Posts by Disillusioned JW

23

Steven Hassan on CNN today

by dropoffyourkeylee in

a little surprised to see steven hassan interviewed today on cnn about the anti-vax believers and cult tactics.

here is the link:.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/10/02/steven-hassan-cult-misinformation-anti-vaxxers-ndwknd-vpx.cnn.

From what I have read of the comments by those who are anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and who think smoking tobacco is not a health hazard, their mindset regarding those ideas (including the way they determine what information sources are reliable) and the way they spread their views are like those of young earth creationists (and others who reject that biological evolution is a fact), people in religious cults, people who believe space aliens have visited Earth and abducted humans, people who denigrate science (even referring to it as a cult), and people with far 'right'-wing ultraconservative political views.

It has been more than 4 months since I took my first Covid-19 mRNA based vaccine dose and according to a number of blog/forum posts by anti-Covid-19 vaxers I should be dead by now or at least in horrible health. Yet, here I am with still excellent health (including normal blood pressure, normal heart rate, normal respiration, and normal healthy body weight) despite being over age 50. About 85-90% of the people at my place of work (of about 500 people) are fully vaccinated from Covid-19, but according to many blog posts by anti-Covid-19 vaxers they should all be dead now or in terrible health as a result of the vaccine, yet the vaccine has not caused them any harm (at least none that anyone knows about). Likewise my sister and my elderly mother took the same Covid-19 vaccine as I did and they tell me they have not detected any adverse health effects from the vaccine (other than the initial soreness at the vaccine injection site).

Having a doctorate in philosophy is helpful in knowing how to evaluate competing claims, to think critically, and to think logically. Courses in logic and critical thinking are courses of philosophy departments at universities. At university I took two philosophy courses in logic and one of those two also taught critical thinking. The philosophy department also has a course in philosophy of science. I didn't take that course, but about 2 years ago I purchased a book on that subject and read it. Prior to about the year 1900 or 1800 science was known as natural philosophy and was thus a branch of philosophy.

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

Besides my above post about self-replicating protocells, see the following article about an earlier experiment by a different group of scientists: https://globalnews.ca/news/4516282/mcmaster-researchers-planet-simulator/ .

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

News article from Sep. 27, 2021: 'Self-replicating protocells created in lab may be life's "missing link" ' (see https://newatlas.com/biology/self-replicating-protocells-life-missing-link/ )! Holy science!

Do you understand a 'geek' language? If so, then you will be pleased to know that the above mentioned news article has a link the full scientific article published in the science journal called "Nature". The abstract of the journal article says the following.

"The hypothesis that prebiotic molecules were transformed into polymers that evolved into proliferating molecular assemblages and eventually a primitive cell was first proposed about 100 years ago. To the best of our knowledge, however, no model of a proliferating prebiotic system has yet been realised because different conditions are required for polymer generation and self-assembly. In this study, we identify conditions suitable for concurrent peptide generation and self-assembly, and we show how a proliferating peptide-based droplet could be created by using synthesised amino acid thioesters as prebiotic monomers. Oligopeptides generated from the monomers spontaneously formed droplets through liquid–liquid phase separation in water. The droplets underwent a steady growth–division cycle by periodic addition of monomers through autocatalytic self-reproduction. Heterogeneous enrichment of RNA and lipids within droplets enabled RNA to protect the droplet from dissolution by lipids. These results provide experimental constructs for origins-of-life research and open up directions in the development of peptide-based materials."

Do you understand that? I only partially understand it, but it reminds me of what I had read about proteinoid microspheres and coacervate droplets and the journal article talks about both.

For information about proteinoid microspheres see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid . That Wikipedia article contains a quote from Our amazing world of Nature: its marvels & mysteries of Colin Pittendrigh . Before reading the Wikipedia article I had been reading my copy of the "Our Amazing ..." book and its quote of Colin. It looks like the experiment of creating self-replicating protocells, as reported in the recent "Nature" journal article, comes close to creating a living cell! Yippie!

For information about coacervate droplets see see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coacervate . For information about protocells see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell . That article (at least when accessed today) says "a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach" but it was written before the above mentioned "Nature" article was published.

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

Yes truth_b_known, and Charles Darwin in his On the Origin of the Species book from 1859 (in the first edition of his book) said that something as "monstrous" as a whale could have evolved (by natural selection) from land animals (though he speculated it might have happened from a bear)! https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/ (and Hitching in his The Neck of the Giraffe book) quotes Darwin as saying "... I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

The Smithsonian magazine science article then says the following. "Darwin was widely ridiculed for this passage. Critics took it to mean he was proposing that bears were direct ancestors of whales. Darwin had done no such thing, but the jeering caused him to modify the passage in subsequent editions of the book. But while preparing the sixth edition, he decided to include a small note about Basilosaurus. Writing to his staunch advocate T.H. Huxley in 1871, Darwin asked whether the ancient whale might represent a transitional form. Huxley replied that there could be little doubt that Basilosaurus provided clues as to the ancestry of whales."

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

That is a great point Rafe. Furthermore, where do the young earth creationists who are scientists (or at least have degrees in science) attempt to show the supernatural (or natural) processes that the alleged supernatural god used (or might have used) to create any of the kinds of life? The answer is nowhere do they do so - since they say the alleged supernatural processes no longer exist. In contrast evolutionist scientists demonstrate currently exiting processes that produce biological change over generations and in some cases they have shown such processes produce a type of speciation.

In addition, scientists performing experiments pertaining to abiogenesis have demonstrated processes which produce chemical evolution of organic chemicals from other organic chemicals and even from inorganic chemicals. They are making progress towards demonstrating abiogenesis.

What scientific experiments or scientific observations do the so called creation scientists have to show for how alleged special creation took place? Nothing (or virtually nothing) at all!

For more evidence that land animals evolved from certain kinds of fish see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choana , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_tetrapods , and https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/2020/saw0620Long31_d.png .

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

As my above posts show, being convinced that biological evolution is true does not require faith. The conviction of evolution being true can come from knowledge of observable scientific evidence in conjunction with rational analysis based upon such evidence. Such is the case with me.

The information I presented in my prior posts in this topic thread are a minuscule percentage of the vast information I have found which convinces me that biological evolution is a scientific fact.

The PBS web page I mention referenced the TV episode called 'From Evolution: "Great Transformations" '. I first saw that episode (on broadcast TV) about 20 years ago, along with the other episodes of the TV miniseries (called "Evolution") of which it is a part of - see https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html . Many years later I rented a DVD of the miniseries from the library. It is an excellent miniseries!

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

In my earlier post where I said "lobe finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals have a nasal passage to the throat" I should also have said that birds also contain a nasal passage to the throat.

Please see https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html . It says the following.

'Paleontologist Jenny Clack thought the textbook story of tetrapod evolution was implausible: How could fishlike creatures, stranded on land, somehow evolve limbs and survive to become the first tetrapods? The search for an answer took her to Greenland, where she found one of the earliest known tetrapods, called Acanthostega. With its fishlike tail and gills, it was certainly adapted to an aquatic environment, but its paddle-shaped fins end in tiny fingers. Vertebrates, it turns out, grew fingers before they left the sea. From Evolution: "Great Transformations" '

Please note that the last paragraph of the above mentioned PBS web page says the following about Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.

"From these finds, it now appears that the four legs common to land animals today really evolved for another purpose: navigating swampy wetlands, not as a means of moving to land. But once on land, the animals found their limbs a survival advantage there, too. Evolution frequently produces adaptations that come to be useful in the future for a different purpose."

I wish to quote a lot more from the above mentioned web page, but if I did so it would amount to quoting nearly the entire page, thus I urge people to visit the web page.

Please also read the science news article located at https://www.livescience.com/42525-early-fish-evolved-rear-legs.html . It is called "Strange Ancient Fish Had Front And Back Legs". It is about a fossil of a "375-million-year-old fish known as Tiktaalik roseae, discovered in 2004". It says the following regarding the fossil.

"These findings reveal that a key step in the evolution of hind limbs happened in fish, challenging previous theories that such appendages evolved only after the move to land.

...

This ancient creature was undoubtedly a fish, possessing gills, scales and fins. However, it also had features seen in modern tetrapods — four-limbed creatures like amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals — such as a mobile neck and robust ribcage.

This extinct fish had large forefins and shoulders, elbows and partial wrists, enabling it to support itself on ground. This makes it the best-known example of an intermediate between finned animals and limbed animals marking the evolutionary leap from water to land for vertebrates, or creatures with backbones."

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

Hi Jan. I don't see any dislikes for my two most recent posts; maybe your error was corrected. Maybe the website will now let you post a "like" for the post you intended to say "like" to.

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

Minor correction to my prior post: I had some typos when I said "Have you ever seen a 'giraffant' or an "eleraff'? How abut 'pigdeer' or a 'catdog'?" Instead I should have said the following. 'Have you ever seen a "giraffant" or an "eleraff'? How about a "pigdeer" or a "catdog"?'

The young earth creationist illustration I referred to also misleadingly shows a flying fish with feathered wings (the wings of a bird). In contrast, evolutionist scientists (more than 95% of scientists are evolutionists) say that birds evolved from biped non-avian dinosaurs, and that none of the bird's fish ancestors had bird wings, and that all of the bird's fish ancestors are from hundreds of millions of years ago. Numerous fossils have been found of biped non-avian dinosaurs with feathers on their forelimbs (arms) and some of those fossils look more like fossils of birds than do the other fossils of feathered non-avian dinosaurs.

25

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_w9vtzj0a&ab_channel=livingwaters.

Disillusioned JW

Giraffes don't turn into elephants and dogs don't turn into cats. Claims that if evolution is true then giraffes should turn into elephants and that dogs should turn into cats are straw man arguments of young earth creationists. They are the very arguments used in some creationist literature. For example, the evolutionist (though not a scientist and though not believing that natural selection is the cause of macroevolution) Francis Hitching's Neck of the Giraffe book contains of an illustration from such creationist literature which show the following misrepresentations of evolution: an animal with the main body of an elephant and the head of a giraffe; an animal with the main body of a giraffe and the head of elephant; an animal with the main body of a dog and the head of cat; an animal with the main body of a cat with the head of a dog. I know that because I have Hitching's book, checked out from the library. The creationist illustration shown in the book (In "chapter five: Creation v. evolution") is accompanied by the following words.

"People who believe in evolution say that one animal can change into another. The Bible says they can't. Have you ever seen any of these animals? Have you ever seen a 'giraffant' or an "eleraff'? How abut 'pigdeer' or a 'catdog'?"

Giraffes evolved (by descent with modification) from some animals which were not elephants, elephants evolved from some animals which were not giraffes, cats evolved from some animals which were not dogs, and dogs evolved from some animals which were not cats (recent scientific evidence indicates that dogs evolved from grey wolves). But, the known fossil record clearly shows the following:

anatomically modern humans evolved from humans who were less human looking than modern day humans;

the earliest ape-like hominid beings existed before the first humans (the ones which are less anatomically modern looking humans than modern humans) [in this example I am defining human as those who are assigned to the genus Homo];

the earliest apes existed before the earliest ape-like hominids;

an ape species (Aegyptopithecus zeuxis) existed with some monkey-like features (including a tail as an adult) before the first full apes existed;

the first primates (ones who were not monkeys) existed before the first monkeys (monkeys, apes, and humans are some types of primates);

the first mammals existed before the first primates existed;

the first mammal-like animals (synapsids, which used to be commonly called mammal-like reptiles since in a number of ways they resembled reptiles) existed before the first mammals;

the first four legged terrestrial egg laying animals existed before the first mammal-like animals;

the first amphibious four legged animals with webbed feet existed before the first four legged terrestrial animals;

the first fish with leg-like limbs and webbed feet existed before the first fully amphibious four legged animals with webbed feet;

the first fish with lobe fins as limbs and paddle-like digits existed before the first fish with leg-like limbs and webbed feet;

the first fish with a nasal passage to the throat existed before the first lobe finned fish existed (lobe finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals have a nasal passage to the throat);

the first fish with jaws existed before the first fish with both jaws and the the nasal passage to the throat;

the first fish without jaws existed before the first fish with jaws;

the first vertebrate existed before the first fish;

etc.

I know the above about the fossil record because in science books I have seen illustrations of discovered fossils of that which I stated above.