Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  You know, suggesting that others read material when one is unwilling to do so oneself is... well, hypocritical comes to mind... but "reminiscent of the WTBTS and the like" even more so (may you all have peace!). There is a saying I once read and that is "Often times the search proves more profitable than the goal." Some here, however, are apparently SO motivated to "prove" me "wrong" that they haven't paid a wit of attention to what I've actually posted. These same ones also continue to utilize straw men, red herring, and ad hominen "arguments"... to present the guise of answering questions that they are apparently unable to answer. Hypocrites that they are, the constantly and consistently malign "christians" (who often put themselves in such position) for changing the topic or attacking the opposer to their views when it starts getting hot in the kitchen.

  I posted... and reposted... my question(s)... which no one has even bothered to address... at all. Okay, no problem. I am not surprised. I am surprised that the same evasive, redirecting response tactics are being used by those who say they "know" that evolution (as that term applies to man divulging from another genus/species) is a fact. Now, I'm getting treatises on the evolution of various gull species.

  Regarding the gull examples and question regarding my position on speciation, I can only say this:

  1. The gulls are not only from the same family, Laridae... but the same genus, Larus. They are different species in that genus.

  2. My position on evolution of the species was previously stated, including in this thread. In response to the question:

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

  I responded that I do, that I have never said I do not... but that I do not accept that life "evolved" from a common ancestor (and certainly not from some primordial "soup"), but rather was CREATED from that one common ancestor... the One who is the Life... that his essence was used to create ALL life in the physical world... which is why there is commonalities at the basest point of life, DNA... and that after creating the "kind" and from that the genus... many, many, many species "evolved" from those... with one exception: humans. Like seraphs, they are the only species of their "kind" and genus" and although may share common DNA with other hominidae (i.e., chimpanzees), it is not because of an evolution of the "kind"... but because the same "substance"... a person... who was used to create the one genus/species... was ALSO used to create the other genus/species. Separately... and distinctly.

  So, now, with that REstated, I am going to move on as I don't "believe" there is anything else I can state, restate, clarify, or repost that will result in an answer to my questions. What is sad to ME is that the only things I've learned is (1) that none of you really WANT to answer my questions; (2) because you most likely can't; and so (3) like those you decry for "defending" their beliefs in the same way, you resort to petty name calling, eye rolling, ridiculing, and childish "debate" tactics. You believe what you believe... based on "evidence" that doesn't show what it's purported to show (at least, as far as you purport it to do so)... and anyone who disagree's is either crazy or has hell to pay from you. Guess what? I KNOW that trick! And so I am sorry, but I just CANNOT SEE how your defense of your position is ANY different from the WTBTS'... or other theologian/scholarly/"christians" who respond in the EXACT same way when someone doesn't agree with THEM or THEIR "evidence."

  I've made my point and the discussion has proven unfruitful. So, let's just shake hands, agree to disagree, and walk away. Unless, of course, you really want to... and do... at least TRY to answer my questions. Otherwise... au revoir.. Because I truly am not one who is afraid to say goodbye. When there's nothing left to talk about, it's time to say goodbye. Right now... there's nothing left.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  designs

  Shelby running out of things to say, now that real evolu.... er progress
• 

  Curtains

  goodbye shelby ... peace to you.
• 

  Curtains

  here is a book I have found very useful which a friend lent me called 99% Ape - How Evolution Adds up

  It agrees and disagrees with your own findings shelby. The fossil record is quiet on a number of key issues that you have highlighted and scientists will keep on searching for answers.

  The book also discusses abiogenesis and its limitations. Symbiosis gets an important mention. Many strong atheists here dismiss symbiosis as fantasy. However science does not. This is part of the reason I want to make a distinction between evolution and athiesm. But it is understandable that after coming out of a religion like JWs an athiest would want to present evolution as an alternative religion. It isn't, it does not have all the answers, it does not provide certainty. It presents life as flux, therefore if an individual wants to pin down life through a belief in a personal God - good for you.

  The book also shows how it is possible for complicated structures, that once were considered to be the work of an intelligent designer, to occur naturally. Wonderful biological mechanisms that were once described as evidence of supernatural intervention could be accounted for in this way - by completely natural processes. However there are huge gaps and the book is candid about these. So if one wants to believe in God then this is perfectly compatible with evolution.

  There is also an excellent description of what a genome is

  "Genes are genetic instructions written in a sequence of molecular letters that are linked together in very long chains of DNA that, with some structural and control molecules, form chromosomes. If we think metaphorically of a gene as being a one-sentence instruction, then a chromosome is like a chapter composed of many sentences. A whole genome is then a book containing many chromosome 'chapters'. In the book of the human genome there are 23 chromosome chapters".

  edit: I think it would be quite helpful if athiests corrected one another's understanding instead of letting mistakes go. I find that many here do want to learn and what is the point of, for the sake of ganging up, allowing huge inaccuracies to filter through. Chrisitans correct and discuss amongst themselves and will come out and admit when they don't agree with one another. If athiest are doing this too and I just haven't noticed then I do apologise. I would also be interested in reading about it.
• 

  cofty

  Now, I'm getting treatises on the evolution of various gull species.

  No, you got a simple question as a very relevant first step in addressing the wider questions we need to understand your muddled thinking a bit better. Never mind you clearly have no genuine interest and would rather pretend that nobody wants to help you.
• 

  TD

  Tammy

  I'm also not speaking about evolution of species, because even I understand and accept that.

  Like I mentioned earlier on this thread, "Species" is an artificial and inherently arbitrary catagorization. All living things are related; it's just a question of how much. There is evidence for common descent at levels higher than that of species. One piece of evidence that we can see with our own eyes is fertility between members of two different genera

  For example, this is a Cama:

  

  It's a cross between a male dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) and a female llama (Lama glama) (Via artificial insemination) --About llama size with cloven feet and only the vaguest suggestion of a hump, but with the coarse hair and grumpy disposition of a camel.

  This is a geep:

  

  It's a cross between a male goat (Capra aegagrus) and a female sheep (Ovis aries) --Long legs of a goat and the heavy body of a sheep with a little bit of wool on top.

  The animals in these unions not only belong to different species, they belong to different genera as well. The fact that they can produce offspring at all is evidence of common descent that is impossible to argue against. Clearly the process of differentiation produces more that just new species. It produces new genera too.

  That process also progresses beyond the point of hybrid offspring like the ones above into complete infertility. Look at what it has done with the number of chromosomes in members of the dog family:

  Canis lupus - Gray Wolf - 78

  Lycaon pictus - African Wild Dog - 78

  Chrysocyon brachyurus - Maned Wolf - 76

  Canis aureus - Golden Jackal - 74

  Otocyon megalotis - Bat Eared Fox - 72

  Urocyon cinereoargenteus - Gray Fox - 66

  Vulpes zerda - Fennec Fox - 64

  Vulpes bengalensis - Bengal Fox - 60

  Vulpes macrotis - Kit Fox - 50

  Nyctereutes viverrinus - Racoon Dog - 42

  Vulpes ferrilata - Tibetan Fox - 36

  Vulpes vulpes - Red Fox - 34

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

  Denton has been criticized (And rightly so) for putting words in Darwin's mouth that he never actually said, but maybe the distinction he drew between a "General" and a "Special" theory would still be helpful to you:

  "The special theory is relatively conservative and restricted in scope and merely proposes that new races and species arise in nature by the agency of natural selection. The general theory is far more radical. It makes the claim that the 'special theory' applies universally and that the appearance of all manifold diversity of life on Earth can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos Islands."

  Your question above falls into the realm of what Denton labeled the "general theory" and you're never going to find an explanation of exactly how it happened. You're not even going to find proof that it actually happened at all --at least not proof in the scientific sense. Evolution is largely an historical science.

  You're only going to find evidence that suggests that it happened. And there are mountains of such evidence; some of it very striking. Like the Archeopteryx fossil known as the "Berlin specimen." Its skeleton is almost indistinguishable, bone by bone, from a miniature "raptor" (of Jurassic Park fame). But its feathers are 100% Avian (Bird). It is such a powerful image that detractors cried "Fake!" for many years. But it has passed every test. And more examples of it have been found.

  I've pointed out earlier that "Species" is not a viable point to draw a line in the sand. I've shown on this thread (Or at least, tried to..) the "Genus" is not a viable point either. If you can accept that the dog family differentiated not only into many species but several genera as well, and that many of them are no longer fertile together at all, then what would there be to stop you from taking the next step? Based on the genetic and fossil evidence, biologists tell us that the dog, bear and racoon all had a common ancestor.

  Is that an unreasonable conclusion based on the evidence? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only two ways to reject that conclusion are to either reject that evidence or to present evidence of your own that would refute it. I think it is most telling that opposing arguments presented by advocates of creation often fall into the former catagory. It's a pattern that seems to have unfolded even on this thread. (Despite its title!)
• 

  tec

  Thanks TD! Very helpful!

  I have to go to work, but I will look more closely at all of that tonight when I get home.

  Tammy
• 

  whereami

  TD, excellent post!!!!

  The videos I posted above for Shelby, or for anyone that's interested, explain in great detail using many examples, of exactly what you just posted.

  I'd be interested in your opinion on those videos.

  Thanks.
• 

  whereami

  Tammy please also look over those videos above that also touch on what TD posted. Sometimes listening and SEEING the info helps.

  Thanks.
• 

  Gerard

  One of the most important evidence of evolution and common ancestry is the presence of mitochondria in the eukaryote cells.

  Those who want to learn the facts can Google "origin of mitochondria" for thousands of scientific peer-reviewed articles on this subject. But I am aware that these are big words and require of -if not of specialized education- of thinking, not an easy alternative to "god did it" so most creationists won't bother to read the evidence.