by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
If my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is accurate, order always moves toward disorder. In other words, things in the universe were better yesterday than they are today. In order for one to prove evolution true, he has to prove the second (and first) law of thermodynacs to be false.
Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics isn't accurate. Entropy increases in a closed system, but the earth is not a closed system. Evolution doesn't violate any physical laws.
Option 1; Creation as literally detailed in a creation account: All of these have problems. Some, where god’s get split in half etc, are pretty clearly rubbish. Others are seemingly well written and plausible. Until you hit them with modern science. All creation accounts conflict with pretty reliable areas of scientific knowledge, be it chronology, or simply the lack of explanation for a fossil record that shows development rather than specific creation. Option 1 means you have to spend forever defending creative myths written by a goatherd 4,000 years ago. You might have better things to do with your time.
Option 2; Creation as in ‘a god was involved in our making at some point, but the creation stories are symbolic’. If one allows science to illuminate the methods, this is not provably wrong, although conversely there is no direct evidence for it. This is the ‘god created us using evolution’ thing. Most Western religions have moved from Option 1 to Option 2 in the past century. Not liked by people who would have to redefine their beliefs if they had to accept the Bible (or whatever book they use) was not literal.
Option 3; Evolution. Evolution is two things; a set of theories, and a mass of evidence. Theories are changeable, but normally improve over time, and it’s been a Science for less than two centuries; planetary orbital mechanics took several thousand years to figure out. Thus problems and disputes over theories are to be expected. The evidence is pretty clear; in the older rocks you find simple things, in the younger rocks you find complex things. The actual ‘event’ of one species becoming two which cannot interbreed successfully (essential for Evolution) has been observed five times in the past hundred years, most recently of a weed in
Option 4; We’re here, enjoy it, as it’s the only thing you’ll ever be sure of.
Hi Dottie,
I think your confusion is caused by a lack of information. We can't all be experts on everything so we must decide for ourselves that which we must research ourselves and that which we trust others to research for us. As an ex-JW I was obsessed with the truth of our natural history so I was driven to research evolution specifically and science in general since I no longer trusted the "research" done on these subjects by the Watch Tower Society who are proven liars. If you are bothered by your doubts I strongly suggest taking University level classes in the sciences, especially Geology, Biology, and Paleontology. This is a huge investment in time and money but for me it has been worth it for the peace of mind which has resulted from knowing first hand the whys, hows, and whats of real science. Another alternative is to read a lot of books on the subject but without teachers to help you this will be more difficult but less expensive. The best science books for laymen I know were written by Carl Sagan and, as someone has already mentioned, Stephen Gould. These books are not substitutes for a University education but will help a person to understand the basic scientific methods employed by researchers in these fields along with the evidence these methods provide. This way you can weigh the evidence for yourself and not depend on some one else's interpretations and conclusions. The more research you do on your own the more convincing the evidence will become.
An honest search for the truth has revealed to me mountains of evidence which proves that the WTS doesn't have a clue about the Earth's history and that the Bible cannot be the inspired word of God because it is filled with falsehood and contradictions. If God exists He could not be the inspiration behind a book which can be refuted at every turn by the very evidence He created all around us in the natural Universe. Science is all about making observations and gathering evidence in the natural Universe. Science does not address issues of the supernatural such as the existance of invisible super beings in the spirit realm or their role in creating the Universe. Natural forces which can be observed are studied and the Bible presents events which were supposed to have occured in the physical natural realm so these can be observed, evidence gathered and conclusions drawn. All the physical evidence so far gathered proves that the Bible does not accurately describe the development of the Universe, the Earth, nor the life forms found upon it. Such fanciful biblical events as a Global Flood or the Tower of Babel stories are just not possible given the evidence available. In short, the Bible is thoroughly discredited as a literal historical record and as the inspired word of God since He would logically not inspire lies which are discredited by His own creations.
Of interest (another support of NeoDarwinism falls).
You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57892,00.html
By Kristen Philipkoski
Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.
But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.
Researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, used a powerful biological computer chip that can scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, its whole genome. The results, published in Monday's issue of Genome Research, show that chimps and humans are much more different than scientists previously thought.
"The study shows the richness and texture of these differences we have with our close neighbors in the evolutionary tree," said Richard Gibbs, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who was not involved in the Perlegen study.
Researchers will now focus on these genetic variations to discover how the species differ functionally, which they hope will lead to knowledge about human health.
"(This study) provides a valuable starting point from which to improve our understanding of what makes human beings unique," said Dr. David Cox, Perlegen's chief scientific officer and co-author of the study, in a statement.
Researchers around the world are sequencing the genomes of various animals: some very far away from humans on the evolutionary tree, like pufferfish, and some closer, such as nonhuman primates.
The reason to compare the genomes of very distant species is that any genes they might have in common have likely been conserved for good reasons and are worth studying.
But studies like Perlegen's, and another recent paper published by Ed Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the Feb. 28 issue of the journal Science, help argue the point that, while studying genomes of distant species is valuable, it is the species closer to humans in evolution that might yield the most important clues about human health.
"Although such comparisons readily identify regions of the human genome performing general biological functions shared with evolutionarily distant mammals, they will invariably miss recent changes in DNA sequence that account for uniquely primate biological traits," Rubin wrote in his paper.
Because of the chimp's genetic similarity to humans, the small amount of DNA that differs between the two species promises to reveal important secrets about what makes humans human.
"It's a good reminder that sometimes the differences between things that are already very similar provide the most insight," Gibbs said.
The Perlegen researchers compared human chromosome 21 with chimpanzee, orangutan, rhesus macaque and woolly monkey DNA sequences. In all the species, they found that DNA had been rearranged much more frequently during primate genome evolution than previously thought.
The DNA was often reordered in areas of the genome that contained functioning genes -- genes that researchers can investigate to find important clues about human health and the nature of disease.
The study didn't generate a new number expressing how similar or different chimpanzee DNA is from human DNA. However, researchers say, that number might be different depending on how it is measured anyway.
With new technologies like Perlegen's biochip, researchers can measure the genome at a much more minute scale than had been possible before.
The 98.5 percent difference between humans and nonhuman primates is based on differences between the two genomes' sequences of the letters A, T, C and G, which stand for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. When researchers sequence the DNA of a genome, they use a machine like Applied Biosystems' ABI Prism 3700 to determine the order of the nucleotides. The letters form base pairs (A always binds to T and C always binds to G) that link together to form the rungs on the ladder of the DNA double helix.
But with technologies like Perlegen's "high-density array" -- a chip that allows scientists to look at whole genomes -- researchers can not only see missing base pairs, but also rearrangements of the base pairs in the genomes.
"(The research shows) how very interesting it is to look at small differences, whereas previously the focus was looking at broad differences," Gibbs said. "That's a suggestion of a paradigm shift."
Wow...thanks everyone for your replies...I though this thread died a long time ago...
I have been doing much reading...trying to keep myself aprised of both sides of the coin. I still have no formed opinion as to which is for me...I find both equally interesting.
Thanks again for your time
Dottie
Of interest (another support of NeoDarwinism falls).
I'm baffled as to how you got that from the article you posted.
Granted, the title and tone of the article say something different to the contents, but as a scientist, you should be aware of the problems of expecting popular magazines like Wired to adhere to the same standards as peer-reviewed journals. With that in mind, I'd be grateful if you could review the highlighted passages and [notes] below and tell me how you think this has in any way removed a "support of NeoDarwinism". You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us [an appallingly populist and unhelpful title]
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57892,00.html
By Kristen Philipkoski
Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.
But the results of a new study call that figure into question [note how the study has called the figure into question, not the notion], with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.
Researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, used a powerful biological computer chip that can scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, its whole genome. The results, published in Monday's issue of Genome Research, show that chimps and humans are much more different than scientists previously thought.
"The study shows the richness and texture of these differences we have with our close neighbors in the evolutionary tree," said Richard Gibbs, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who was not involved in the Perlegen study.
Researchers will now focus on these genetic variations to discover how the species differ functionally, which they hope will lead to knowledge about human health.
"(This study) provides a valuable starting point from which to improve our understanding of what makes human beings unique," said Dr. David Cox, Perlegen's chief scientific officer and co-author of the study, in a statement.
Researchers around the world are sequencing the genomes of various animals: some very far away from humans on the evolutionary tree, like pufferfish, and some closer, such as nonhuman primates.
The reason to compare the genomes of very distant species is that any genes they might have in common have likely been conserved for good reasons and are worth studying.
But studies like Perlegen's, and another recent paper published by Ed Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the Feb. 28 issue of the journal Science, help argue the point that, while studying genomes of distant species is valuable, it is the species closer to humans in evolution that might yield the most important clues about human health.
"Although such comparisons readily identify regions of the human genome performing general biological functions shared with evolutionarily distant mammals, they will invariably miss recent changes in DNA sequence that account for uniquely primate biological traits," Rubin wrote in his paper.
Because of the chimp's genetic similarity to humans, the small amount of DNA that differs between the two species promises to reveal important secrets about what makes humans human.
"It's a good reminder that sometimes the differences between things that are already very similar provide the most insight," Gibbs said.
The Perlegen researchers compared human chromosome 21 with chimpanzee, orangutan, rhesus macaque and woolly monkey DNA sequences. In all the species, they found that DNA had been rearranged much more frequently during primate genome evolution than previously thought.The DNA was often reordered in areas of the genome that contained functioning genes -- genes that researchers can investigate to find important clues about human health and the nature of disease. [research that would be utterly pointless if humans and chimpanzees are not genetically related]
The study didn't generate a new number expressing how similar or different chimpanzee DNA is from human DNA. However, researchers say, that number might be different depending on how it is measured anyway. [so 98.5% may still be a perfectly valid estimate]
With new technologies like Perlegen's biochip, researchers can measure the genome at a much more minute scale than had been possible before. [hence the greater accuracy]
The 98.5 percent difference between humans and nonhuman primates is based on differences between the two genomes' sequences of the letters A, T, C and G, which stand for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. When researchers sequence the DNA of a genome, they use a machine like Applied Biosystems' ABI Prism 3700 to determine the order of the nucleotides. The letters form base pairs (A always binds to T and C always binds to G) that link together to form the rungs on the ladder of the DNA double helix.
But with technologies like Perlegen's "high-density array" -- a chip that allows scientists to look at whole genomes -- researchers can not only see missing base pairs, but also rearrangements of the base pairs in the genomes.
"(The research shows) how very interesting it is to look at small differences, whereas previously the focus was looking at broad differences," Gibbs said. "That's a suggestion of a paradigm shift."[a paradigm shift yes, but hardly one which threatens neo-Darwinism] -- Dr. Bergman, I'm very curious as to how you could believe such an article supports your creationist views and who you think you're likely to convince with an article from Wired. You should really know better.
I can't wait for the reply from Dr. Jerry. It would be truely fine to have a discussion with someone who is a scientist and believes in either YE or OE special creation. I didn't realise Dr Jerry WAS a scientist; may I ask what your degree background is?
I can't wait for the reply from Dr. Jerry. It would be truely fine to have a discussion with someone who is a scientist and believes in either YE or OE special creation. I didn't realise Dr Jerry WAS a scientist; may I ask what your degree background is?
Dr. Bergman's credentials are presented here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp His work speaks for itself.
Dottie:
Missed your thread somehow <sorry, bad Auntie Sheila> Thunder and I debate this hotly <as we do everthingHe believes in Creation, a Supreme Being but believes that he is watching ESPN or something and is checked out on watching what goes on here.
I look in my garden and my Grandbaby's eyes and I believe their must be a God, I want there to be but then I see the pain and the strife and think of the billions hell zillions that have died in his name forever and I think "hmmm I would fight to the death if someone harmed just one hair on one of my children's head but yet it happens every second of the day somewhere! <can you say run-on sentence LOL> So, I guess I vacillate between wonder and anger. I don't believe in evolution in many aspects but what I believe is one day will either know or we won't why stress about it
dottie, There are many evolution sites, as well as several good creationist websites such as the Creation Research Society.
http://www.creationresearch.org/
Look at both sides and decide for yourself. Personally, I find that the hard facts of science are in general agreement with special creation.
