How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH 68 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rem

  Sleepy,

  Then do you have another theory that doesn't presuppose a creator? You most assuredly did pressupose a creator with the alternate theory you proposed. I'm not saying that you believe or disbelieve in a creator, I'm just saying that the argument that you put forward presupposed a creator, and we both know that there is no evidence for a creator. At least not yet.

  You could have said that Ivisible Pink Unicorns could have built life in a way which left the DNA the way it was. In that case you would be presupposing an Invisible Pink Unicorn for your argument. There is no evidence for an Invisible Pink Unicorn, just as there is no evidence for a creator god.

  I'm sorry if I came accross the wrong way. I'm not trying to say that you are putting forward the god theory as the best theory, I'm just saying that there is a flaw in that particualr theory you brought up (a creator is necessary for it to work). Because of that flaw, I see no reason to believe it as a possibility.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  sleepy

  When I answer to a post about evolution please dont assume I believe anything unless I directly mention it.
  Anyway
  Hello Mindchild
  Remmember that although there are many defects that humans can suffer from which are the result of mutations this is not enough to cause changes to populatons.
  Not only do you need the defect ,which could be big but you need to be able to pass it on. Also inorder to create the situation were all those with out that defect die out and leave only the altered ones there has to be a type of enviroment that will cause the others to die out without the option of moving.
  All these need to happen for mutations to cause complexity we have today.
  How can we say that Brain functions can be caused by this process if we don't even know how the Brain works?
  Or that material mutaions to the Brain ie getting bigger can cause it to become more intelligent or complex when size (at a certain level) has almost nothing to do with Brain power?
  Just because the modern layer is thin has no bearing on how easy it would be to arrive at.
  The complexity and funtionability is more important.

  Please appeciate my beliefs and opinions on these matters are a work in progress and I thank all for your insights.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello again, Abaddon

  A steady guide for me is to act as best I can on what I know rather than what I don’t know.

  Though I know life can beget our reality of life, I do not know what could have started other realties of life possibly responsible for our origin. I just do not know, so I cannot logically argue that question. But this does not mean I must ignore the proven fact that life can beget our reality of life, and this fact tips the scale in my mind and it agrees with scientifically discovered facts.

  My reason for holding a belief in a creator God stems from what I know of human spirituality and what I know from my own experience of what nurtures it. This is the closest I can come to offering any sense of what other reality of life could be responsible for us. This extension of belief of how we originated (from a creator God) is faith on my part and not directly from scientifically derived fact. For me to take the discussion further would be little more than an exercise in futility.

  I do not know what you are talking of when speaking of “the mirror thing.” That must refer to someone else’s comments.
• 

  hillary_step

  Mox,

  wow, this has been one of the friendliest evolution debates ive seen. everyones being so understanding. who are you all and what have you done with jw.com?

  Lol. That is typical of the kind of braindead, facile, moronic semi-apologist JW type comment we have come to expect from you Squire Moxy. Why don't you get a brain and a life, get the brain first because the life is not much fun without it!

  Feel a little more at home Mox?

  I will agree this thread is excellent and far more palatable without the JW or XJW rhetoric. It has impelled me to research further the implications of the 'junk DNA' scenario.

  My thanks to all contributors -- HS
• 

  sleepy

  H again REM
  Lets put it a different way.
  What was trying to say was that the DNA errors etc did not in itself prove that there was not a external source of input into human life.
  I wasn't trying presenting another theory as to how I thought the errors got there . just trying to show that it was not the only option conseptualy possible.And that the evidence was not water tight.
  I think there is a diffeence between what is conceptualy possible and what seems reasonable to conclude on available evidence.
  Before we conclude that a matter is definate we must consider conceptual possibilities.
• 

  rem

  Sleepy,

  Cool - I think we both understand each other better. What you just said is exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it a lot better.

  I was trying to show what worth other conceptually possible scenarios really have when weighing the evidence. When it comes down to it, there could be an infinite number of alternate scenarios, but are they really all of the same worth?

  When you weigh the evidence, you see that the worth of other explanations doesn't match the explanation of evolution through natural selection because it does not rely on external agents that are not proven to exist. (That's why I broght in the argument of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is one of infinity scenarios).

  You are correct that DNA errors do not conclusively prove evolution without an external agent, but they do not contradict it. And they even seem to support it because it strongly suggests related ancestry that has no need for an external agent. But with all of the other evidence in concert, there really is no question of the validity of evolution over special creation or even a creator tinkering with evolution over the aeons.

  Now if there were evidence of some higher creator, whether it be god, a space alien, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or whatever, then other scenarios may be more worthwhile to explore.

  Just my thoughts,

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  Abaddon

  I agree, this has been has a very nice tone. I think possibly the evolutionists have been a little less caustic than usual (well, I know I can be TERRIBLE). And the others have not been stereotypical... which just shows you how dangerous it is to cultivate stereotypes!

  Marvin; I am hugely, massively, happy to conceed that if someone has had a subjective experience, be it formative or sumative, that leads them to believe, it is a wonderful thing for them. If something happened to me that made be believe in god, I would believe in god.

  The science can go round and round I know. I think we both have reached different conclusions about the sane thing; yours was 'god', and mine was 'no god', that's all.

  8-)

  sleepy; you are being very open-minded sleepy, and I understand your method of questioning. At the end of the day we have to make a decision. Is wood hard? Yup, an easy one? Do I believe in evolution or in creation? Ahhh, a tricky one. It's fine you are at the questioning phase. I'm past that. I've reviewed the evidence, and think that my belief in evolution has NOTHING to do with me not believing in god.

  I don't believe in god for logical reasons; even if there were definative proof of a big bang, and that we evolved from slime, the whole scientific nine-yards, I would still believe in god if there were evidence, as in *grin* scientific evidence.

  But there isn't any.

  So, either there is no god, or there is a creator, but it's not really that concerned about or perhaps even aware of us, or there is a god who does care who gave us these amasing minds that can define and require 'proof', who doesn't prove its existence.

  The last of those options is silly. Add the idea that if this were the case we might be punished for doing something entirely reasonable (not believing in god), and it starts to get offensive.

  We don't have to agree! And obviously, what proves it for me might not prove it for you!

  All the best all

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  mommy

  Abaddon,
  You are just to sexy too talk toKeeping my eye off your pic as I type to you. Haha seriously though, you said

  I am hugely, massively, happy to conceed that if someone has had a subjective experience, be it formative or sumative, that leads them to believe, it is a wonderful thing for them. If something happened to me that made be believe in god, I would believe in god.

  This is an interesting comment, I almost stole it and started a new thread. I am wondering if you would really? And what type of thing would it have to be? For any of you heathens out there Is there a certain thing that could happen that would turn you around and back to blind faith again? Though spoken in jest, this is a serious question.

  Any takers?
  wendy

  When I leave, you will know I have been here
• 

  JanH

  Wendy,

  Is there a certain thing that could happen that would turn you around and back to blind faith again?

  If there was such a thing, then the faith wound not have been blind, would it?

  I struggled long and hard to hold onto my faith, confusingly believing that such a thing had a value in itself. I would accept theism even if the evidence were heavily against it. In fact, evidence for theism is wholly non-existant, but still, it took me a long time to come to terms with this fact.

  It would have been extremely trivial for God to give evidence of his existence. A verifiable prediction of future events. A huge deposit in my name on a Swiss bank account (stolen, I admit, from Woody Allen).

  Personally, I think one of the best lines of evidence against God's existence is that people can safely attribute authorship of the Bible to him without being stuck with lightning bolts. Any deity would be horribly insulted by having such a thing attibuted to himself.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  perfectpie

  Kid rock,

  How r u dewing?

  I was a little disappointed at your Hunnic response to my thoughts.
  I am even more surprised at how shallow and stochastic you are.

  Evolution cannot hold up to empirical thinking. Why? "Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." Charles Darwin

  All organisms on Earth share the same base DNA strand. So then, I believe as I stated earlier there is indeed a common link with all things on earth. Birds have legs, seemingly they have arms linked on to there wings etc. So it isn't surprising, yet very interesting, that things like tails, thigh muscles etc can and will appear on Swimming creatures although not seemingly needed, although how do we really know that. Anyways although your idea was well expressed I felt it only weakly supported micro(not even close to macro) evolution
  The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. 4 Evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accuratley place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family. You saying that some creatures have attributes and/or genes not seemingly needed provides no true agruement that evolution happened. It sounds to me like the old mutation deal that has been so weakly held on to by begging evolutionist.

  but really, I like the evolution theories. They are great. I thought your thoughts were great. But to say dogmatically that evolution is a fact is dangerous. And that you feel others are iconoclastic for disagreeing with you is pathetic to the point of sheer absurdity.

  JanH, ask yourself, I pray you, what makes you? Do you claim any authorship for your thoughts? What is there that we have that is truly yours? Maybe you are just a clone? Maybe not. I certainly don't know. And I certainly don't know you. But don't even think you know me with your obsequious robotic assertions. You fail in the olympian and you smack mundane.

  Really, all things being heard we will believe what we want to. New discoveries into DNA gives both fields reason to argue. Its all in what moves you. So what moves you JanH. Whats your deal?
  I'll get back to my "stupid little life" (Lester-"American Beauty)
  3.14