What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry

    EVOLUTION is a "result" and not a Plan.

    RELIGION is a plan with many implied personal results.

    Unless you can straddle both worlds without bias, it is impossible to be fully neutral in your thinking about Evolution.

    Science is about numbers and measurements while Religion is about words and language.

    Separating the emotion content out of language is almost impossible.

    Language isn't scientific. Language is filled with many pitfalls, traps, analogies, and emotional blockades!

    The source of meaning is emotional even though thousands of denominations are examining basic texts shared by all.

    Science relies on numbers, measurements, inquiry and end results.

    Religion relies on emotions, interpretations, promises and fallback positions.

    RELIGION is all about non-questioning acceptance.

    SCIENCE is dispassionate. Science is Take it or Leave it.
    SCIENCE is a methodology of testing in order to disprove itself.


    Cognition is recognition.
    None of us come out of the womb KNOWING.

    Patterns are introduced into our thinking which we associate with "meanings" directly impacting our pain and pleasure.

    The source of almost all of our thinking for the first decade of life is SELF oriented interpretations of everything.

    UNLESS we disconnect our intellect from our emotions at some point, we are fated to filter phenomena through a lens of "HOW DOES THIS HELP / HURT ME?"


    EVOLUTION is the same body of facts everywhere on the planet as a result of
    the application of combined intellects probing, testing and shaping the numbers.

    CHRISTIANITY is not the same anywhere but is a fractured set of impressions, opinions, and bodies of Dogma filtered into 40 thousand denominations.

    Which bookkeeping firm would you hire to manage your finances?

  • Fisherman

    There are no holes in facts and if evolution were a fact, the OP is nonsense. I think that is what Outlaw meant to say. From Outlaw's position, Outlaw's "mockery" is valid and cofty's entertaining any validating that the earth is not a sphere is hilarious.

    I always try to seek out the best arguments against my beliefs

    Facts do not need a following -only an instrument.

  • nicolaou
    Atomant: Whether or not evolution exists is conjecture.

    No it isn't. If you're willing to put your doubts to the test, next time your doctor prescribes antibiotics for you why not ask for an older version that will be ineffective against your recently evolved bacterial infection?

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen

    For those thinking evolution may not be a fact because for some topics contradicting explanations exist, please consider the following analogy:

    A dead body is found. There is a hole in it's skull, and a bullet inside the brain. Lots of blood everywhere. A gun found 50ft from the body matches the bullet in the brain. Fingerprints on the gun match the victim, but no gunshot residue on his hands. Also, there are 32 stab wounds in the body, but no knife is found.

    Now there may be opposing explanations about some topics (who is the victim; who fired the gun; who stabbed; what killed the victim, the bullet or the stabbing; why was he killed; etc) but regardless of those contradicting explanations, the known facts remain solid, and we can think of only one logical explanation for these facts: this guy was (99.99% certain) killed.

    And the contradicting explanations or unknowns might be resolved when more evidence is uncovered.

    With evolution, it's similar: evolution is a fact. Some topics are not clearly understood (yet), but the facts remain. And the only logical explanation to all known facts found by geologists, biologists etc is evolution.

    It's not that someone made up a story and now we try to find evidence for it; someone(s) tried to explain the facts we already knew. And the explanation (murder/evolution) neatly fits the known facts.

    And when new facts come to light, they either confirm the current explanation, or the explanation is updated to be in line with all the facts.

  • cofty
    How many different evolution theories are there, because in my own lifetime I've heard various experts promoting opposing viewpoints to Darwin's theories. - The Searcher

    There is only one theory of evolution. Darwin's genius was in recognising the power of natural selection.

    There are 5 known mechanisms of evolution of which natural selection is only one.

    Is there evidence for "cross-species evolution?"

    Yes if you look at any of the threads I have posted in the past week or two you will see irrefutable evidence of common ancestry of multiple species. The evidence is of the same sort that is used in court to convict rapists and settle paternity disputes.

    Adaptation is not the same as evolution, is it?

    No creature ever adapted to it's environment. This is a common misunderstanding.

    Evolution happens to groups of creatures. It is about a change in frequency of alleles in a gene pool.

    Very many top scientists strongly argue against evolution as being "fact", e.g. "Darwin's Black Box" by Professor Michael Behe. In it, he states that (until he published his book) he had not found any scientific paper which addressed or explained the "evolution" of a simple molecule - not a cell.

    Behe is a creationist hiding behind the sciencey phrase "Intelligent Design". Every single point in his book has been thoroughly refuted by evidence. If you go to YouTube and search for Kitzmiller v Dover you will see his nonsense demolished in court.

    Despite the expected detractors, it's the other side of the coin for people to look at and weigh up the differing opinions/scientific data.

    There is no other side of the coin. Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Only people who suffer from religious superstitions deny this fact.

    There are two sides to the evolution debate in the same way as there are two sides to the debate about germ theory of disease or that a person's intelligence can be calculated from the contours of their skull.

  • Fisherman

    Where does the Bible say that "God" did not create life to evolve? DD

    DD, JW concede that life changed ("evolved" ) but only within its "kind", and also rule out macro evolution. JW aslo teach that "evolution" is a conclusion or as cofty referred to it as "my belief." For your reference,"Coded Logic" posted on a previous thread a list of scientific institutes (an overwhelming amount of believers in that list) that accept evolution as an indisputable fact.

    DD you are a funny poster in your style of expression. I cannot stop laughing after reading some of your posts. Thank you for making me laugh.

  • Clambake

    The lack of transitional forms.

    The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye.

    The development of instincts in animals.

    The sterility of crossbreeding in animals.

    The relative quick advance of modern man compared to the species and a certain self awareness not found in other species.

    ( a two second copy and paste will keep tips busy all afternoon. Evil laugh ha ha ha )

  • slimboyfat
    Back when I read Dawkins he was saying Lamarckism was 100% wrong. Now they think it wasn't completely wrong after all. Science is never final, the picture is always subject to change.
  • cofty
    The lack of transitional forms. - Clambake

    How many of them would you like me to list? How much time and effort have you made researching transitional forms? Obviously the answer is none as usual.

    The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye.

    Every step of the process is understood and all the stages can be seen in the natural world.

    The development of instincts in animals.

    What about it? The very genes that code for behaviour have been discovered and manipulated in experiments. Want to turn a promiscuous vole into a loyal husband and father? It has already been done.

    The sterility of crossbreeding in animals.

    What about it? Your question reveals a deep ignorance of evolution.

  • cofty
    Back when I read Dawkins he was saying Lamarckism was 100% wrong

    It still is. 100%

    Read "The Epigenetic Revolution" by Nessa Carey

Share with others