• 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!

Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

shawn001

Well-Known Member
nor in anyway does his statement mean its not correct.

""KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is."


So Jared Jammer, do you have a professional "observation, or a single experimental result" that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution?



 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Going back to simple logic......if there IS a Creator who designed all life on this planet, then the evolutionary theory becomes a farce. All the science in the world cannot deny that. Evolution wants to deny a Creator and make the world believe that all life is an accident or the result of random forces that magically produced all the forms of life we see on earth. That is science fiction couched in "maybe's, might have's and could have's". Supposition is not fact and never will be. All the educated guessing in the world does not make a belief into a fact.

Adding billions of years doesn't alter the plain and simple evidence that is right under our noses.

I challenge you to explain how the creatures in this link designed themselves through "preference".

The caterpillars which mimic snakes, grow spiky spines and eat toxic flowers - all to keep predators away | Daily Mail Online

Design requires a designer. Programming requires a programmer. Adaptation does not explain the missing links between one kind and another.

Read Wiki's entry on Speciation and you will see what I see. The flies remained flies, the fish remained fish and the plants remained plants. The genetic roadblocks are set to prevent "kinds" from developing into other "kinds".

Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist?
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species.[49] Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.

Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time (see diagram at the bottom of the page). Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.

Punctuated evolution
The question of evolutionary change in relation to available geological time is indeed a serious theoretical challenge, but the reasons are exactly the opposite of that inspired by most people’s intuition. Organisms in general have not done nearly as much evolving as we should reasonably expect. Long term rates of change, even in lineages of unusual rapid evolution, are almost always far slower than they theoretically could be. The basis for such expectation is to be found most clearly in observed rates of evolution under artificial selection, along with the often high rates of change in environmental conditions that must imply rapid change in intensity and direction of selection in nature.[63]

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the actual words as well as those between the lines and see that this "theory" is just that. Educated speculation that glosses over the "challenges" as if they are meaningless. If one has to dismiss one's natural intuition to accept the macro-evolutionary theory rather than the proven natural adaptation of species to their environment, then I believe that speaks for itself.

You see what you want to see.....and you can all accuse me of doing the same thing. That is my point.

You have no more "proof" than I have. Both acceptances are based on faith and belief....not scientific fact.



"Evolution wants to deny a Creator"

No your making that up an one of yours and many beliefs it has nothing to do with evolution.

"All the educated guessing in the world does not make a belief into a fact."

This so cracks me up. You consider your beliefs to be a fact!!!!

Testing the theory of evolution for the last 150 years is not "educated guessing." Its not a hypothesis anymore in the slightest.


You must not be able to read anything except your bible.

"You have no more "proof" than I have. Both acceptances are based on faith and belief....not scientific fact"

Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders
Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science

Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not conflict.

"[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator."
— General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

"Students' ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as 'scientific' will give them false ideas about scientific methods and criteria."
Central Conference of American Rabbis


"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
— Pope John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator…. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
"The Clergy Letter Project" signed by more than 10,000 Christian clergy members.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences


One more time here.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."


fossil.jpg


In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences


JayJayDee you think a scientific theory from your above post fits this "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation


The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
No, it wouldn't because the Creator (the Great Programmer) could have used Evolution to create. It's called Theistic Evolution, and there's plenty of people who believe this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Theistic Evolution I believe is about the Creator being the originator of life and putting evolution into motion to produce all life forms on earth. I don't subscribe to that. I can see purposeful design in all the living world.
Adaptation is part of that creative process, but all of the "kinds" were individually created. Adam was used to name them after observation.

If Evolution is false, then we'll have some serious issues explaining MRSA and other drug resistant illness. The only way to explain evolving virus and bacteria is by accepting that they are ... evolving.

They are adapting to a changing environment......one created by man if I am not mistaken. The over prescription of antibiotics is responsible for this to a large extent. Not to mention the other medications that mess up people's immune system.
Super bugs are a relatively new phenomenon. Adaptation is how they ensure their survival. You call adaptation, evolution. It is micro-evolution by my definition. But certainly not proof of macro-evolution by any stretch.

No, it doesn't. It approves of a Creator that is in symbiosis with Evolution. Just like gravity is a natural phenomenon or snow flakes are formed by natural processes, the Creator would have to fit in the idea that this world works the way this world works.

What is a "natural" process? This blanket term seems to cover an awful lot, whilst also ignoring a lot. Where a "process" demonstrates deliberate action of one creature based on the deliberate action of another to produce a desired result, you have design...interdependency......not random forces accidently producing an unexpected symbiotic partnership. They are designed to work together in a mutually beneficial relationship.

How does a plant deliberately plan to grow a replica of a fake insect on the lip of its flower to fool an insect into pollinating it?
If it evolved this ability, how long would it take for the mimic insect to form and how would a plant know how to then duplicate the pheromone of the insect to attract it? How much imagination does it take to fill in the blanks?

Unless the Creator created these forces that are creating lifeforms. Evolution is about how nature is producing life forms, and if God made it that way, so be it. Don't reject a Creator with the capacity of being smart enough to do this.

I'm sure God is thrilled that you think so. :rolleyes: You can call God "nature"....I prefer to call him Jehovah....my God.

"Smart enough" is not exactly the term appropriate for a master artisan/mathematician/designer/scientist. Is it?

There's no supposition or guesswork in the theory of evolution. That's just silly.

Silly in whose estimations? o_O

The articles on evolution that I have read, attempting to prove that evolution is a fact, are full of the language of supposition. You might not notice it, but it is all couched in terms that mean something "might have" happened or "could have" taken place.....but there is no way to state something categorically unless you have proof. So what is proven? Micro-evolution....but certainly not macro-evolution. No one was around to attest to the truth of it and the evidence that is available is not convincing to anyone who is not 'programmed to accept it either by programming in their education system, or by peer pressure in the various fields of science.

There's 100,000'nds of scientists, the past 200 years, using a lot of ingenuity and smart thinking, and hard work, and testing and research over and over and over and over and over and over again to confirm what they've found, and it still ALL fits that species evolve. They do. And that's how it is. There's no guessing there, but just acceptance.

You keep repeating this and I agree that they have evidence for micro evolution......this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether one naturally proves the other......I don't believe it does.

The evidence for evolution is there, plain and simple, right under your nose, but it takes someone who's willing to open their eyes and look to see it.

If you open your eyes, and I mean really open your eyes, you may see that the whole world is trying to make God go away.....and they are succeeding. Those who still believe in him are more or less forced to compromise their stand because they are convinced that scientists have proven the theory, when in actual fact, they haven't. They have proven micro, (as in adaptation)....but not macro-evolution. It is unprovable by any method used to substantiate any other branch of science. Theory is not fact and never will be.

I will not compromise. Adaptation will never be evidence for one "kind" becoming another "kind" no matter how many millions of years science believes it took.

You are free to accept it....but I cannot.
 
Last edited:

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Many scientists accept ID, but many will also not admit it for fear of ridicule...of the sort that we have seen here. :rolleyes:
This is actually quite untrue, at least in the way that you mean it. While religion plays a large role in the individual aspect of the scientific community, the rejection of evidence based on a preconceived bias does not. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are quite dedicated to their faith, and have no problem studying the actual science of evolutionary theory.

I'll recommend another book that will probably never be read, which focused on that very aspect of evolutionary scientists. It studies what scientists believe on a personal level.

3432_400x400.jpg

Evolution and Religion - Questioning The Beliefs Of The world's Eminent Evolutionists.


Design is so evident that it seems ridiculous to fob it off as if it was nothing.....just random beneficial changes that just happened to create all the living things we see on planet earth.

Let's play this game then...

Please show me how your argument for a deity and intelligent designer is any more legitimate than this awesome meme...
FSM-Unierse.png


If you spend enough time digesting the implications, instead of having emotional knee-jerk responses, then you'll realize how similar they are, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem.

Science cannot provide the answer to how life began any more convincingly than believers in the Creator can.
Christians cannot provide the answer to how life began any more convincingly than believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster can...

Being unfalsifiable does not equate to being correct.
 
Last edited:

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Theistic Evolution I believe is about the Creator being the originator of life and putting evolution into motion to produce all life forms on earth. I don't subscribe to that. I can see purposeful design in all the living world.
That's the point with theistic evolution, there still is a point to how things evolve and you can use evolutionary algorithms for purposeful design. The Evolved Antenna is an example of that. The algorithm has been used several times and produced different antennas. They're mostly done for very special uses, like picking up the X-band frequency in a NASA program years ago (2006).

Evolutionary algorithms can be used to control large, complex pressure systems (not only can, but is an example of one of the first genetic algorithms used in the 80's).

And much more. Evolution is not "no-design" but evolved design.

Adaptation is part of that creative process, but all of the "kinds" were individually created. Adam was used to name them after observation.
Well, you know this because you were there. Right? The common argument to why we can't know evolution is because we weren't there, but were you there when God created the world and Adam?

They are adapting to a changing environment......one created by man if I am not mistaken. The over prescription of antibiotics is responsible for this to a large extent. Not to mention the other medications that mess up people's immune system.
Super bugs are a relatively new phenomenon. Adaptation is how they ensure their survival. You call adaptation, evolution. It is micro-evolution by my definition. But certainly not proof of macro-evolution by any stretch.
You keep on saying "adapting". When virus and bacteria adapts, it's their genetic code changing. We know this, because that's how we identify which virus strain or bacteria we're talking about. "Strain" is the term for "genetic markers in the DNA (or RNA)". Genetic code change is called mutations. The survival of the more successful mutations of them is called natural selection. In other words, your term "adaptation" is the same as evolution. You're only fighting against evolution because of what it's called. When you call it adaptation, that is evolution.

What is a "natural" process? This blanket term seems to cover an awful lot, whilst also ignoring a lot. Where a "process" demonstrates deliberate action of one creature based on the deliberate action of another to produce a desired result, you have design...interdependency......not random forces accidently producing an unexpected symbiotic partnership. They are designed to work together in a mutually beneficial relationship.
If God created nature and nature creates snowflakes, then the process how snowflakes are produced is natural. Is it not?

How does a plant deliberately plan to grow a replica of a fake insect on the lip of its flower to fool an insect into pollinating it?
If it evolved this ability, how long would it take for the mimic insect to form and how would a plant know how to then duplicate the pheromone of the insect to attract it? How much imagination does it take to fill in the blanks?
There's a crab that evolved to have a samurai face on its back. How weird is that? By small steps and selection by humans favoring the crabs that don't look like samurais. They out harvested any crab that didn't scare them. Plants that grow fake insects have evolved that way in very small and many steps for a very long time. There's no mystery about it.

I'm sure God is thrilled that you think so. :rolleyes: You can call God "nature"....I prefer to call him Jehovah....my God.
I actually am thrilled to have God and Nature to be the same.

"Smart enough" is not exactly the term appropriate for a master artisan/mathematician/designer/scientist. Is it?
To create an evolutionary algorithm, you have to be smart. You insist that God didn't and can't have done it. My God is smart enough. The one you suggest seems like he's not. Your God has to hand carve every snowflake from ice drops that he also molded, each one of them by hand, instead of creating smart programs that do it for him. My God is obviously smarter since he/she/it can produce these algorithms. Yours can't.

Silly in whose estimations? o_O

The articles on evolution that I have read, attempting to prove that evolution is a fact, are full of the language of supposition. You might not notice it, but it is all couched in terms that mean something "might have" happened or "could have" taken place.....but there is no way to state something categorically unless you have proof. So what is proven? Micro-evolution....but certainly not macro-evolution. No one was around to attest to the truth of it and the evidence that is available is not convincing to anyone who is not 'programmed to accept it either by programming in their education system, or by peer pressure in the various fields of science.
An article? Oh, I see, you think evolution is proved by an article. No, it's not.

Micro-evolution is macro-evolution in long term. To take one step is micro. To walk a mile is macro. No one was there to see it, but that's why the fossil record is handy because it's the photographs of the past. The fossil record was there.

You keep repeating this and I agree that they have evidence for micro evolution......this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether one naturally proves the other......I don't believe it does.
The problem is that you keep on fighting against evolution, but you do believe in some of evolution. You do believe in micro-evolution. But when you say "evolution is wrong", you're saying that micro-evolution is wrong as well. It's like me saying that human belief is wrong, when I only meant some particular religion. Be specific then, if you really do believe in micro-evolution. The Bible doesn't talk about micro-evolution, so it's not supported by the Bible, yet you believe in it. Then don't fight against evolution, just fight against macro-evolution. You're the one keeping on accusing "Evolution" in its totality of being wrong.

If you open your eyes, and I mean really open your eyes, you may see that the whole world is trying to make God go away.....and they are succeeding.
Sure. Everyone is trying to make God go away, especially the 2.2 billion Christians. And even more so those who have accepted evolution and still are Christians. They hate God extra much. (!) (I was sarcastic there, sorry)

Those who still believe in him are more or less forced to compromise their stand because they are convinced that scientists have proven the theory, when in actual fact, they haven't. They have proven micro, (as in adaptation)....but not macro-evolution. It is unprovable by any method used to substantiate any other branch of science. Theory is not fact and never will be.
If you're only against macro, then say so every time you argue "Evolution is Wrong!" Simply because it's confusing.

Let's say I kept on saying "Jehova's Witnesses are a cult" when I really meant something like a chapter or church in my neighborhood. Don't take the whole thing down because of one unique thing. Do you understand what I'm saying? From now on, can you be more specific and say "Macro-Evolution is Wrong" instead of "Evolution is Wrong!" Because micro-evolution is a huuuuuuuuuuuge part of evolution theory, and you include it as wrong when you say evolution without being specific.

I will not compromise. Adaptation will never be evidence for one "kind" becoming another "kind" no matter how many millions of years science believes it took.
Genetically, in biochemistry, they know that there's no difference. There are two kinds of adaptation. But that's another discussion.

You are free to accept it....but I cannot.
But you do accept micro-evolution. You do accept that adaptation is part micro-evolution, do you not? So are you against all of evolution when you say that evolution hasn't been proven?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
This is actually quite untrue, at least in the way that you mean it. While religion plays a large role in the individual aspect of the scientific community, the rejection of evidence based on a preconceived bias does not. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are quite dedicated to their faith, and have no problem studying the actual science of evolutionary theory.

From Berkeley University:
Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.
Misconceptions: Evolution and Religion are Incompatible

(That's where my son's going right now, on full scholar ship. A proud parent here. By the way, the anthropological unit there is awesome. They have fossils on display, and a full dino skeleton.)
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
From Berkeley University:

Misconceptions: Evolution and Religion are Incompatible

(That's where my son's going right now, on full scholar ship. A proud parent here. By the way, the anthropological unit there is awesome. They have fossils on display, and a full dino skeleton.)
Precisely my point!

A huge congratulations to your son and to your rearing.
What's he going to school for?

Anthropology schools in even the lower-level universities are usually pretty impressive. I wish more people spent at least some time visiting them...
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
A huge congratulations to your son and to your rearing.
What's he going to school for?
He's totally crazy. :D He's going for a double in applied math and computer science.

Anthropology schools in even the lower-level universities are usually pretty impressive. I wish more people spent at least some time visiting them...
And I wish had more time to visit them as well. Anthropology and paleontology interests me, but there's no time. If I had time and money and nothing else to do, I'd go back and get a degree in it, just for fun.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
He's totally crazy. :D He's going for a double in applied math and computer science.


And I wish had more time to visit them as well. Anthropology and paleontology interests me, but there's no time. If I had time and money and nothing else to do, I'd go back and get a degree in it, just for fun.
Oh yuck! My brother is a mathematician and computer scientist, but I never had the patience for writing code... Applied Math will certainly help him so as long as it's what he sticks with, it'll serve him well.

Do you happen to be retired yet? There's no reason you can't study those things for fun in your twilight.

I took the opposite approach. Determined to finish my education despite obstacles, I'm anywhere from 60-100% finished with 4 different degrees, ranging from philosophy to business... I know all kinds of things and have very little to show for it. o_O
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Oh yuck! My brother is a mathematician and computer scientist, but I never had the patience for writing code... Applied Math will certainly help him so as long as it's what he sticks with, it'll serve him well.
I think so too. I spent 30 years writing code, and I thought him programming years ago (I managed to get a Vic-64, and that was the perfect tool for him to learn on. :D)

Do you happen to be retired yet? There's no reason you can't study those things for fun in your twilight.
I'm basically retired, but that doesn't mean I'm not busy. Haha. My wife decided to pursue a new career. She's a full time chef. So I'm home, feeding dogs, feeding my grownup kids that live at home, and many other things. Currently I'm taking an art class with one of my daughters at the local college, just for fun for me, but she's going for that career.

I took the opposite approach. Determined to finish my education despite obstacles, I'm anywhere from 60-100% finished with 4 different degrees, ranging from philosophy to business... I know all kinds of things and have very little to show for it. o_O
Just like me! What's the saying again? Jack of all trades, master of none.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I found this in the following link: Difference Between Microevolution and Macroevolution
Difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution

• Micro evolution refers to visible changes in a population of the same species over a period of time

• Macroevolution is what evolution is as described by the theory of evolution by Darwin

• Macro evolution describes how reptiles turned into birds and lower primates into higher and then finally human beings
I don't understand why you lie so often, and imagine nobody will notice. Macro evolution is when one species of fly becomes two, not when reptiles turn into birds - that is Harry Potter, not macro evolution. Your entire argument relies solely on repeating falsehoods.
• The terms are rarely used by scientists because of the bad name created by their use by creationists who conveniently agree with microevolution while disagreeing with macroevolution.

• Scientists see no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution and consider micro evolution as a particular type of evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps the issue here is in my understanding of the word "species" verses a definition that you are used to. As I understand it species is the equivalent of a breed, but we don't talk about "breeds" of finches, but "species" of finches.
I am not a creationist. None of Jehovah's Witnesses are.
Is the degree of dishonesty you are displaying common with JW's?
But we do believe that adaption is limited to boundaries within each reproductively viable "kind". There are no missing links because there are no missing links. How often the skulls used to show a progression of evolution do not show the skulls in size proportion to each other. There is one of the places where the fraud lies.
Why doesn't honesty matter to you? Surely telling lies on behalf of your god is immoral? Macro evolution was proven by direct observation of speciation more than a century ago. You are making claims that were disproven when my grandfather was a lad. There are millions of 'missing links', and there is no 'boundary' between 'kinds', nor has any of you ever defined 'kinds'.

Evolution has been proven fact for more than a century, that there is any controversy is a hoax that only exists in the US. This hoax was exposed years ago - so why are you perpetuating what you know is a lie?
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
@Bunyip what about the copy paste from another website have to do with me lying?

Lying by definition is telling an untruth with the intent to deceive. As you should have noted everything about the ---------------------------------------------- was a quote from the link provided.
Is the synopsis provided by the copied box accurate or not? I placed it here as a point of reference. Provide me a reason why the bullet points are not accurate. From there we have a reason to continue this conversation.

If this is a match of who has the last word. You win.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
@Bunyip what about the copy paste from another website have to do with me lying?

Lying by definition is telling an untruth with the intent to deceive.
Yes, and that is why I said it. You are lying with the direct intention to decieve. Macro evolution was proven by direct observation more than a century ago. And the 'missing links' found number in the millions.
you should have noted everything about the ---------------------------------------------- was a quote from the link provided.
Is the synopsis provided by the copied box accurate or not? I placed it here as a point of reference. Provide me a reason why the bullet points are not accurate. From there we have a reason to continue this conversation.

If this is a match of who has the last word. You win.
The problem is that no matter how many times you correct a JW in regard to their false claims about evolution, they just repeat them anyway. It seems an inherently dishonest organisation. Macro evolution is speciation - when one species of fly diverges into two or more. A process that has been proven by direct observation.

Fraud will not win you converts. And nobody could miss the fact that your 'misapprehensions' have already been corrected many times - only for you to repeat what you know to be false anyway. What point there would be in continuing a conversation where you will simply repeat the same untruths no matter what I can not imagine.
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Myths verses Facts in Evolution........

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”

Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observeimplied that much bigger changes—which no one has observed—are also possible.17 He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth.

To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Consider the following.

Myth 1
. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional methodof breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

The facts. As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”23

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.25

So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power.26 In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.27

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28

The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

Evolution—Myths and Facts — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
According to Their Kinds

Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

Contrary to the claims of some religious fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, aspects of the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonize with recent scientific discoveries.

Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago? There is one logical explanation. The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge. This gives weight to the Bible’s claim that it is “inspired of God.”*2 Timothy 3:16.

Science and the Genesis Account — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Myths verses Facts in evolution........

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?
Yes. Evolution is indeed a proven fact.
Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly.
Correct - that is what evolution means.
For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”
No, that is false. Macro evolution is evolutionary, change at or above the species level. It is when one species (of fly for example) becomes two or more. I know that you have been corrected on this point many times by many people.
Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observeimplied that much bigger changes—which no one has observed—are also possible.17 He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth.

To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Consider the following.

Myth 1
. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
Yes they do. Mutations can create new speies, and as you have been told - this process has been proven by direct observation more than a century ago.
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional methodof breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.
Yes, and they did produce many entirely new species. In fact that is how the new species of domestic sheep came to be, along with most of the plant and animal species we use in agriculture.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”
Von Sendbusch must be some sort of moron most modern agricultural species were bred exactly that way.
21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*
Where are you quoting this nonsense from?
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
Just to repeat, the process of new species emerging was proven by direct observation more than a century ago.
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no!
Clearly the answer is YES. Because this process HAS BEEN PROVEN BY DIRECT OBSERVATION OF SPECIATION MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO.
Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Meanwhile real biologists tell us that no such boundary has ever been established. Who are you quoting here?
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macro evolution supposed to have taken place?
Macro evolution can be observed taking place. It was proven by direct observation of speciation more than a century ago, many new species have been observed to emerge.

I have to ask again, why does honesty have no value for you?

I do wonder why the publishers of the Watchtower would feel the need to deceive their own members, seems counter productive to me.
 
Top