The EVOLUTION thread!

by BurnTheShips 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  simon17

  The issues of HOW or WHY the universe came to be are not addressed by evolution, nor are they suppose to be.

  More than that even, really. People always say evolution vs. creation and that really doesn't make sense at all. Creation explains how life came into being. Evolution explains how life adapted and changed over time. It should be creation vs. abiogenesis (which is a perfectly fair debate since there are nothing more than scientific hypothesis on that). Evolution, in principle, is correct.

  But you could certainly believe that God created simple life and let it evolve. Or that God guided the evolution of life. Where you start to run into trouble is "God created man 6000 years ago." That doesn't work.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Just throwing my thoughts in.

  Suppose God (choose any belief of God you wish) created a 30-year-old tree 2 days ago. I mean, if you cut it down, it has growth rings that indicate 30-years of growth, it is as big as a 30-year-old tree of the same type. The roots are firmly in place as if it were there 30 years ago. It is a 30-year-old tree, despite the fact that it wasn't there last week. Without evidence that it wasn't there, we would have to use our observational abilities to determine that it was planted there 30 years ago, even though that is not true. Why would God do that?

  That's what creationists are asking us to believe. We have less complex life appearing older than more complex life. We have old fossil evidence that transitional life existed. We have oil in the ground from plant and animal life that is supposed to be awefully old. So, did God create all this "evidence" and plant it in the ground? Why? He must have wanted us to believe that life is older than several thousands of years, that life evolved.

  Even if you don't accept the theories of "life from non-life" and want to believe that God did it, that is fine. Man hasn't figured out everything yet. But why would God want to plant evidence of evolution? He must want us to believe in evolution.
• 

  notverylikely

  Good list, Farkel. BTW, "junk" DNA isn't called that anymore, it's called non-coding DNA. Turns out it does have a lot of uses, some of it is bacterial DNA, some of it is viral, etc. Basically evolution engines
• 

  notverylikely

  Thanks SL, I understand the Expansion of the universe, but could it is a coincidence that the distance between moon and sun are in a relatively good place for a total eclipse to occur in the time where life is around to witness it.

  That's a relatively recent phenomena since the moon used to be closer. The earth also used to be closer to the sun. And the earth isn't the only planet with a magnetic field. It's driven by the molten spinning core, which, btw, is slowing and cooling, just like Mar's did before.
• 

  notverylikely

  If you want to know what happened to the neanderhalls, read "Slave Species of God" by Michael Tillinger.

  That guy is a moron. Read it for a laugh or to waste time.
• 

  Farkel

  :I understand the Expansion of the universe, but could it is a coincidence that the distance between moon and sun are in a relatively good place for a total eclipse to occur in the time where life is around to witness it.

  That's a good example of the "Anthropic Principle."

  Farkel
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Simon17 makes a point that needs to be emphasized. There are many misconceptions about evolution, perhaps the biggest - and something I once thought, due to propaganda - is that evolution 'tries to explains life.' Incorrect. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
• 

  Gerard

  Do people argue on whether fish can swim? The only discussion on evolution I'd contemplate is on its mechanisms together with environment.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  What I want to know is what really happened to the Neanderthals.

  If you are of Eurasian ancestry, recent genetic research reveals that 1-4% of your genes came from Neanderthals.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

  So, yes they died out as a seperate group of humans, but there was also some interbreeding. Beneficial alleles were retained in the rest of the human population.

  As for the rock-ribbed creationists, they not only deny science, they make God a small thing.

  "Junk" DNA.

  We are finding many important biological functions for Junk DNA. My recent research has included microRNAs, which originate from this part of the genome. MicroRNAs regulate the RNAs from the "nonjunk" part of the genome. Other parts have other functions as well.

  BTS
• 

  Farkel

  :We are finding many important biological functions for Junk DNA. My recent research has included microRNAs, which originate from this part of the genome. MicroRNAs regulate the RNAs from the "nonjunk" part of the genome. Other parts have other functions as well.

  Interestingly enough, that thought has been used as an argument for evolution, according to this:

  http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/JunkDNAGenetics.htm

  At least half of the noncoding sequence is made up of recognizable repeated sequences, some of which were inserted by viruses in the past. These repeats may provide some genomic wiggle room. That is, long stretches of noncoding DNA provide a playground for evolution. It may be a huge selective advantage to have all that raw material available to mutate and eithermodify existing traits and behaviors or express new ones all together. Humans are characterized by the ability to be flexible and to adapt quickly, so our junk DNA is potentially a priceless contribution to our humanness.

  Of course, that idea came from an atheist website, so it must all be a pack of lies!

  Farkel, Deist CLASS