the significance of what you, yourself, actually stated.

So...... yeah..... there are missing links alright, and we just can't fill the gaps at this time.

 

[Audie]

Hi........
I've heard of, and read about missing link(s) in just the evolution of mankind. This produces question(s).

One of the possibilities is that the acceleration of man's abilities, intellect etc was enabled by visiting intelligence. At the rate that we are advancing in technology I wonder what we will be able to achieve and do in, say, ten thousand years? If we survive ourselves, that is.

When I was younger mostly everybody thought that StarTrek episodes had gone too far with those handheld radios which could show both caller's 'on screen' as they talked to each other...... that was just ridiculous! Too far fetched...! But any kid can talk to mates like that now, or to their grandparents on the other side of the World.

So I for one don't laugh at such ideas now.

So...... yeah..... there are missing links alright, and we just can't fill the gaps at this time. I must look up what scientists like Prof Hawking or Cox think of such possibilities......

"Missing link" is of course, so 19th century, but ok..

As originally conceived, as I understand it, the term
meant something like..

"Ok we got monkeys, we got people, where is the
intermediate link?"

How do you see the term?
Link between what, and what?

If a person wants a complete history
of every step that human evolution has taken,
I doubt they will ever be satisfied.

We dont have a complete history of the Roman
Empire, or WW2, either.

I think it is great to keep researching
and learning the details, but I dont see
there being "missing links" in the history
of WW2.

A lot of unknown details does not call into
question the broad outline of WW2.

Do you think it does with human evolution?

 

[metis]

What's sort of pathetic is that the JW's say they don't want a higher education because it makes one too "worldly", and yet they then show the by-product of not having a good education when they can't get the science right. And then they compound their relative ignorance by swallowing lies taught to them by their masters about what other religions/denominations supposedly teach and believe in, such as the fraudulent claim that Catholics worship the sun. And then when they're shown they're wrong from an authentic source, instead of admitting they're in error, they simply repeat their fraudulent claim.

 

[oldbadger]

"Missing link" is of course, so 19th century, but ok..
Do you think it does with human evolution?

Yeah, I think it could with human evolution. I just wouldn't be surprised if primate dna got 'manipulated' in some way. We could probably do that fairly well within a short time, and what we could in a few thousand years (if we survive) is just mind boggling. Ergo..... since intelligence life has probably been developing and advancing over the last billions of years, I reckon anything is possible.

I think of early Genesis stories as metaphor, but then, there's a lot of speculation now about the possibility of life initiation here being activated by incoming cells .... on incoming bodies. So it's nice to think of all life as coming from 'above'..... heaven sent, as it were.... I don't feel like ranting at JWs over their beliefs........ science has produced some difficulties for us here on Earth. Highest Astronomical Tides already seem to be higher than 50 years ago.... they are reaching up to the base of the promenade here now even on calm days.... I never saw that before other than in severe Northerly Gales. The Hill where I live will be a tidal island in 50 years, I reckon, I'm only sorry that I won't be around to see that. But science has not helped rising seas, global warming, etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

I just wouldn't be surprised if primate dna got 'manipulated' in some way.

Well, we've fully sequenced the genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and other primates, so it shouldn't be too hard for folks like you to specifically identify which sequences you believe were "manipulated".

But one step even further back than that.....I wonder what exactly do you think geneticists should look for in order to identify the "manipulated" sequences?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The theory should at all times account for all of the available and relevant evidence, but in the simplest way possible (Occam's principle of parsimony). Before it was known that evolution sometimes proceeds rapidly and at other times more slowly, there was no need for the concept of punctuated equilibrium, and so it was not included. New data led to modification of the hypothesis to account for that data.

And still, cannot account for all the evidence, such as instinct, or symbiosis between unrelated organisms. Hence, the need for a New Synthesis, as it’s called.

What is recommended is that when you quote, you not remove context that shows that the author intended the opposite of what the words appear to mean without that context, as when the Bible says that, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" is clipped down to, the Bible says "There is no God." Also, it is important to identify that it is a quote, usually by using quotation marks, and to identify its source when possible.

When I use quotes, I’ve provided the source. And I haven’t twisted the author’s meaning. I specifically asked those that think I have, to prove it: to show that the writer’s meaning regarding that particular topic was altered by my quote of their statement. No one has.
Respecting the New Synthesis (@Deeje , @nPeace , @oldbadger , you guys might like this):

“Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances..... Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process.” (!!)

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/pdf/rsfs20170015.pdf

They just can’t state some results ‘disagree with the MS’....they have to word it without raising consternation...”reveal different properties.” Lol.

The article is interesting, I thought.
The ToE itself is going through some drastic ‘evolving’....with intelligent help.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I did not say nor imply that it was mandatory that they divorce, only that it did lead to divorce. She realized that she was being misled by the JW leadership, and she also realized that this was such a problem between her and her husband that this would hjot work out well. the reason why I know quite a bit about this with them is because she was confiding in my wife what was going on because she needed to talk to someone. My wife, otoh, did not tell her what she should do as that was not her role.

Your wife seems wise.

I doubt that you know the entire story.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They have contempt for the world, and so make worldly a derogatory word. Likewise with flesh. Apparently, flesh is evil, too, as in the desires of the flesh. That is no doubt because they are in a big hurry to leave both - our world and their bodies.

Are you referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses?

This just highlights your lack of knowledge — I really don’t wanna say ignorance (but it is) — regarding our beliefs! My goodness!

We hope to stay here, on this Earth, forever in our bodies!

So you can “doubt” your understanding, very much!

However, this current system, of men ruling and hurting other men — the world in this sense — it’s not Jehovah’s Witnesses who make it a derogatory term....the Bible itself does; James 4:4 and 1 John 2:15-17 are just two of many Scriptures that reveal such a view.

Why? 1 John 5:19 gives the answer. We know who’s controlling this world, currently. — John 12:31; Revelation 12:9-12

 

[Hockeycowboy]

my emphasis...​

No. It is illogical to you because that's what JW tells you to believe.

I'll repost my comment that I made to HokeyCowboy...

A non-religious person would never think in terms of information originating from mindless forces.
As a test, I went to Google and entered "complex information originates from mindless forces" without the quotes. The very first thing that comes up is...

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? — Watchtower ONLINE ...

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009442They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. ... the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency —or, rather, .... Is it reasonable to propose that the highly complex information in DNA ...
​

This is a link to a JW Watchtower article that contains the term 'mindless process' six times.​

You can deny your indoctrination all you want to, but your own writings are clear evidence.

I think I said “mindless forces”, not processes. I got it from Dr. Steven Meyer, I think. Or it might have been Doug Axe.

 

[Deeje]

It's always heartwarming to me when I come on the site after a night's rest (on the other side of the world) to pages of responses.....literally pages...and post after desperate post from the same people.....'methinks thou all protesteth too much'......

As I read through, I see this pressing need on the part of the science buffs to shoot down by any means, what has been said against their 'religion' (or should I say, their 'belief system'?) Could it be that some of the things said by the creationists might ring true with the readers here.....why else would the responses be so terse and intense.....and for the most part personally insulting? Nothing changes in these responses except the posters...the content is exactly the same. You don't even know that the macro version of evolution is even possible...because you have no verifiable evidence to corroborate it. You assume it must have happened because evolution has to be true. (there can be no other explanation!) I don't believe it is, and neither do millions of others who see intelligent design everywhere in nature. The very same evidence presented for evolution, is just as convincing for ID in creation in our opinion. Even many scientists agree.
Most evolutionists steer clear of abiogenesis.....for obvious reasons.

Consider this:
Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things....correct?

But.....If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment, and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, who or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

Science's "overwhelming evidence" is only "overwhelming" to you guys. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans to us. It relies on faith, not facts and has holes you could walk a T-Rex through.....none of it is based on anything verifiable, but on assumptions.....detailed diagrams that are also based solely on inference and suggestion......and fossils that cannot speak, but are given a voice like a ventriloquist's dummy.....guess who the ventriloquist is?

Why this intense level of desperation.......? Put down your weapons.....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I lost my best friend to cancer over 20 years ago, and even though she tried all sorts of natural therapies, none of them worked for her

Do you really understand what you wrote? You just posted anecdotal evidence that "natural therapies" do nothing at all.

Thank you for your honesty.

Grief! Is this a quote-mine?
Deeje’s point, was regarding how cannabis could probably have helped her friend, had it been allowed.

Her following paragraph:

I wish she'd had the option to try cannabis back then. We'll never know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And still, cannot account for all the evidence, such as instinct, or symbiosis between unrelated organisms. Hence, the need for a New Synthesis, as it’s called.

Not really. The New Synthesis merely adapted the theory to genetics. And the evolution that led to symbiosis is well understood for many species. All you have is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

When I use quotes, I’ve provided the source. And I haven’t twisted the author’s meaning. I specifically asked those that think I have, to prove it: to show that the writer’s meaning regarding that particular topic was altered by my quote of their statement. No one has.
Respecting the New Synthesis (@Deeje , @nPeace , @oldbadger , you guys might like this):

It does not matter if you provide the source if you do not make it possible for others to check your work. For example:

"There is no God, the Bible even says so twelve times:

'There is no God' the Bible.' "

Now you know where the quotes are from. Can you find all twelve?

“Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances..... Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process.” (!!)

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/pdf/rsfs20170015.pdf

They just can’t state some results ‘disagree with the MS’....they have to word it without raising consternation...”reveal different properties.” Lol.

The article is interesting, I thought.
The ToE itself is going through some drastic ‘evolving’....with intelligent help.

No, you are seeing something that is not there. Corrections to Darwin's work does not mean that he was wrong. Life is the product of evolution. In the same way Einstein's work showed how Newton's work was wrong. Guess what, rocks still fall down, planets still orbit stars. Corrections are not necessarily refutations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not really. The New Synthesis merely adapted the theory to genetics. And the evolution that led to symbiosis is well understood for many species. All you have is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Nailed it! @Hockeycowboy is merely ponting out that we don't have a full explanation for everything that's ever existed biologically on earth. All I can say to that is........so what? Were you expecting otherwise?

He's trying to hold evolutionary theory to a standard of perfection, and when it doesn't meet that standard, well, he hasn't actually said what his point is.

@Hockeycowboy what exactly is your point in noting that we haven't fully explained everything that's ever existed on earth?