COFTY- Perhaps you would like to teach us the "first thing about evolution".
TRUTH DOUBTER
For those of us creationists who don't know anything about evolution
by truth doubter 27 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
nicolaou
Cofty will be along I've no doubt but until he gets here may I ask why you don't do your own research? Why bother a poster who has done more than any to explain evolution with great patience and hundreds of posts? Search his history, it's only a click away.
Or, read a book. I recommend Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution Is True'
-
-
juandefiero
Here you go...I'll make it even easier for you:
#1 Protein Functional Redundancy
Comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things.#2 DNA Functional Redundancy
Comparison of the DNA that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy.#3 ERVs
Endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins.#4 Smelly Genes
Hundreds of broken genes that used to code for olfactory receptors in our ancestors are still found in our genome.#5 Vitamin C
Why humans can no longer make their own vitamin C and what that tells us about our species' history.#6 Human Chromosome 2
Our second biggest chromosome is made up of two of our ancestors' genes stuck end-to-end.#7 Human Egg Yolk Gene
Humans and our primate cousins have the genes for making vitellogenin and they are all broken in the same way.#8 Jumping Genes
Bits of parasitic code called ALU elements prove our common ancestry with primates.#9 Less Chewing More Thinking
A broken gene for a type of muscle fibre we no longer have tells a story about our evolutionary past.#10 Non-Coding DNA
In common with many other species huge amounts of our genome originated as copying errors.#11 Tiktaalik
An amazing fossil discovery illustrates the transition of life from sea to land.#12 Lenski's E.coli Experiment
An experiment with E.Coli, now in it's third decade, demonstrates the power of natural selection.#13 Morris Minor Bonnets
Evolution has to make do with building on existing designs as illustrated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve.#14 Joey Goes to Oz
Fossil evidence for the origins of marsupials found in Antarctica exactly as predicted.#15 Robinson Crusoe
The biogeography of oceanic islands presents an impossible dilemma for creationism.#16 Aquatic Mammals
An excellent sequence of fossils illustrates the evolutionary journey of whales from land to sea.#17 Belyaev's Silver Foxes
A 50 year breeding programme demonstrates the amazing power of selection and the interconnected nature of genes.#18 Fish Fingers
The evolution of limbs is mapped out in an amazing sequence of ancient fish fossils.#19 Goosebumps
A vestigial reflex bequeathed by our hairier ancestors.#20 Lucy in the Sky...
An exceptional fossil of a 3 million year old hominid. -
Island Man
1. Evolution isn't "just a theory".
Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not the same thing as just a theory or conjecture in everyday speech. A scientific theory is a detailed model or explanation of a scientific phenomenon based on supporting facts and evidence. It is not conjecture.
-
Island Man
2. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is about how the gene pool of populations of species changes over time. A lack of explanation of the origin of life in no way refutes or casts doubt on the theory evolution because the theory of evolution does not attempt to address or explain that issue.
One of the first clues that a creationist source gives of its ignorance of the subject of evolution or its dishonesty in attempting to refute it, is when it seeks to conflate and confuse the subject of evolution with the subject of the origin of life.
The Watchtower publication title: LIfe - How did it get here by evolution or by creation? is an example of monumental scientific ignorance and/or dishonesty - if not stupidity.
-
Island Man
There was a time when I believed evolution was just a theory - just conjecture - and there was no real evidence to support it but that it was all just a matter of scientists having a biased, naturalistic interpretation of the fossil record.
That was when I believed what was written in the pages of Watchtower literature on the subject. That was when I really didn't understand the subject of evolution beyond just the simplest layman's notion of the subject. That was when I had done no independent research into the subject from actual scientific sources on the subject.
When I finally did independent research and discovered how utterly erroneous and dishonest the claims and arguments in Watchtower literature are, I was floored. Watchtower publications - and other creationist sources - very often quote scientific sources on the subject so out of context as to be guilty of deception!
Right now you might not believe evolution. It might seem strange and counter-intuitive to you - even impossible. But from personal experience I can tell you that such feelings are based on ignorance of the subject coupled with incorrect notions likely picked up from creationist sources. Forget about whether or not you believe it. Just do your own independent research on the subject from scientific sources that educate on the subject (not creationist sources). Your goal in such research should be to understand the subject and see what evidence is being used to support it. After you do such research and understand it, you can decide then whether or not you believe it. If you still don't believe it, then at least you would have a better understanding of it and would avoid the false reasoning and misinformation that creationists use to argue against it.
-
cofty
Hi Truth Doubter - Your comments on an earlier thread suggest strongly that you have never read a single word about evolution that was written by an actual scientist. Sadly that is true of many exJWs but you have come to the right place to get the help you need.
You seem to be impressed by the argument from design - AKA "Paley's Watch" - which was demolished by Darwin 150 years ago. The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that it is not random.
Imagine giving a typewriter each to 10,000 monkeys and waiting for one of them to come up with a perfect copy of Macbeth. We could wait a million years and it would never happen. Creationists think that evolution is like that.
It isn't.
Imagine we wait for one of the Monkeys to type "When shall we ..." then we give all the monkeys a copy of that and watch until one of them adds "three meet again ..." and so on.
Now how long would it take to get us a copy of Macbeth?
That is what evolution by natural selection is like. It is a chance accumulator.
For a fuller explanation try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins.
I will be posting number 24 in the series on "Evolution is a Fact..." later this evening. Please have a read through the OPs. None of them will take more than a few minutes.
-
talesin
Evolution: a primer. This is written as a basic introduction. Especially if you did not learn in school (home schooling being one sometimes-abused JW method), this will speak to the basics (including some elementary science lessons). If you are finding Cofty's series a bit difficult - lots to digest - having an overall look at the basics of evolution may lay a good foundation, and you could enjoy the more detailed terminology and excellent explanations of Cofty's pieces. I also copied the introductory para. and list of topics. Each topic is a direct link, and clickable.
http://ncse.com/evolution/science/evolution-primers
- October 17th, 2008
- Defining Evolution
- Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
- Earliest Evidence of Life
- Entropy in Muffins
- Evolution and the Origin of Races
- Geology of the Cambrian Explosion
- How Old is the Earth?
- Locations of Oldest Rocks
- Species Concepts in Modern Literature
- The Age of the Universe — Measuring Cosmic Time
- The De-riving Force of Cladogenesis
- The Evolution of Biological Complexity
- What is Homology?
- What is Paleontology?
- What is Science?
-
Vidiot
Discovering that professional creationists (including the WTS) had a long, storied history of misquoting sources, using semantic gymnastics, and employing fallacious logic was enough to make me give non-biased information a closer look (see my motto, often posted).
What I discovered was fascinating (and also went a long way towards explaining some of the weirder shit found in nature).