Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty 191 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wizzstick

  you find somebody that refuses to fall down at your feet

  No - this is about evidence.

  You said:

  It's a foregone conclusion that it is accepted in the Bible Belt that we all descend from a common ancestor.

  As the evidence shows, Neanderthals are a humanoid species that are genetically different to us.

  Humans living before the time of Adam and Eve had sex with a different human species who subsequently contributed about 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans.

  This is a fact you can't argue with.

  If you do, you are exactly the same as flat earthers who deny the evidence that is before them.
  
• 

  cofty

  So in response to my public offer to engage in a serious debate with ND on any question on evolution of her/hsi choosing I received the following reply.

  

  The troll has left the building.
• 

  wizzstick

  The troll has left the building.

  Hope so.

  I don't mind people arguing out of genuine ignorance. But deliberate avioidance of facts is just moronic.
  
• 

  cofty

  I agree. I have endless patience with genuine objections. Sadly they are very rare.

  Perry and ND have no interest in answers to their questions, just as we hid from things that challenged our worldview when we were JWs.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  This seems like a simple, stable fact, but is it really?

  Addressing it firstly in purely scientific terms.

  First of all there are some obvious problems with the statement as it stands. When you say "every living thing" I assume you probably mean every living thing on Earth. You don't intend to rule out the possibility that life arose in different parts of the universe and don't share a common ancestor.

  But even if we confine ourselves to this planet it is still presuming a lot. As extensive as our knowledge of life on earth is, is it really out of the question that, deep in the ocean, or in some other inhospitable habitat, life has arisen separately from the rest of life on Earth? Some may say it's unlikely, but I don't think many scientists would rule it out.

  And there are philosophical problems with the statement too.

  In a sense even a creationist could agree with the statement, since they believe that God is the Father of all living creatures.

  The you might want to qualify "ancestor" through reproduction of one finite living thing from another.

  Of course Darwin himself famously left open the possibility that God gave life to a few original creatures, or just one, and that evolution took over from there. So Darwin himself wasn't necessarily dogmatic about this supposed central "fact" about evolution.

  Since Darwin's time scientists have scrutinised life on our planet an concluded that all life on Earth has a common ancestor and that evolution does not have multiple starting points. There are apparrently good reasons for drawing this conclusion. But is it out of the question that new discoveries will undermine this conclusion and that in fact life on Earth had multiple starting points. However unlikely you think it might be, it would be unwise to say it's impossible.

  Plus all of this assumes a purely materialist conception of reality to begin with. How can we know that what appears as physical beings with causal and reproductive relations to one another is not the result of a mind that is external the reality as we see it? Strange and weird idea? Well yes. And there are many things about reality that are strange and weird. Frankly if the material universe is all that there is, all reality can be explained by the process of natural laws, and humans are the most intelligent beings ever to arise. Then frankly that's pretty weird and mysterious. No less miraculous that the explanations offered by many religions
• 

  cofty

  When you say "every living thing" I assume you probably mean every living thing on Earth.

  Of course. I thought that was obvious. I am very confident that life has also emerged on multiple other planets but I find the idea of panspermia to be unconvincing.

  is it really out of the question that, deep in the ocean, or in some other inhospitable habitat, life has arisen separately from the rest of life on Earth?

  No it's not out the question. It would be a fascinating discovery. It doesn't change the simple fact that every living thing ever discovered from humans to bacteria to blades of grass all evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Not one single species or anatomical feature or biochemical pathway requires an intelligent design explanation.

  In a sense even a creationist could agree with the statement, since they believe that God is the Father of all living creatures

  Only if they wanted to indulge in equivocation. Most of them do that.

  The you might want to qualify "ancestor" through reproduction of one finite living thing from another

  No thanks. The meaning is obvious to everybody except a pedant or somebody who wants to misunderstand.

  So Darwin himself wasn't necessarily dogmatic about this supposed central "fact" about evolution

  Darwin left open the possibility that what we would now call LUCA was made by a creator although I think he changed this line in later editions of his book. He did not allow for divine interference in the process of evolution.

  is it out of the question that new discoveries will undermine this conclusion and that in fact life on Earth had multiple starting points.

  No it's not impossible that the very deepest roots of the tree of life have more than one starting point. If it is ever possible to show that to be true it won't change the fact of evolution.

  Your final paragraph is woo woo.
• 

  slimboyfat

  First you said evolution is a fact.

  When I said evolution was a complex combination of different facts woven into a compelling narrative, you said the central fact of evolution is that:

  Every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  Now you say:

  No it's not impossible that the very deepest roots of the tree of life have more than one starting point.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if life had multiple starting points then it wouldn't all share a common ancestor.

  So what happened to your one unalterable central fact of evolution? Not so unalterably factual after all.

  And Darwin said God possibly started the process of evolution in a few primitive creatures. It that's not divine intervention I don't know what is.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  if evolution had multiple starting points then it wouldn't all share a common ancestor.

  No not at all. If life did have multiple starting points at its deepest roots they lost their separate lineages a very long time ago. So all life now on earth still shares a common ancestor.

  There is no possible combination of words that you would not pick fault with. Tedious semantics is your trademark.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  So you rule out the discovery of extant life (such as at the bottom of the ocean) with a different origin?

  Current scientific thinking is that DNA and other evidence shows that all life on Earth that we know about shares a common ancestor. But might new information refute this firm assumption? Maybe not, but is it impossible? Is it even scientific to rule out the possibility?
• 

  cofty

  So you rule out the discovery of extant life (such as at the bottom of the ocean) with a different origin?

  No that isn't impossible.

  I said that above....

  No it's not out the question. It would be a fascinating discovery. It doesn't change the simple fact that every living thing ever discovered from humans to bacteria to blades of grass all evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Not one single species or anatomical feature or biochemical pathway requires an intelligent design explanation

  So to summarise. The deepest roots of the tree of life might lead to multiple origins. If that is true then every species now known still descended from a common ancestor. If there is some undiscovered prokaryotic species that has remained aloof all these millennia that would be amazing but it would not change the simple fact of evolution any more than the discovery of life on another planet would do so. We would then have more than one parallel story of evolution to tell. That would be very cool.