Posts by seattleniceguy

53

Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.

the first installment is here:.

installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.

seattleniceguy

To further pursue the logical line that Dave started above, imagine that humans and Neandertals live in the same general area at the same time. They are reproductively isolated - no interbreeding takes place. They are separate species, each at the top of the food chain. At some point, humans and Neandertals wage war. As it happens, the humans win and drive the Neandertals to extinction. Later on, the humans look back and wonder why there are no creatures similar to them in intelligence.

See how this scenario could play out? This is an excercise - I do not know if the actual reason for Neandertal exinction is known - but I think it should illustrate the concepts.

SNG

53

Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.

the first installment is here:.

installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.

seattleniceguy

Terry,

I'm not an expert in human evolution, but there is certainly evidence that sibling species to humans did exist and were quite intelligent. Research Neandertals when you get a chance. They were not human and did not interbreed with humans (we have DNA from at least 8 specimens now), but they had a culture that rivaled that of humans, including advanced tool making. There is evidence that they had speech as well. Here's an article I wrote on Neandertals: Evidence for evolution, Installment 3b: Neandertals and Mitochondrial DNA

I think this may be a source of some of the continuity you seek.

SNG

40

Governing Body talk in Holland - GB decisions are Jehovah's decisions

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

it seems that few are aware of it, but the whole talk here is posted.. http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/viewtopic.php?t=2337&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=45.

seems like holland is having problems with jw authority.. thought i'd paste a few comments from the board before pasting the talk, so you can get an idea of what is happening.... --------------------------.

thanks for the update from holland.

seattleniceguy

when the governing body makes a decision, it?s Jehovah?s decision.

Wow, then Jehovah clearly must have had a tough time making up his mind on trivial little matters like organ transplants and whether you can divorce someone over bestiality.

SNG

28

People from that island west of Europe: What do you call your country?

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

i'm curious.

do you call it the uk, england, or britain?

i have the sneaking suspicion that these terms each mean something slightly different from one another, but i thought i'd see how the natives use them.

seattleniceguy

Holy crap. Okay, so it's not just me - it is really complex. :-)

Aztec - Thanks! You too.

Crumpet - I usually call my country "the US" or "the USA." I don't particularly like the unadorned designation "America" because it sounds really ethnocentric somehow, as if the US is the only country worthy of mention on the American continents. I do, however, use the adjective "American" freely, as in "Standard American English."

scotsman -

I'm intrigued. What is "England proper" and where are the "other territories" that form the UK?

Actually, I had no idea whatsoever when I wrote that - I was just hoping it would be close enough to the mark to spark a discussion to set me straight. :-)

SNG

28

People from that island west of Europe: What do you call your country?

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

i'm curious.

do you call it the uk, england, or britain?

i have the sneaking suspicion that these terms each mean something slightly different from one another, but i thought i'd see how the natives use them.

seattleniceguy

I'm curious. Do you call it the UK, England, or Britain? I have the sneaking suspicion that these terms each mean something slightly different from one another, but I thought I'd see how the natives use them.

In my imagination, the UK refers to England proper, plus Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and other territories. I imagine that Britain is the designation for a no-longer-existant empire. That seems to mean that England would be the name of the country itself. Am I on track here? Do you distinguish between the names?

SNG

26

WHO IS WORSE TO A JW, A PAEDOPHILE OR AN APOSTATE?

by diamondblue1974 in

hearing about the child molester in glasgow who has been charged but not disfellowshipped did cause me to think a little;.

as an apostate you can be shunned without the need for a jc meeting irrespective of the fact that you might be repentent (not if you have any sense though); however the child molester mentioned hasnt been disfellowshipped!!?

?...if this is true doesnt it clearly highlight the wts f**cked up sense of morals?.

seattleniceguy

I think that most Witnesses would at first blush respond that the pedophile is worse. After all, he represents an immediate material danger to innocent people. However, if you look at the way Witnesses actually deal with pedophiles versus "apostates," I agree that they clearly believe that apostates are far more dangerous.

Yet another case of JW priorities being indescribably out of touch with reality.

SNG

63

Ok so you left the idea of God - what would it take to come back?

by Qcmbr in

one point that has played many times on my mind (and is fairly central to my world view) is that if god exists its up to him to prove it.

what would it take for you to accept god?

starters for ten: .

seattleniceguy

Hey Qcmbr,

Personal appearance?
That would depend on what the appearance actually was. A human who looks exactly like a human but claims to be God (or otherwise divinely appointed) obviously is not very compelling.

See angel? See above.

Evolution superceded by another logical answer?
Another system that is even more well-supported by the facts than evolution would be interesting, to say the least, but it would not indicate the existence of God. It would simply be yet another triumph for science.

Alien life discovered?
If anything, this would provide even more evidence that God is unnecessary in explaining life on earth, since life obviously arose (or at least developed) two times independently. I've often thought that the discovery of unequivocal proof of alien life would be the final clincher that would end fundamentalism for many people.

An all-powerful God should be able to produce compelling evidence. Directly observable evidence of conscious and intentional manipulation of physical phenomena would be a start. I don't think that a God who created humans as rational creatures would have a problem supplying evidence that satisfies the rational mind he created.

SNG

22

Evidence for evolution, Installment 4: Atavisms and vitamin C

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

retroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx.

cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx.

this week's primary source: .

seattleniceguy

El blanko,

It is to be expected that creationists will try to downplay the significance of atavistic true tails. However, several of the claims they often make in doing this are demonstrably false. Here's a quote from my main source:

The existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled " Evolution and the human tail " ( Gish 1983 ; see also Menton 1994 ; ReMine 1982 ). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study ( Ledley 1982 ), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" ( Gish 1983 ). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails. Gish claims these structures are not true tails for several reasons: (1) they lack vertebrae, (2) they are not inherited, and (3) the resemblance to tails is "highly superficial" and simply an "anomalous malformation". Menton further claims that (4) all true tails have muscles and can move, whereas human tails cannot. Each of these arguments are factually false, as explained above and as well-documented in the medical literature. Vertebrae and cartilage have occasionally been found in human tails. However, contrary to the claims of Gish, Menton, and ReMine, vertebrae are not a requirement for tails. M. sylvanus is a prime example of a primate whose fleshy tail lacks vertebrae ( Hill 1974 , p. 616; Hooten 1947 , p. 23). Several cases are known where human tails have been inherited. Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Inheritance of the tail structure per se is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans. The "resemblance" to non-human tails is far from superficial, since all true human tails are complex structures composed of symmetrical layers of voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs, and they can indeed move and contract.

New Worldly Translation,

I'm glad you're liking the series! You're right - the evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming. The scientific debate over the theories has to do with the exact mechanics by which it occurs. And yeah, it does seem to be a much stronger explanation than the beard-dude. :-)

SNG

17

Another Reason People Invented "God" -- Absolution

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

we've all hurt people at one time or another.

some may have managed to keep it to the "made me feel bad" level, but others of us have hurt people severely.

this has almost surely been true down through the ages.. sometimes the people we hurt can't be asked for forgiveness.

seattleniceguy

LOL @ AA's Watchtower paragraph formulation skills.

I hear what Bradley is saying. Obviously, a plausible explanation for the benefits of inventing God does not prove that it actually happened. But for those of us who accept the very real possibility that there is no God, it is interesting to consider what benefits there are/were to inventing the concept.

Interesting post, Dave.

SNG

22

Evidence for evolution, Installment 4: Atavisms and vitamin C

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

retroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx.

cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx.

this week's primary source: .

seattleniceguy

Hello Eduardo,

Thanks for the info from Wikipedia. It sounds like the word "atavism" is loaded with historical meaning. To clarify, please consider the following points:

The concept of "progress" is not one that appears in evolutionary theory.
An atavism has no connection to "primitive" or "progressive" features. It is simply a long dormant piece of genetic code coming active.
Atavisms occur only as would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.

Therefore, regardless of what the word has meant to social Darwinists and how it has been misused in the past, we are considering only the actual physical phenomena and how they relate to hereditary relatedness of species.

SNG