What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

[David T]

Oh, if you want practical application, then......

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

In a nutshell, the authors of the paper developed a statistical model that is based on evolutionary relationships of diverse taxa and applied it to genomic sequences. The result was a prediction of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, even when the data is sparse or noisy.

So now one has to wonder.....where is the equivalent (or superior) work from ID creationists?

I think if you Rely on ID and creationism for anything that's problematic. The interesting more problematic issue is not what they think but why they think the way they do. Now the easy way to answer that unfortunately is a part of the problem.

 

[David T]

I like that. I'm thinking of marketing miniature wind turbines, that can be mounted on electric cars to generate electricity on the go, it would pay for itself and save money on charging

Can I be your technology "evangelist"!!! Btw I would enjoy a nice dialog about evolution and metaphysics not as proof or disproof of God that's not correctly approaching the topic. John Muir said "Darwins just staying the obvious but his narrative is so ungodly". If you have ever read Muir you know , he definitely was not of the creationism, ID, virtual reality group.

 

[Polymath257]

Please provide proof for the "change". Show us where there is morphing that makes one kind of mammal change into another.

Show us where one kind of vertebrate changed into another...similarity is automatically assumed to mean relationship.
I don't see the evidence to back up the suggestions. With millions of years and billions of creatures who have come and gone, why is the evidence not conclusive?

The vertebrates that lived 30 million years ago were quite different than those that live today. So there was a *change* in the vertebrates. Furthermore, the vertebrates that lived 30 million years ago were similar to those that lived 25 million years ago, which were similar to those that lived 20 million years ago, etc, up to today. That is *precisely* what is required to establish evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

There is *still* no reason given for saying that 'fish' are all a single 'kind', especially given the incredibly wide variety of fish. Nor why all 'birds' are a single lkind' given their variety, but 'mammals' are NOT a single 'kind' even though they have less variation than either of the other two.

In fact, if you allow for the variation that exists in bacteria to apply to a single 'kind' in animals, then all vertebrates would be a single kind. But that doesn't fit the religious dogma, so the facts are simply discarded.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think if you Rely on ID and creationism for anything that's problematic.

Agreed.

The interesting more problematic issue is not what they think but why they think the way they do. Now the easy way to answer that unfortunately is a part of the problem.

That's why I generally don't bother trying to show and explain scientific info to creationists. Doing so assumes they can be persuaded by data, which years of interacting with creationists has shown me isn't the case. There's a much more fundamental psychological issue behind all this.

 

[David T]

Agreed.


That's why I generally don't bother trying to show and explain scientific info to creationists. Doing so assumes they can be persuaded by data, which years of interacting with creationists has shown me isn't the case. There's a much more fundamental psychological issue behind all this.

Exactly. I think it's trickier than we understand.

 

[Deeje]

That's why I generally don't bother trying to show and explain scientific info to creationists. Doing so assumes they can be persuaded by data, which years of interacting with creationists has shown me isn't the case. There's a much more fundamental psychological issue behind all this.

Now that is funny.

This is saying that the "data" produced by science has persuaded you. But when we examine the "data", what do we find?

Here is an interesting link....
How do we know that evolution is really happening?

This is obviously the story in layman's terms but the bones of the story are there. An evolutionist would probably not even realize how much coaching there is in the language, yet when you become aware of how the power of suggestion is used to "persuade" the readers it becomes very apparent.

Look how the article begins....

"Evolution is one of the greatest theories in all of science. It sets out to explain life: specifically, how the first simple life gave rise to all the huge diversity we see today, from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales.

For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying.....Why are biologists so certain about this? What is the evidence? The short answer is that there is so much it's hard to know where to start. But here is a very cursory summary of the evidence that life has, indeed, evolved."

Right from the outset, the reader is set up to embrace what follows being informed about so much "evidence" that "it's hard to know where to start."

So what is the basis for this theory? Where is all this evidence?

"Darwin's theory of evolution says that each new organism is subtly different from its parents, and these differences can sometimes help the offspring or impede it. As organisms compete for food and mates, those with the advantageous traits produce more offspring, while those with unhelpful traits may not produce any. So within a given population, advantageous traits become common and unhelpful ones disappear.

Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of organism, one small change at a time. Step by step, worms became fish, fish came onto land and developed four legs, those four-legged animals grew hair and – eventually – some of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves "humans" and discovered evolution.

This can be hard to believe. It's one thing to realise that you are not identical to our parents: perhaps your hair is a different colour, or you are taller, or have a more cheerful nature. But it is much harder to accept that you are descended, through countless generations, from a worm."

"Hard to believe"?

That is an understatement! Its a fairy story. We have descended from a worm!

Next you'll read about "descent through modification" and the examples given are farmyard chickens.

"Darwin was highlighting the process of cultivation and breeding. For generations, farmers and gardeners have purposefully bred animals to be bigger or stronger, and plants to yield more crops.

Breeders work just like Darwin imagined evolution worked."

So we aren't talking about natural breeding in the wild here, but selective breeding by farmers to enhance certain characteristics that may benefit the farmer financially. He isn't trying to make chickens into something else...he is just genetically modifying the original to have new features.

"A young chick will in many ways be similar to its parents: it will be recognisably a chicken, and definitely not an aardvark, and it will probably be more similar to its parents than it is to other chickens. But it won't be identical.

"That's what evolution is," says Steve Jones of University College London in the UK. "It's a series of mistakes that build up."

Are you hearing what I am hearing? Probably not. How many "mistakes" end up as beneficial compared to those that end disastrously? Do you know how many beneficial mistakes had to take place for macro-evolution to be true?

"Still, it's quite a step from carefully breeding chickens that lay more eggs to the natural evolution of new species. According to evolutionary theory, those chickens are ultimately descended from dinosaurs, and if you go further back, from fish."

Note that the statements are made as if they are unquestionable.....the chickens descended from dinosaurs and if you go back far enough, there will be fish in your family tree...and bugs.

"Running through the fossil record makes it clear that life has changed over time.

The oldest fossils of all are the remains of single-celled organisms like bacteria, with more complicated things like animals and plants only appearing much later. Among the animal fossils, fish appear much earlier than amphibians, birds or mammals. Our closest relatives the apes are only found in the shallowest – youngest – rocks.

"I always think that the most convincing case for evolution is in the fossil record," says Jones. "It's noticeable that one page in every six in the Origin of Species is to do with the fossil record. [Darwin] knew that that was an irrefutable case that evolution had taken place."

Ah, the fossil record....the "irrefutable case that evolution had taken place." Said with such conviction about an assumption that has no actual evidence to back it up. The fossils cannot speak, so science gave them a voice....the only problem being that "interpretation" of fossil evidence was left up to the scientists who already believed that evolution had taken place.What other conclusion were they going to reach?

"By carefully studying fossils, scientists have been able to link many extinct species with ones that survive today, sometimes indicating that one descended from another.

For example, in 2014 researchers described the fossils of a 55-million year old carnivore called Dormaalocyon, which may be a common ancestor of all today's lions, tigers and bears. The shapes of Dormaalocyon's teeth gave it away."

The "linking" of species is supposition, since no intermediate species are found for millions of years. The fact that they are in any way related is an assumption. The shape of this creature's teeth gave it away?

"Those animals may all have similar teeth, but lions, tigers and Dormaalocyons are still distinct species. How do we really know that one species evolved into another?

The fossil record is only so much help here, because it is incomplete. "If you look at most fossil records, what you actually see is one form that lasts quite a long time and then the next bunch of fossils that you've got is quite different from what you had before," says Jones.
But as we have dug up more and more remains, a wealth of "transitional fossils" has been discovered. These "missing links" are halfway houses between familiar species.

For instance, earlier we said that chickens are ultimately descended from dinosaurs. In 2000 a team led by Xing Xu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences described a small dinosaur called Microraptor, which had feathers similar to modern birds and may have been able to fly."

So a small dinosaur that had feathers is proof positive that dinosaurs are related to chickens?

"Over the last century scientists have catalogued the genes from different species. It turns out that all living things store information in their DNA in the same way: they all use the same "genetic code".

What's more, organisms also share many genes. Thousands of genes found in human DNA may also be found in the DNA of other creatures, including plants and even bacteria.

These two facts imply that all modern life has descended from a single common ancestor, the "last universal ancestor", which lived billions of years ago.

So sharing genetic similarities also means that all living things are related? Or it could mean that the Creator used the same basic genetic material for all of his creation and the gaps in the fossil record mean that new life forms were individually created with no intermediates. The "facts" can be interpreted either way.

"By comparing how many genes organisms share, we can figure out how they are related. For instance, humans share more genes with apes like chimps and gorillas than other animals, as much as 96%. That suggests they are our closest relatives."

There are those "suggestions" again. You come to realize that the whole theory is based on suggestion.

I will leave you to read the whole article but just those excerpts are enough to demonstrate how flimsy the foundations of evolution really are. Without the jargon camouflaging the truth, it is easy to see that there are no facts in evolution...only very weak assumptions made with lots of imagination. Couple that with the power of suggestion and you can hoodwink the whole scientific world.

This is what people need to know. They trust science to tell them the truth...but there is no truth in macro-evolution.

 

[sayak83]

Now that is funny.

This is saying that the "data" produced by science has persuaded you. But when we examine the "data", what do we find?

Here is an interesting link....
How do we know that evolution is really happening?

This is obviously the story in layman's terms but the bones of the story are there. An evolutionist would probably not even realize how much coaching there is in the language, yet when you become aware of how the power of suggestion is used to "persuade" the readers it becomes very apparent.

Look how the article begins....

"Evolution is one of the greatest theories in all of science. It sets out to explain life: specifically, how the first simple life gave rise to all the huge diversity we see today, from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales.

For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying.....Why are biologists so certain about this? What is the evidence? The short answer is that there is so much it's hard to know where to start. But here is a very cursory summary of the evidence that life has, indeed, evolved."

Right from the outset, the reader is set up to embrace what follows being informed about so much "evidence" that "it's hard to know where to start."

So what is the basis for this theory? Where is all this evidence?

"Darwin's theory of evolution says that each new organism is subtly different from its parents, and these differences can sometimes help the offspring or impede it. As organisms compete for food and mates, those with the advantageous traits produce more offspring, while those with unhelpful traits may not produce any. So within a given population, advantageous traits become common and unhelpful ones disappear.

Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of organism, one small change at a time. Step by step, worms became fish, fish came onto land and developed four legs, those four-legged animals grew hair and – eventually – some of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves "humans" and discovered evolution.

This can be hard to believe. It's one thing to realise that you are not identical to our parents: perhaps your hair is a different colour, or you are taller, or have a more cheerful nature. But it is much harder to accept that you are descended, through countless generations, from a worm."

"Hard to believe"?

That is an understatement! Its a fairy story. We have descended from a worm!

Next you'll read about "descent through modification" and the examples given are farmyard chickens.

"Darwin was highlighting the process of cultivation and breeding. For generations, farmers and gardeners have purposefully bred animals to be bigger or stronger, and plants to yield more crops.

Breeders work just like Darwin imagined evolution worked."

So we aren't talking about natural breeding in the wild here, but selective breeding by farmers to enhance certain characteristics that may benefit the farmer financially. He isn't trying to make chickens into something else...he is just genetically modifying the original to have new features.

"A young chick will in many ways be similar to its parents: it will be recognisably a chicken, and definitely not an aardvark, and it will probably be more similar to its parents than it is to other chickens. But it won't be identical.

"That's what evolution is," says Steve Jones of University College London in the UK. "It's a series of mistakes that build up."

Are you hearing what I am hearing? Probably not. How many "mistakes" end up as beneficial compared to those that end disastrously? Do you know how many beneficial mistakes had to take place for macro-evolution to be true?

"Still, it's quite a step from carefully breeding chickens that lay more eggs to the natural evolution of new species. According to evolutionary theory, those chickens are ultimately descended from dinosaurs, and if you go further back, from fish."

Note that the statements are made as if they are unquestionable.....the chickens descended from dinosaurs and if you go back far enough, there will be fish in your family tree...and bugs.

"Running through the fossil record makes it clear that life has changed over time.

The oldest fossils of all are the remains of single-celled organisms like bacteria, with more complicated things like animals and plants only appearing much later. Among the animal fossils, fish appear much earlier than amphibians, birds or mammals. Our closest relatives the apes are only found in the shallowest – youngest – rocks.

"I always think that the most convincing case for evolution is in the fossil record," says Jones. "It's noticeable that one page in every six in the Origin of Species is to do with the fossil record. [Darwin] knew that that was an irrefutable case that evolution had taken place."

Ah, the fossil record....the "irrefutable case that evolution had taken place." Said with such conviction about an assumption that has no actual evidence to back it up. The fossils cannot speak, so science gave them a voice....the only problem being that "interpretation" of fossil evidence was left up to the scientists who already believed that evolution had taken place.What other conclusion were they going to reach?

"By carefully studying fossils, scientists have been able to link many extinct species with ones that survive today, sometimes indicating that one descended from another.

For example, in 2014 researchers described the fossils of a 55-million year old carnivore called Dormaalocyon, which may be a common ancestor of all today's lions, tigers and bears. The shapes of Dormaalocyon's teeth gave it away."

The "linking" of species is supposition, since no intermediate species are found for millions of years. The fact that they are in any way related is an assumption. The shape of this creature's teeth gave it away?

"Those animals may all have similar teeth, but lions, tigers and Dormaalocyons are still distinct species. How do we really know that one species evolved into another?

The fossil record is only so much help here, because it is incomplete. "If you look at most fossil records, what you actually see is one form that lasts quite a long time and then the next bunch of fossils that you've got is quite different from what you had before," says Jones.
But as we have dug up more and more remains, a wealth of "transitional fossils" has been discovered. These "missing links" are halfway houses between familiar species.

For instance, earlier we said that chickens are ultimately descended from dinosaurs. In 2000 a team led by Xing Xu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences described a small dinosaur called Microraptor, which had feathers similar to modern birds and may have been able to fly."

So a small dinosaur that had feathers is proof positive that dinosaurs are related to chickens?

"Over the last century scientists have catalogued the genes from different species. It turns out that all living things store information in their DNA in the same way: they all use the same "genetic code".

What's more, organisms also share many genes. Thousands of genes found in human DNA may also be found in the DNA of other creatures, including plants and even bacteria.

These two facts imply that all modern life has descended from a single common ancestor, the "last universal ancestor", which lived billions of years ago.

So sharing genetic similarities also means that all living things are related? Or it could mean that the Creator used the same basic genetic material for all of his creation and the gaps in the fossil record mean that new life forms were individually created with no intermediates. The "facts" can be interpreted either way.

"By comparing how many genes organisms share, we can figure out how they are related. For instance, humans share more genes with apes like chimps and gorillas than other animals, as much as 96%. That suggests they are our closest relatives."

There are those "suggestions" again. You come to realize that the whole theory is based on suggestion.

I will leave you to read the whole article but just those excerpts are enough to demonstrate how flimsy the foundations of evolution really are. Without the jargon camouflaging the truth, it is easy to see that there are no facts in evolution...only very weak assumptions made with lots of imagination. Couple that with the power of suggestion and you can hoodwink the whole scientific world.

This is what people need to know. They trust science to tell them the truth...but there is no truth in macro-evolution.

Thank you for continuing to post such excellent and absolutely convincing evidence for evolution! I know that you are completely brainwashed and deluded by faith, but for majority of people who are not, your continued pasting of such massive amounts of evidence for evolution is quite beneficial in convincing them of the indisputable truth of the science. Keep up the good job.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now that is funny.

This is saying that the "data" produced by science has persuaded you. But when we examine the "data", what do we find?

In your post we find a link to a news site article, which means it's going to give a general, layperson-friendly overview of a small portion of the data. Then we see you wave away the data with no specific arguments as to why the data and analyses are incorrect, but instead with empty hand-waiving.

But that's exactly the sort of thing one would expect from someone who belongs to a religious group that absolutely forbids its members from seeing any validity within evolutionary biology, and punishes those who do with total shunning and social isolation.

 

[Deeje]

In your post we find a link to a news site article, which means it's going to give a general, layperson-friendly overview of a small portion of the data.

Yes, that is what I said. But when you read the details in layman's terms it becomes quite comical. If you read the whole article you would see why.

Then we see you wave away the data with no specific arguments as to why the data and analyses are incorrect, but instead with empty hand-waiving.

Couldn't see the problem? I wonder why?

I am sure other readers saw it very clearly....I even highlighted some of the relevant points and commented on them.

But that's exactly the sort of thing one would expect from someone who belongs to a religious group that absolutely forbids its members from seeing any validity within evolutionary biology, and punishes those who do with total shunning and social isolation.

So shooting the messenger works for ya huh?

Address the information in the article not the ill informed misinformation that keeps getting peddled here.

You keep assuming that there is validity in the evolutionary argument....I assure you, we don't see any. I don't know a single JW who believes in evolution because we see through what scientists put forward as "evidence". Your theory is flawed from the ground up, so rather than you pitying us believers for being 'deluded', we actually pity you for the same reason.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Women After 50

 

[Deeje]

Women After 50

Yep, had a few of those. But we all know that the dinosaurs were all extinct by then don't we?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yep, had a few of those. But we all know that the dinosaurs were all extinct by then don't we?

Not in a creationists world.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, that is what I said. But when you read the details in layman's terms it becomes quite comical. If you read the whole article you would see why.

Couldn't see the problem? I wonder why?

I am sure other readers saw it very clearly....I even highlighted some of the relevant points and commented on them.

Yes, we're all familiar with your patterns. You link to media articles that are written to give a general overview for laypeople and you conclude that if that's all there is to evolutionary biology, it's not well supported. And then when others point out your error of expecting detailed scientific information in media articles and then provide you with the actual scientific articles that give the details you seemed to want, you complain that they're too complicated and you don't understand any of it. Then you finish by accusing the scientists of using technical jargon as part of a conspiracy to hide a lack of data.

You've repeated this dishonest pattern ad nauseum.

So shooting the messenger works for ya huh? Address the information in the article not the ill informed misinformation that keeps getting peddled here.

Was what I said incorrect? Do you not belong to a religious group that absolutely forbids its members from seeing any validity within evolutionary biology, and punishes those who do with total shunning and social isolation?

Are you hoping that no one in a religious forum will notice and speak to the extreme religious factors at play in everything you post on this subject?

You keep assuming that there is validity in the evolutionary argument....I assure you, we don't see any. I don't know a single JW who believes in evolution because we see through what scientists put forward as "evidence".

Well duh.....of course there aren't any Jehovah's Witnesses who "believe in evolution". You're not allowed to. As soon as a JW does "believe in evolution", they're kicked out of the faith and shunned by the JW friends and family.

I mean, seriously Deeje.....what you said above is about as meaningful as pointing out that there aren't any Jewish Orthodox shrimp farmers.

 

[Deeje]

Not in a creationists world.

I'm not a creationist

 

[Deeje]

Yes, we're all familiar with your patterns. You link to media articles that are written to give a general overview for laypeople and you conclude that if that's all there is to evolutionary biology, it's not well supported. And then when others point out your error of expecting detailed scientific information in media articles and then provide you with the actual scientific articles that give the details you seemed to want, you complain that they're too complicated and you don't understand any of it. Then you finish by accusing the scientists of using technical jargon as part of a conspiracy to hide a lack of data.

You've repeated this dishonest pattern ad nauseum.

Its not dishonest to point out an obvious pattern in science's own explanation of its theory. The bare bones are all you have in the fossil record too, but look what science does to those bones to pad them out and show us what they really looked like.
The bare bones of the evolutionary theory tell the same story. Without the jargon to pad out the theory, the bare bones expose it for what it is. A flimsy theory with no solid evidence. It is based on the imagined process of slow evolution over millions of years....but there is nothing in the evidence to support the notion that it ever took place.
Face it, you have nothing that is even remotely convincing.

Was what I said incorrect? Do you not belong to a religious group that absolutely forbids its members from seeing any validity within evolutionary biology, and punishes those who do with total shunning and social isolation?

Are you hoping that no one in a religious forum will notice and speak to the extreme religious factors at play in everything you post on this subject?

You would have made a good convert to Judaism in Jesus' day. They accused him of all sorts of deception and false teachings too. But just so you know.....we reject evolution because there is no substantiated evidence to support it.
I'll use Jerry Coyne's words if you like....we think that "you would have to be "dumb" to believe it".

You are still laboring under the misapprehension that macro-evolution is valid

.....we don't believe that it is.
Can I make that any plainer.

We believe that your theory is a sham.....a figment of your collective imagination.

Well duh.....of course there aren't any Jehovah's Witnesses who "believe in evolution". You're not allowed to. As soon as a JW does "believe in evolution", they're kicked out of the faith and shunned by the JW friends and family.

Now this is the sort of bigoted nonsense I have come to expect from you.......

Anyone who chose evolution over ID in our ranks would actually remove themselves, for the simple reason that they would have no reason to stay. Their beliefs would be in opposition to all that Jesus taught. Why would anyone stay in a Christian organization if they rejected God as Creator. If you are going to call yourself a Christian, then you believe what Jesus taught.

Matthew 19:3-6:
"And Pharisees came to him intent on testing him, and they asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of grounds?” 4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

Those words are still part of some people's wedding vows......Get the picture?

We don't believe what you believe and we never will. It isn't a case of "not allowed'" to believe.....but a case of "who would want to swallow that nonsense".

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm not a creationist

You could have foold me.
Are you not a JW

 

[Deeje]

You could have foold me.
Are you not a JW

Yep, but we are not "creationists" according to the definition that most people use. We see the creation as taking place over a very extended period of time on an old earth. No dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood...they were long extinct. Whatever purpose they served, like many other creatures, they were not chosen to share the earth with humankind.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yep, but we are not "creationists" according to the definition that most people use. We see the creation as taking place over a very extended period of time on an old earth. No dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood...they were long extinct. Whatever purpose they served, like many other creatures, they were not chosen to share the earth with humankind.

Don't know where you get this old earth from...
There has only ever been one earth in this particular solar system, and that is this one.
And life has developed from a single source as far as can be ascertained, as only one type of dna has ever been discovered. All life on earth is linked through time and by the process we call evolution.
However had more than one framework, like dna, been discovered, or is still to be discovered, this would not change the process of evolution one iota.
Man is not a distinct end point in this process, man is a stage. Evolution will continue past the line of man towards something else, should we live so long and not become extinct.
What ever happens will be known by God.

 

[Jose Fly]

Its not dishonest to point out an obvious pattern in science's own explanation of its theory.

Either you didn't pay attention, or you're attempting to dishonestly recast the issue.

Again, the dishonesty is in how you take media articles and complain that they don't provide sufficient empirical support for their claims. But when it's pointed out to you that it's unreasonable to expect that sort of detail in media articles, and someone takes the time to provide you the original scientific journal articles that contain those details, you complain that they're too technical for you to understand and accuse the authors of deliberately using terminology to hide their lack of data.......even though you have no idea what they're saying.

That's fundamentally dishonest of you.

The bare bones are all you have in the fossil record too, but look what science does to those bones to pad them out and show us what they really looked like.
The bare bones of the evolutionary theory tell the same story. Without the jargon to pad out the theory, the bare bones expose it for what it is. A flimsy theory with no solid evidence. It is based on the imagined process of slow evolution over millions of years....but there is nothing in the evidence to support the notion that it ever took place.

Exhibit A

Face it, you have nothing that is even remotely convincing.

Not to you, but that's not at all a comment on the data, but is a reflection of you belonging to a religious group that absolutely forbids its members from being a "evolutionist" in any way.

You would have made a good convert to Judaism in Jesus' day. They accused him of all sorts of deception and false teachings too. But just so you know.....we reject evolution because there is no substantiated evidence to support it.
I'll use Jerry Coyne's words if you like....we think that "you would have to be "dumb" to believe it".

Again more dishonesty. You've admitted that you don't understand much of the science involved, yet here you are speaking as if you're such an authority you get to not only make grand declarations about the state of the science, but everyone else should pay heed to your declarations.

Kinda odd coming from a person who doesn't understand the material, isn't it?

You are still laboring under the misapprehension that macro-evolution is valid

.....we don't believe that it is.
Can I make that any plainer.

We believe that your theory is a sham.....a figment of your collective imagination.

Long before I ever met you, I knew full well that Jehovah's Witnesses completely deny pretty much all of evolutionary biology.

Now this is the sort of bigoted nonsense I have come to expect from you.......

"Bigoted"? How is this....

of course there aren't any Jehovah's Witnesses who "believe in evolution". You're not allowed to. As soon as a JW does "believe in evolution", they're kicked out of the faith and shunned by the JW friends and family.

...."bigoted"? It's accurate, is it not?

Anyone who chose evolution over ID in our ranks would actually remove themselves, for the simple reason that they would have no reason to stay. Their beliefs would be in opposition to all that Jesus taught. Why would anyone stay in a Christian organization if they rejected God as Creator. If you are going to call yourself a Christian, then you believe what Jesus taught.

So what I said was entirely accurate, yet it obviously upset you. Why? Are you ashamed of your faith?

We don't believe what you believe and we never will. It isn't a case of "not allowed'" to believe.....but a case of "who would want to swallow that nonsense".

Now you're being dishonest again. As you describe above, any JW who becomes an "evolutionist" will be "removed" from the faith, and we also know that they will be forever shunned by all their JW friends and family.

That's a very clear case of members of a group not being allowed to hold certain views, lest they be removed from that group.