Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40
Nimble duck - Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
And right before that he said that we must reject intelligent design... I wonder how it is that you missed that part? It's from his book The Way of the Cell. When he said that, he didn't mean to imply that evolution is false or anything of the sort. He simply meant that there is still room for discovery. In fact, the very next sentence reads, "There is room for discovery here."
I love misquotes. Those are the easiest to discredit...
It's not a misquote. What is quoted from his words belies the context. He is a contradicting himself.
Whether he is contradicting himself is beyond the point. It's irrelevant. What's relevant is that you're lying by misquoting him. (And I literally—in the literal sense of "literally"—almost never accuse others of lying... It's extremely rare for me to do that.) He did say that any detailed account of evolution of any biochemical or cellular system is wishful speculation, but in the next sentence he says that such an account is yet to be discovered—that it will be discovered. You're quoting him to imply that it's a fault of evolution, but that's not what he meant at all.
(And he also said that we must reject intelligent design, which is a vital part of this quote...)
There are a hundred more questions like these that have been put to evolutionists.
Cofty often resorts to the "Wait on Jehovah" answer that used to get handed to us when he gets questioned.
Cofty's answer often is "They (some unnamed expert they he can rely upon) is working on it". In other words "Wait on Jehovah". He's in the same prison, just different guards.
Wait on Jehovah or wait on the Scientists..... no difference, same result:
Whether he is contradicting himself is beyond the point. It's irrelevant.
AH... NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
What's relevant is that you're lying by misquoting him. (And I literally—in the literal sense of "literally"—almost never accuse others of lying... It's extremely rare for me to do that.) He did say that any detailed account of evolution of any biochemical or cellular system is wishful speculation,
You here quote the exact same words as did I and then accuse me of lying. Your expression is absurd. UNTHINK. So, what??? it's not "wishful thinking" anymore because we "will" find proof that backs up your evolutionary BS.
...but in the next sentence he says that such an account is yet to be discovered—that it will be discovered.
How can anyone, in the present, base all their conclusions on supposed proof that is wishfully arriving "soon"... in the still future. That would be comical if it wasn't so dreadfully nuts.
Maybe it will come with the Watchtower Armageddon?? LOL
And you placed the word "will" in italic. It's the fool who thinks he can predict the future, what "will" or "will" not be.
Absurd. Non-reasoning garbage.Yes, yes yes... evolution is a "fact" and we will find the proof soon.
Cofty -- thank you, again, for taking the time to share your phenomenal intelligence, knowledge and research so generously.
Some of us might be college educated but whatever!
Perry:- " Wait on Jehovah or wait on the Scientists..... no difference, same result".
Scientists have tangible results to show for their efforts, even evolutionary biologists.
On the other hand, people like you Perry have nothing to show for your non-existent make believe god and your infantile faith.
Better to know you don't have all the answers than to delude yourself into believing you have.
1) Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”
2) Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard,
Um, I could be wrong but I think Paul Davies is a physicist/cosmologist, and Andrew Knoll is a Professor of Natural History and a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Neither is an expert in evolutionary biology?
Is any of this stuff peer reviewed by actual scientists? It kind of seems like an incredible waste of time to both read and write if it isn't - Steel
Yes everything I have written is based on books and articles that are in turn based on peer-reviewed papers. None of it is even controversial in mainstream science.
As JWs we were lied to about evolution. We were thoroughly ignorant of the facts - as you can see from many of the contributors to this thread. It is certainly not a waste of time to help others understand this subject. Not only is it fascinating it also has significant implications for our other beliefs. No doubt this is why it attracts such vitriol.
Showing comparisons and similarities in DNA does not automatically equate that everything spawned from a common ancestor - Bad wolf
Yes that is correct. The evidence for common ancestry in our DNA is far far more compelling than simple sequence comparison. I have described quite a few in this series of threads including pseudogenes, ERVs, ALU elements. Here is an extract from #3 ...
Imagine you are teacher with suspicions that some of your pupils have been copying from each other. Comparing the correct answers in all of their assignments might not provide conclusive evidence. They could simply claim they had all carefully revised the same textbooks so it shouldn't be surprising that they all gave the same answers. The way to prove there has been cheating going on is to examine their mistakes. There might be only one way to answer some questions correctly but there are almost limitless ways to get it wrong.
By examining a number of identical mistakes you could even build up a family tree of plagiarism and show who wrote the original essay and who copied from whom.
In a similar way geneticists have been able to confirm the evolutionary history of humans and other species by examining errors in our DNA.