• 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!

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

tas8831

Well-Known Member
It could well be that the 8% might be taking about adaptation (micro-evolution) rather than the far fetched notion that single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs (macro-evolution).

What is far-fetched is the person rambling on about 'common sense' being better than academic degrees who then displays no common sense when writing things like this.

"single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs"


Given that even in your pretend world of understanding evolution, you must know that this is a rather blatant and dishonest misrepresentation... why write something so ridiculous and dishonest?

....these are relatively minor changes that do not take a creature outside of its taxonomic family, but facilitate survival.

Macro-evolution suggests that all creatures got here by means that are not testable or demonstrable. It's all based on educated guessing not facts.

More lies.

I wonder - do your beliefs give you an easy of of such antics, like confession or something? You'd better hope so...
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I'm an engineer (recovering), so I'm a big fan of educated guessing.
But macro is testable, albeit perhaps not to the level desired by some.
I suspect that to non-scientists, 'testing' means something very different than it does to scientists.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
It's like looking at circumstantial evidence, and reaching a conclusion without having solid evidence.

Please define the difference between circumstantial and solid evidence.
The most that can be said, if one is honest, is that the evidence for the hypothesis can be a strong argument for those who present it - which can be said for many arguments... but it isn't "a done deal". It's not fact - although evolutionist want it to be.
Would you agree?

Not really.
Evidence for the hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis is correct. It is not itself an 'argument.'
For example,
For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, “useless vestiges” that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix or tailbone.

Ah, the "useless vestige" bit... What you linked to is a news release. Such things tend to want to grab people's attention. You may not have noticed, for example, that it was not the researcher that said anything about "useless vestiges", it was the press release's author. The actual research article's Abstract ends with:

"This study provides evidence that sexual selection can affect internal anatomy that controls male genitalia. These important functions may explain why cetacean pelvic bones have not been lost through evolutionary time."

They are pelvic bones, after all. Yet whales have no lower limbs. So why are there pelvic bones at all?

See the actual issue?
I'm not a scientist, but they are scientists that do not agree with these assumptions.

Probably not evolutionary biologists, and the scientists that actually did the whale pelvis research don't either.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe.
Robertsonian translocation (ROB) is the most common form of chromosomal rearrangement in humans where the participating chromosomes break at their centromeres and the long arms fuse to form a single, large chromosome with a single centromere.

It would not be a first that they are wrong.
You mean the creationists that you just linked to?

Tomkins' claims are routinely debunked by scientists lacking the drive to prop up a religious belief. A couple of examples of Tomkins' fiskings:
Debunking Creationist study criticizing similiarity between human and chimpanzee DNA | Genetic Literacy Project

There is some profanity in this one, be aware -
Do the creationist shuffle and twist! | ScienceBlogs

Human - Chimp similarity update - How Tomkins did it : junkscience

It is easy to believe that creation 'scientists' are doing the Lord's work, debunking evilution left and right, providing that you are not very well versed in the relevant science and have a tendency to simply believe what creationists tell you.


How do bacteria survive without a host?
The same way they survive in soil and in the air and in water.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who on these forums use peer review? Are you saying you can't debate a Creationist hat doesn't use peer review? Am I missing something?
Yes, you missed everything.

When debating science the minimum standard for an article is one that passes real peer review. Concepts that can't pass that need not be refuted.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species.

Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

Chromosome 2 in humans

Actually, the chromosome 2 fusion thing is an explanation as to why humans have 1 less chromosome that the other great apes, not evidence for evolution as such.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually, the chromosome 2 fusion thing is an explanation as to why humans have 1 less chromosome that the other great apes, not evidence for evolution as such.

I will have to disagree on this. One must understand scientific evidence to see how it is evidence for evolution. It was known, long before we could read DNA, that other great apes and humans had a different number of chromosomes. If we were related then this difference in number could only be explained by a split of one of your chromosomes, and that appears to be unlikely since it would have had to split three different times, or if two of our chromosomes were the result of two others joining. The discovery of teleomeres inside Chromosome 2 confirmed that hypothesis. Evidence that supports a hypothesis is evidence for evolution. And since observations that support a hypothesis are scientific evidence this is an example of scientific evidence for evolution.

Much of the evidence for evolution are small pieces like this. But they all add up to paint a much bigger picture. Meanwhile since creationists appear to be too afraid to put their concepts in the form of a testable hypothesis there is by definition no scientific evidence for creationism and that is the fault of creationists only.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
My guess is that they're closet evolutionists.
That's what I figure too. I bet if you asked the same people the same question in front of their JW peers, that 8% would disappear.

NPease can do whatever he likes, and of course it's something they don't want to talk about. They don't know enough about evolution to defend their attack on it..
Which is weird....it's like they're ashamed of the mere possibility that their faith influences their views.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
"Design" in the creationist sense does not appear to exist. They cannot even define it.

What is
"Design" in the creationist sense

Yes, you missed everything.

When debating science the minimum standard for an article is one that passes real peer review. Concepts that can't pass that need not be refuted.
No, I'm asking you, why do you debate Creationist who do not use peer review, but you complain about debating articles they link to that are not peer reviewed?

@tas8831 I'll get back to you later.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Berlinski youtube

Berlinski? Hilarious.
Talk about crackpots - and a credential embellisher, at that.
Note in his accolades, there is no mention of him teaching any biology or anything relevant...

Wistar symposium? LOL!
I especially like his truly idiotic claims about the 'cow to whale' thing - pity that nobody claims whales evolved from cows. And 50,000 changes??? And he names not ONE specific one??? And the ones he does mention are NOT changed as he claims? And it was all a misrepresentation in the first place!Simpleton. If he had any notion of what happens in development, which he does not, he would not have made such a fool of himself.
So, you've got nothing but the rantings of an egomaniac to support your calling evolution a "crackpot theory"? A series of idiotic assertions from a non-scientist.. wonderful!

No wonder you don;t want to get into the details.

What do you know that this guy ( a creationist) doesn't?



The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.





Rather than, uh, look at their evidence?
What evidence do JWs have for anything?

Ironic, given your link to a Berlinski video above...
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
Probably not, because for the most part, atheists tend to accept that for which there is evidence. We tend not to rely so much on mere 'belief.'

Yeah, that's what they always say, but I've never seen any evidence of it. Of course, evidence doesn't really mean anything it just makes them think they are special in some way. You can have evidence for or against something and it could mean anything from nothing to a direct lie. And 'belief' or faith is something used by everyone, including you. The sun rises, another day, your relationships, money . . . kind'a silly, don't you think? To make that illusion of separation. The only real difference is that you don't believe in God and they do. What I tend to see is neither one of you have given it much thought.

Well, I've been slumming around in forums like this for almost 20 years, and have been reading creationist material for more than 30. And I have encountered a lot of people that reject evolution on religious grounds. Many of them also declare things - silly, ignorant things - like there is no evidence for evolution, that the theory is nonsensical, etc. Yet even these folks, ultimately, rely on their religious indoctrination rather than evidence, especially once their assertions are demolished.

I was an atheist in middle school through high school when they attempted to indoctrinate me with the failed metaphysical experiment called the theory of evolution. I rejected it. I became a believer at 27 and still reject it, because it's stupid.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Actually, the chromosome 2 fusion thing is an explanation as to why humans have 1 less chromosome that the other great apes, not evidence for evolution as such.
I will have to disagree on this. One must understand scientific evidence to see how it is evidence for evolution.

Pretty sure I understand the evidence. I have been teaching evolutionary biology for 20 years...
It was known, long before we could read DNA, that other great apes and humans had a different number of chromosomes. If we were related then this difference in number could only be explained by a split of one of your chromosomes, and that appears to be unlikely since it would have had to split three different times, or if two of our chromosomes were the result of two others joining. The discovery of teleomeres inside Chromosome 2 confirmed that hypothesis. Evidence that supports a hypothesis is evidence for evolution.
The fusion of 2 chromosomes into 1 occurred after the split between the human an chimp lineages. The creationist argument was (and pathetically, still is) that the differing karyotypes are impossible to explain via evolution. They claim that they had to be created that way because creatures with differing karyotyopes cannot interbreed (false). That or they will claim that evolutionists claim that the fusion caused the speciation. No need to conclude (or assume) that.
That the chromosomes fused is a done deal, that fact alone refutes their opposition. I guess "big picture" is supports evolution, but as a specific event, it explains why we have one less chromosome that chimps.
Meanwhile since creationists appear to be too afraid to put their concepts in the form of a testable hypothesis there is by definition no scientific evidence for creationism and that is the fault of creationists only.
Indeed.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The evidence only supports evolution. You need to understand the concept of evidence before you complain about it. Berlinski is a dishonest source. He knows better, he is lying.
In part, but I think he is also incompetent in the areas he pontificates about.

I am always weary when I see someone with so many past affiliations - tells me that he is unemployable for the long term, not that he has a great deal of expertise. Just like Dembski.

In his laughably inept treatment of 'cow to whale' evolution, he unwittingly shows himself to think that each and every little tidbit of morphological change must be caused by a specific group of mutations - how else could he claim he 'stopped at 50,000'. It is easy to spot a smooth-talking charlatan like Berlinski if you understand the material better than they do.
This is why IDists and creationists like him - he sounds really smart, he is super confident, and he says things they like. It is not at all that they actually understand the material.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The evidence you present for the authenticity of the Bible when you go from door to door.

I've never seen any such evidence.

Certainly there is none from archaeology or history for the miracles and the like. That some historical events and people are named does not mean all the deity magic stuff is real. That is an unwarranted extrapolation.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Probably not, because for the most part, atheists tend to accept that for which there is evidence. We tend not to rely so much on mere 'belief.'
Yeah, that's what they always say, but I've never seen any evidence of it.
Evidence of what? That we do not rely on mere belief? Since we do not believe in deities, what 'evidence' must there be?
Of course, evidence doesn't really mean anything it just makes them think they are special in some way.

Projection.
You can have evidence for or against something and it could mean anything from nothing to a direct lie. And 'belief' or faith is something used by everyone, including you. The sun rises, another day, your relationships, money . . . kind'a silly, don't you think? To make that illusion of separation. The only real difference is that you don't believe in God and they do. What I tend to see is neither one of you have given it much thought.
Yawn...
I was an atheist in middle school through high school
Sure you were...
when they attempted to indoctrinate me with the failed metaphysical experiment called the theory of evolution. I rejected it.

Cool - a middle school/high school student rejected something that people that actually do research and have studied it all for decades accept? Totally awesome!
I became a believer at 27 and still reject it, because it's stupid.

Wow, well, you must be right, calling it "stupid" and all.

I guess this guy is just out of your league...


The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...

- Todd Wood, PhD, YEC

Emphasized an important part...

The other JW I presented this to asked me to explain, apparently, like I would to a child. Let's see how you do:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:


Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."


Right - its just "stupid." Totally unlike choosing to believe that just one batch of ancient middle eastern tall tales are 100% true....
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Actually there is plenty of proof, my avatar is just one fragment of that proof.

I can see the resemblance :p

But I never see the proof. I see lots of suggestion and supposition, but the bones don't speak unless science gives them a voice.
 
Top