Putting the JW Stand on Evolution into Perspective

[savagewind]

The survey looks wrong. Evolution explains how life's vehicles became, but I think no one knows where LIFE comes from.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not on bullying alone. Many simply believe what they have heard all their lives, that the ToE is "fact". Some, many in my opinion, simply do not want there to be a God they are accountable to. Educators and scientists who dare question evolution do so at peril to their career and livelihood. The media spouts the evolutionary line without question. Taken together, little wonder so many have been taken in. If the evidence for evolution is undeniable, as you claim, why do millions of educated and thoughtful people, including scientists, deny evolution?

Very few people in the scientific community deny evolution. The numbers are staggering. And the number of actual biologist that reject evolution are near none.
The evidence is examined every single day. Don't you think that if there was any validity to the claims against evolution, that have all been refuted at length by people who do know what they are talking about, would have seen the truth? The fact of the matter is that the only people that it seems to convince are the people that want evolution to be false for other reasons. Very few people have honest oppositions to evolution. And usually those that do have oppositions to specific points in evolution rather than simply the theory as a whole.

 

[McBell]

Not on bullying alone. Many simply believe what they have heard all their lives, that the ToE is "fact". Some, many in my opinion, simply do not want there to be a God they are accountable to. Educators and scientists who dare question evolution do so at peril to their career and livelihood. The media spouts the evolutionary line without question. Taken together, little wonder so many have been taken in. If the evidence for evolution is undeniable, as you claim, why do millions of educated and thoughtful people, including scientists, deny evolution?

rotflmao

Please be so kind as to put your copy of "Expelled" away.
The movie is nothing but a big steaming pile of bovine excrement that has been so thoroughly refuted and debunked it should literally be a crime punishable by death for those who try to use it.

 

[Sapiens]

Not on bullying alone. Many simply believe what they have heard all their lives, that the ToE is "fact". Some, many in my opinion, simply do not want there to be a God they are accountable to.

OI am accountable to myself, my family, my community, my profession, my planet ... excuse me if I ignore your invisible friend.

Educators and scientists who dare question evolution do so at peril to their career and livelihood.

If the are irrational and dogmatic, sure ... as it should be. They are employed to teach logically and research empirically and if they partake of a belief system that prohibits this ... well, I guess they are not capable of doing the job.

The media spouts the evolutionary line without question.

Would you care to outline the questions? Rationally?

Taken together, little wonder so many have been taken in. If the evidence for evolution is undeniable, as you claim, why do millions of educated and thoughtful people, including scientists, deny evolution?

That's crap ... checkout Project Steve: (from wiki)

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 51% of the listed Steves being biologists.[4]

The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[2] As of January 23, 2015, Project Steve has 1,359 signatories.[2]

 

[rusra02]

Because their faith means more to them than the facts. Facts are more easily dismissed then their need for a perceived salvation. In fact, putting salvation first means that anything that even comes close to generating doubt about the program is automatically rejected. No need to even look at it or its merits. "I don't give a rat's *** what it says. If it isn't in accord with my faith it can't be true." And the 3% of the scientists who reject evolution ain't very much. In fact, I would bet that almost all of them are in sciences well removed from biology.

"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time,"
source


According to Newsweek in 1987:
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%
source​

I am reminded of a quote I recently read; "the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it." It could be said of believers in evolution that "their faith [in evolution] means more to them than the facts." And I find highly suspect the claims that only a small number of scientists reject or doubt the ToE. One has but to look at discovery.org to see that serious scientists who have examined the evidence find the evidence for intelligent design compelling.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One has but to look at discovery.org to see that serious scientists who have examined the evidence find the evidence for intelligent design compelling.

And one need only look at their arguments and reasoning to see that they completely lack any kind of merit whatsoever, and that there is a good reason why over 99% of qualified biologists accept evolution.

 

[savagewind]

Ignore me. It's OK.

The THINGS of life have evolved, are evolving and (hopefully) will continue to do so in the right direction, But LIFE, the power to move a thing, is NOT evolving. Everything keeps on growing old and dying at nearly the same rate things have always lived and died. Why is life not evolving?

 

[Nietzsche]

Ignore me. It's OK.

The THINGS of life have evolved, are evolving and (hopefully) will continue to do so in the right direction, But LIFE, the power to move a thing, is NOT evolving. Everything keeps on growing old and dying at nearly the same rate things have always lived and died. Why is life not evolving?

...because that isn't how energy works? There are issues of resources & energy. Also, evolution is not "things get better", evolution is "things are weeded out to be better for the circumstances it exists in".

 

[savagewind]

...because that isn't how energy works? There are issues of resources & energy. Also, evolution is not "things get better", evolution is "things are weeded out to be better for the circumstances it exists in".

OK. Is it not amazing to you that the life spans of living things are stasis? It is to me. What causes stasis? So I look it up. It says " A state of stability, in which all forces are equal and opposing, therefore they cancel out each other".

Where does EQUAL come from please? Tell me.

 

[Skwim]

And I find highly suspect the claims that only a small number of scientists reject or doubt the ToE.

Got any evidence to the contrary?

One has but to look at discovery.org to see that serious scientists who have examined the evidence find the evidence for intelligent design compelling.

Went to the web site and looked for the information but came up dry. And, of course, there are are serious scientists who have examined the evidence find intelligent design compelling. No one is denying it; however, in comparison to those who subscribe to evolution the percentage is very small, particularly in the biology and earth sciences where it really counts---can't expect those in political science or physics to be as well versed in the nature of evolution as those in biology and the earth sciences. So yes, creationism does have its supporters in the sciences, but it's hardly meaningful.

 

[savagewind]

Please explain (in simple terms, as we are simple) how equal can exist so long in a world that is all about change.

 

[McBell]

I am reminded of a quote I recently read; "the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it." It could be said of believers in evolution that "their faith [in evolution] means more to them than the facts." And I find highly suspect the claims that only a small number of scientists reject or doubt the ToE. One has but to look at discovery.org to see that serious scientists who have examined the evidence find the evidence for intelligent design compelling.

Nice little sermon.
Problem is you have not in the least little bit shown you are correct about evolution.

Of course, it would help if you were attacking actual evolution and not strawmen you call evolution.

But hey, you carry right along.
Your blatant hypocrisy is most comical.

 

[Nietzsche]

OK. Is it not amazing to you that the life spans of living things are stasis? It is to me. What causes stasis? So I look it up. It says " A state of stability, in which all forces are equal and opposing, therefore they cancel out each other".

Where does EQUAL come from please? Tell me.

Who said they were in stasis? Humans are living longer & longer all the time as resources allow. Also, this 'balance' you're talking about? It doesn't exist. We don't notice it at our scale, but the Universe is winding down. The heat/energy is being spread thinner & thinner and eventually it will be spread so thin it won't be able to support itself, where it will then lose cohesion entirely. But as for on our level, there is nothing to be gained in living an extremely long time and having children. Resources, again, are the most important factor.

 

[Nietzsche]

Please explain (in simple terms, as we are simple) how equal can exist so long in a world that is all about change.

The problem is your sense of scale. This involves massive swathes of time.

 

[rusra02]

rotflmao

Please be so kind as to put your copy of "Expelled" away.
The movie is nothing but a big steaming pile of bovine excrement that has been so thoroughly refuted and debunked it should literally be a crime punishable by death for those who try to use it.

Attacked and vilified by the evolution faithful, sure, but not refuted nor debunked, IMO. But each person can decide what to believe for themselves, without the threat of death, thankfully.

 

[savagewind]

Who said they were in stasis? Humans are living longer & longer all the time as resources allow. Also, this 'balance' you're talking about? It doesn't exist. We don't notice it at our scale, but the Universe is winding down. The heat/energy is being spread thinner & thinner and eventually it will be spread so thin it won't be able to support itself, where it will then lose cohesion entirely. But as for on our level, there is nothing to be gained in living an extremely long time and having children. Resources, again, are the most important factor.

Humans are not able to live much longer than they ever did barring accidents and disease. Feed a man of six thousand years ago and keep him from danger and disease and do the same for a modern man and they will live about the same many years. Do you not see that is an odd coincidence? Same with trees, turtles, fish, bears, et cetera.

 

[savagewind]

The problem is your sense of scale. This involves massive swathes of time.

Yes, I think you have made my point for me. I appreciate it! Thank you.

 

[Nietzsche]

Humans are not able to live much longer than they ever did barring accidents and disease. Feed a man of six thousand years ago and keep him from danger and disease and do the same for a modern man and they will live about the same many years. Do you not see that is an odd coincidence? Same with trees, turtles, fish, bears, et cetera.

How is the law of conservation of energy a coincidence? "Life" is the sum-total collection of chemical processes that eventually burn out, and Evolution is about "good enough" not "perfect". You must also remember that none of this occurs in a vacuum. As one thing changes, the ripple is felt both in the present and in the future. Not to mention that death is vital to evolution. An immortal organism does not change. Look at short-lived organisms. They evolve at a staggering rate. Why? Because they breed quickly & die quickly. Successive generations stack up much, much faster leading to more and more potential changes and those changes being passed on.

Also, there are functionally immortal things in existence. A type of jellyfish, a few sorts of fungi, and I believe also the "Water-bear" microscopic organism is functionally immortal. But these creatures are not very successful.

Yes, I think you have made my point for me. I appreciate it! Thank you.

I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but that might be the single most smarmy thing I've ever read. I've never used my ignore thing on here, but an answer like that makes me reconsider. Could you find a way to either explain what you said or failing that, reword that into something less punch-able?

 

[savagewind]

How is the law of conservation of energy a coincidence? "Life" is the sum-total collection of chemical processes that eventually burn out, and Evolution is about "good enough" not "perfect". You must also remember that none of this occurs in a vacuum. As one thing changes, the ripple is felt both in the present and in the future. Not to mention that death is vital to evolution. An immortal organism does not change. Look at short-lived organisms. They evolve at a staggering rate. Why? Because they breed quickly & die quickly. Successive generations stack up much, much faster leading to more and more potential changes and those changes being passed on.

Also, there are functionally immortal things in existence. A type of jellyfish, a few sorts of fungi, and I believe also the "Water-bear" microscopic organism is functionally immortal. But these creatures are not very successful.


I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but that might be the single most smarmy thing I've ever read. I've never used my ignore thing on here, but an answer like that makes me reconsider. Could you find a way to either explain what you said or failing that, reword that into something less punch-able?

OK. But I am certain, like everyone else, you will learn to ignore me.

In ALL time like you say, "massive swathes of time", there is still a predictable limit to how long each species will last. Why is that so? Evolution is not working on the length of time each species lasts. I understand turtles last longer than dogs but ALL turtles live long (barring disease and calamity) and ALL dogs live a short life. Where is evolution at work in each species respecting the cell's ability to last? What species do you know that its life span has changed due to evolution? Across the board. Maybe there are several. I do not know.

 

[Nietzsche]

OK. But I am certain, like everyone else, you will learn to ignore me.

I do not want to ignore you. It's intellectually dishonest. And usually, while I don't think we've agreed on anything beyond "the sun tends to rise in the east" you're by no means insulting or annoying. I just found that bit about "proving your point" to...just, words fail to describe the loathing I felt when I read that the first time.

In ALL time like you say, "massive swathes of time", there is still a predictable limit to how long each species will last. Why is that so? Evolution is not working on the length of time each species lasts. I understand turtles last longer than dogs but ALL turtles live long (barring disease and calamity) and ALL dogs live a short life.

"All turtles live long" is not, in fact, true. There are plenty of short-lived turtles(and I refer only to age, not to death by outside circumstance). Most species of turtle live quite a while, but there are plenty of smaller sorts that live only a handful of years.The larger something is, the older it has potential to become(generally, of course).

Where is evolution at work in each species respecting the cell's ability to last? What species do you know that its life span has changed due to evolution? Across the board. Maybe there are several. I do not know.

Cell's ability to last? I think we're coming up on a problem here less related to evolution and more related to what is honestly just your(and at the same time, my own) ignorance. However something I do know is that, when regarding multi-cell organisms, "aging" is what we observe as cells divide & reproduce ever-so-slightly imperfect copies of themselves.Now "imperfect" here does not mean(at least it does not yet) "worse" or "bad" just "not a perfect copy". Regarding cells themselves, I am not remotely educated enough to answer that with confidence, but if I had to wager an educated(well as educated as I can) guess it would be that in this there is simply no impetus for the change. With cells we're talking about extremely tiny organisms which in many cases stretch the very definition of what "life" actually is. Not to mention that even if a cell were to change in such a way as to facilitate better replication(and thus more-perfect copies of itself, which leads to slower aging and thus reaches the point where the cell is too broken to continue anymore more slowly) it would mean nothing because it's just one cell, one out of countless *insert properly mind-destroyingly high number here*.

However, remember this;

We know what an "immortal" or undying cell looks like. It's called Cancer. A cancerous cell does not know how to die despite being so utterly broken.