Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

  • leavingwt
    There is a dramatic difference between belief and knowledge.

    For many true believers, acknowledging a distinction is tantamount to disloyalty to God. Fear of Hell (however conceived) will naturally cloud one's thinking, therefore.

  • tec

    Well, I think someone should explain the evolution of life as if to a fourth grader, and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. Because at this point, even I am wondering why it isn't just a simple explanation. And I don't mean using simple terms/words, because I think Shelby has a good grasp on those, and someone like me can just look up their definition.

    I'm also not speaking about evolution of species, because even I understand and accept that. I did research some ways in how different bacteria evolve, for a book, by 'being born' or replicating with mutations that are better suited to their particular environment, and eventually only those with the 'mutation' survives in that environment.

    Perhaps someone could just simply explain how life evolved from 'whatever' and then became all the different kinds, families.

    (Just fyi, I have no vested interest in this subject. It might make a difference as to how life originated, but it does not make a difference to my faith in God or Christ, which is usually why I don't care too much about this topic... especially since, as far as I know, there are different arguments among the scientific community.)


  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask
    You're misstating the taxonomy (i.e., hominid is the family, homo is the genus, and neanderthalensis/sapien are supposedly the species), but I understand what you mean...

    You and I are both hominids, Shelby. We are also homos (now, don't go ahead and get funny with that statement, girl) and we are both of the same species. H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are both hominids. You are splitting hairs.

    Then prepare to be surprised, dear one, as apparently it has survived... even down to this day. Indeed, the entire Eurasian population possesses neanderthal genomes:

    Isn't it interesting how you poo poo scientific opinion that challenges your beliefs yet endorse those that support them? Then again, do you really endorse the article you put forward? Regardless, I should have been more specific (as I am learning from your hominid comment) and said that to my knowledge no neanderthal DNA sequence, partial or otherwise, exists in modern humans. That said, the article you have cited is still theoretical and not all paleoanthropologists will agree with it. It could be yet proven right, and I could be surprised and also delighted to have learned something new. It happens all the time when one's mind is open to discovery.

    Yes, I understand what you're saying... and I have stated that I believe in evolution within the species; however, when two different species mate the offspring species is sterile, thereby cutting off (well, actually, slamming the door on) further "evolution."

    No, my dear, the door is slammed on devolution. Evolution is a one way street. The general rule is "up or out".

    But what was found is that ALL Eurasian homo sapiens... carry neanderthalic genomes

    Nope. Studies indicate the presense of tiny genetic remnants. Not even partial neanderthal DNA sequences, and certainly no genomes are found since a genome is the full DNA sequence of an organism. Your terminology miscue aside (it happens in conversation, no biggie), where did the remnants come from? Were they already present in a common neanderthalensis/sapiens anscestor and were not, in fact, passed on from hybrids?

    Smile. Okay. Reminds ME of what we used to tell householders, but if you say it's not the same thing, then it's not the same thing.

    Ok, Shelby, you're right again. I am making an assertion based upon an impression gleaned from reading dozens of your posts and I could be wrong. I accept that I have been wrong on many occasions and accept that you are telling me that I am wrong about you now. You are telling me your mind is open. A direct and honest answer to a single question will clear it up.

    Do you accept the slightest, tiniest, remotest possibility that life evolved on this planet?

  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask
    The Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. Somewhere around 3% of the modern Eurasian genome is traceable to Neanderthals. You probably have some Neanderthal genes yourself.

    My understanding is that about 2/3rds of the neanderthal genome has been sequenced, very little of that nuclear. The gaps have been filled by computer interpolation models. However, I was not aware there are any neanderthal genes (ie complete DNA sequences) consistently found in modern humans. I'll look into it. Thanks.

  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask
    Well, I think someone should explain the evolution of life as if to a fourth grader, and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. Because at this point, even I am wondering why it isn't just a simple explanation. And I don't mean using simple terms/words, because I think Shelby has a good grasp on those, and someone like me can just look up their definition.
    Perhaps someone could just simply explain how life evolved from 'whatever' and then became all the different kinds, families.

    I like your question, Tammy, because it tells me you would really like to know the truth. Keep asking questions but also seek for yourself.

    There is no simple explanation. It would be like trying to explain relativity to a fourth grader. A fourth grader will not have the mental horsepower to understand, at least none that I have known. It is a large piece of a giant jigsaw puzzle which for me took decades to assemble, and even then my understanding is woefully lacking. The piece of the puzzle I do see, however, is far more convincing than what Genesis has to offer as an explanation for the complexity of life on earth.

  • bohm

    LC: I wont claim to know anything about the neanderthal genomen, i just want to mess with your head :-)

    A complication in genetic research is that one has to consider pupulations rather than individuals, and this mess with our intuition some times. For example, there are large parts of our DNA where we are more similar to the gorilla than the chimpanzee, this has to do with the gorilla/ chimp-human split being in a fairly large population, and the chimp/human split in a fairly small one.

    so, well, i dont really know if this has anything to do with anything. at the end of the day one probably has to read an article about it.

    another complication is that the genetic sequencing often introduce errors at a significant level.

    -anyway- that chicken is not going to cook itself.


    sorry if i just made an half-arsed explanation of something you know more about than I.

  • PSacramento
    Personally I don't "believe" in evolution; I just accept the evidence - same as I don't "believe" in gravity.

    This thread probably should have ended with this post.

    One of the best ways I have heard it stated.

  • cofty

    Qcmbr - thank you for your post.

    Losing faith in the certainty of god and the promises of security is certainly not something done lightly. Its like leaving the safety of the borg in the first place, once you know something you can't "unknow" it and the outcome is probably inevitible.

  • AGuest

    I have some responses, but before I go on (in a separate post), I feel very compelled to point out a couple/few thing (peace to you all and I don't want to name anyone specifically - no reason to):

    1. My questions were not convoluted or hard to grasp. I even highlighted the main one:

    "if the e. coli species in the experiment evolved... to only be e.coli (albeit, a stronger species of e.coli)... does that experiment show that the homo sapien species evolved from other "homo" species? Which IS the premise, yes? ... would not the TRUE result need to show the e.coli evolving into some other species... one other than e.coli? And to correlate with human "evolution", wouldn't the accurate comparison be a weaker "strain" of the homo sapien species adapting... and thus evolving... into a stronger strain of the SAME species... i.e., homo sapien? "

    2. Some of you are continuing to use straw man, red herring, and other like distractions. Why? Why not just answer the question(s) as you would have me to for questions YOU might have regarding what I believe?

    3. Asking me to read a book (and assuming I haven't because I won't debate the contents/suppositions of it), yet not bothering to read on post where I've posed a question... stated in so many ways there really is NO reason for you to misunderstand it, is... well, I dunno what it is other than continuing to skirt around the original issue.

    OH! And it is QUITE interesting that, like some "christians", some are not even up to date in their assumptions as to what it is they believe ABOUT evolution.

    Okay, with that "said"... I will move on to responding. See you all in the next post and, again, peace to you!

    Your servant and a slave of Christ,


  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    I made an off-hand comment in jest. It is fascinating that you felt the need to take it so seriously. Just as you did the "evolving from rocks" comment. Frankly, if you had ignored it, that would have been the end of it.

    Honestly, I think it is funny that the OP was "Do atheists believeā€¦" and you spent 7 pages trying to figure out the meaning of the word "believe". I was in no way hurt or offended by that thread. I fully recognize that people believe all sorts of things and I don't care what they believe.

    Your post #2345 was the first one to really come on my radar screen. Regardless of what you intended to convey, you used the word "information" in a way that suggested it was the same as what the author was using. In this post, you did not define your use of "information". Not that I think you did it deliberately.

    You are absolutely correct in your observations about the color green - which is in fact my favorite color. Your use of "information" suggested "I don't know what his favorite color is, but it is the same as mine." You cast aspersions on the author for doing the same thing you did. I am not mad, angry, hurt, or any such thing. I think it is funny. BTW, I have been laughing at you throughout this entire thread.

    If you had simply said "Ooops, let me clarify that", that would have been pretty much the end of it. However, it seems that you are unable to admit to something as minor as a flawed structuring of sentences. Instead of clarify, it was defend! defend! defend!

    When these topics has gone on for a length of time, its because others have opposing viewpoints they hold to as much as i hold on to mine. (emphasis added)

    So, it is not about discussion or learning, it is about defending a position. Perhaps this explains why you get so uptight about us evolving from rocks. As I said before, correct me if I am wrong. If you don't know what we came from, what difference does it make that I guess it was from rocks? Would it bother you if I went around saying, "We evolved from fish"?

    I fail to understand why you took so long to answer the question that was asked instead of going on about information theory. If my question was unclear, why didn't ask for clarification?

    Your summation of my question is interesting - and wrong. I never asked if the word in the article had a specific meaning. I asked if they had the same meaning. It is interesting that you still don't get it. This is the source of my JW comments. I can repeatedly ask them a very specific question and they will answer a question that I did not ask. Granted, it would be a similar question, but not the one that was asked.

    This question was asked to put the finger on your flawed structure of sentences and your undefined "information". And I didn't hide that was the reason. As an aside, if I were to ask someone, "Is x the same price as y?", I then would know whether or not they were the same price without knowing the price of either. Unless they didn't know themselves.

    You state:

    no, i admit no such thing because my claim is demonstrably true

    Again, I have stated absolutely, positively NOTHING about your claim. For or against. It has been about your post #2345 and watching you dodge the fact, within that post, you did what you accused the author of doing - used an undefined term. Show me where in post #2345 you defined it.

    Honestly, I had no idea that English was not your native language. I will keep that in mind going forward.

Share this