Uh-oh...

by AGuest 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Nickolas

  hey there, Shelby. The JW gentleman to whom I referred earlier in your thread here suffered from one major deficiency, and that is he did not understand the dynamic of natural selection. Indeed, he would not even try to understand under any circumstances whatsoever. However, the more one digs into the dynamic, the more one examines the proofs that are readily available, the more the lights come on.

  Some of the most remarkable discoveries in support of evolutionary theory are being made in genetics. Five years ago it was discovered that the human genome and chimpanzee genome are 95% common. That was revealing, but not altogether surprising. What was puzzling to both geneticists and evolutionists is that the human genome has one less chromosomal pair. Namely, humans have 23 pairs and chimps and all the other great apes have 24 - so humans have 2 fewer chromosomes. If humans and apes have a common ancestor, how is it that the number of human chromosomes decreased? Pure evolutionary theory says this cannot happen and it was at first a bit of a conundrum. The answer, recently discovered, is that chromosome pair #2 in the human genome is unique. It is clearly two chromosomal pairs fused together. No doubt about it. Yet one more step in the relentless march toward truth. Discoveries over the next five years will be equally, if not more, revealing.

  Are you sure you want to learn about this stuff?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=related
• 

  agonus

  NASA fudging data?!

  Say it ain't so, Joe! My world is crashing down! Next thing you'll tell me Jehovah's Witnesses don't have the truth...
• 

  just n from bethel

  It is interesting how most in the scientific community welcome scrutiny and ideas that improve, and sometimes nullify a preliminary hypothesis. This process has brought nothing but positive changes, improvements, and ultimately a solidifying of indisputable testable facts. The religulous love to point at this process and scoff at it as if it's an indication that the scientific process is meaningless. Actually, the opposite is the case. Most scientists welcome the analytical method that might result in proving their original conclusions incorrect. And upon abundance of evidence that contradicts an original scientific theory or hypothesis, the scientists will be more than willing to recognize the correction. They will not keep saying that 'even though there is obvious insurmountable evidence that proves my theory wrong, I am going to keep believing it.' No that just doesn't happen with those educated in even rudimentary scientific methods. Where might you see this though?

  Well, take that same process and apply it to religulous folk. Among themselves, even within the same general belief system - Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc., they do not welcome any process that might prove their conclusions incorrect. The personal revelationist will argue that their visions are more accurate while the literal Bible believer will argue his are. Upon being shown the mountains of evidence which debunk either or both of their conclusions, they will continue to persist their ideas are correct. Very different than what happens with those that use a scientific process.
• 

  Nickolas

  Indeed you are correct, jnfb.

  "I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
• 

  Curtains

  lol I don't believe this saintly image of scientists and the scientific community you guys are drawing and the awful image of believers as people who "who not welcome any process that might prove their conclusions incorrect" - its bullcrap . Most of us here are living proof of believers who are prepared to examine the evidence and alter our beliefs. Diehard head in the sand believers are very few and far between.
• 

  just n from bethel

  Curtains - It is possible I may be basing some of my observations by what I see here in this forum. A number of so called Christians here have never even been a JW and like to use this board as their personal territory to try and preach a bunch of their so-called Christian propaganda on newly exiting JWs (not to mention any names Chalam). But I don't see anybody that is making the case that scientists are saintly. I don't care if 99% of scientists are admitted self-absorbent assholes. The process is what is respected and quite defined. There is no similar process in religion. Which is why most religulous folks are of their religious beliefs for primarily one reason only - where they were born. It has nothing to do with an examine-the-facts process of any sorts.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  It isn't a "saintly image of scientists" it is a system of checks and balances that OUTS WRONG CLAIMS, usually sooner rather than later.

  Name a religion with such checks and balances in place and with leaders and members alike who will accept and even embrace challenges to the status quo.
• 

  just n from bethel

  Mad - quit reading my mind and posting at the same time.
• 

  PSacramento

  The human genome...hmmm, now who was the head of that project again?.... ;)
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Lol, just n.

  This research isn't over. From the Slate article:

  I asked two of the authors of the study if they wanted to respond to the criticism of their paper. Both politely declined by email.

  "We cannot indiscriminately wade into a media forum for debate at this time," declared senior author Ronald Oremland of the U.S. Geological Survey. "If we are wrong, then other scientists should be motivated to reproduce our findings. If we are right (and I am strongly convinced that we are) our competitors will agree and help to advance our understanding of this phenomenon. I am eager for them to do so."

  "Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated," wrote Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. "The items you are presenting do not represent the proper way to engage in a scientific discourse and we will not respond in this manner."

  The researchers are right not to respond in the media. Let science take care of it and then the media can release the results of further study.