by searching4? 81 Replies latest jw experiences
evolution is a fact
Ok Seeker4, prove it! I've never seen it but I have seen the application of Bible principles in a person's life result in sobriety, morality and a clean conscience. Speaking of "conscience", how exactly did evolution produce it?
As far as tolerance goes, GOD has been very tolerant of those who disrespect Him even to the point where they deny his existance. Problem for such people is that God's patience does have a limit.
Yep! My explanation of why this parasite causes so much human suffering would be that it wasn't intended to do so. All of our illnesses, crime, and so forth are the result of human "imperfection". Had there been no original sin all mankind today would be parasite free. Maybe the original sin altered the DNA? Simple explanation but just maybe it is true.
Looks like the creationist idiot patrol has infiltrated JWD !!!!!!
Kid-A - That was too funny! "Don't bother looking it up in the index, its on every page."
FairMind
Speaking of "conscience", how exactly did evolution produce it?A suggestion I heard is that since the conscience moves a person to follow behaviours advantageous to a community, groups made up of individuals with those motives would fare much better. Whereas highly intelligent people without any conscience are extremely dangerous and destructive, and those lines would not flourish (thankfully).
you do, however, misrepresent the issue by saying that it is circular in nature for evolutionists to base their arguments on an estimate.
No, my point is that it is circular reasoning for evolutionists to respond to a mathematical argument against an evolutionary scenario (based on poplulation gentics calculations limiting the hypothetical maximum speed of selective evolution substitution to 1 gene per 300 generations) with a figure generated based on the assumption that the evolutionary scenario occurred to begin with.
let's put it this way: the modern estimate is better than haldane's 1957 estimate.
Haldane's speed limit was based on population genetics calculations similar to those still in use today by evolutionists.
a couple of replies to your points:
You seem to be saying that ReMine's book with all of its responses to various evolutionary claims (such as claims similar to those made by Theobald) found in it, should be dismissed as a resource if it is found to be in error on one of its subjects. I think that this is dismissive for a book of its length, debth, number of citations, etc.um, it's all wrong. i have simply focused on one error.
You are declaring a book of over 500 pages in length as being "all wrong". How much of it have your read? Have you even held a copy of it?
I haven't seen any statements from ReMine that he will "only" debate evolutionists "when the moderators are creationists", and "willing to modify and delete posts at will."it's not what he says he does that matters, it what he actually does. not only is he intellectually dishonest, but he is incapable of debating on the spot.
http://www1.minn.net/~science/discuss.htm
ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection.then, my dear man, why don't you show what it was he assumed it was due to.
My point above was in response to the talkorigins statements that errantly claimed that ReMine made the "assumption" that the differences between living humans and chimps would be all be due to "selection." This was incorrect since ReMines scenario was not based not based on the differences between living humans and chimps, and most importantly ReMine never made the "assumption" that the differences between animals (in evolution) would be due solely to selective evolution (In fact ReMines book also has an entire chapter on neutral evolution pointing out the reasons why prominent evolutionists (such as Kimura) believe that most substitutions would have to be non-selective.)
ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done.so, in one breath you say he never assumed selection, and in the next you say that it's about selective changes. i am confused. then again it could be that you made a mistake.
I made no mistake here. Each of my points dealt with a different issue.
My earlier point: "ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection" -was in response to the talkorigins claim that ReMine made the "assumption" that the differences in evolution between humans and chimps would be largely due to "selection"- an assumption that he did not make.
My other statement: "ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done" -dealt with the specific issue of selective substitution limits for a 10 mya period of time.
Your other points I hope to deal with shortly.
first assume man/ape shared ancestry is true,
this fred williams guy doesn't seem very bright.it's not an unfounded, unsupported assumtion, like you creationists like to imply. this is a dishonest misrepresentation not only of evolutionary science, but also of scientific method in general. saying that assumptions like this are not based upon one of the mos solid bodies of evidence in the history of science, is called lying to the general public. scientists make educated estimates all the time based on hypotheses that have turned out to be factual.
you of course, ignore all this and go in for the tiny little gaps in the theory that are still left.
The point that Fred Williams was trying to make was simply that is that it is circular reasoning for evolutionists to respond to a mathematical argument against an evolutionary scenario (based on poplulation gentics calculations) with a figure determined from the assumption that the evolutionary scenario occurred to begin with. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/100588/1735179/post.ashx#1735179) I hope shortly to provide additional detail on this in responses to your other points.
Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown it to be "erroneous" on Haldane's Dilemma .well, lets go over it for the sake of the lurkers. as far as you are concerned, well, i imagine you will always be here trotting out the tired old misrepresentations of dishonest creationists. that is your choice, i suppose. it's too bad that there are people like you, in america and britain, throwing gratuitous obstacles in the way of education and scientific advancement. it's sadistic, but common.the conclusion that evolution from an ape-like ancestor is not possible, made by ReMine via Haldane's Dilemma, is founded on mostly personal opinions. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all regarding fixed and beneficial mutation, and the number of them required to explain the features and traits in existing fauna (animals like us).
anyroad, the argument basically goes like this:
it's an interpolation, or extrapolation, based on Haldane's 1957 paper. basically that there could not be more than 1667 fixed and beneficial mutations from the common ancestor that we share with pan troglodytes, aka chimps.
This is incorrect. ReMine's scenario is not about the number of beneficial mutations from the alleged common ancestor between humans and chimps (which supposedly lived around 5-7mya), but rather about the maximum number of selective changes possible within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), over a much longer period of time -10 mya.
I may be away for around a week. However, I hope to deal specifically with your other points, the numerous evolutionary assumptions used in the Genetics arcticle (such as how claimed "substitutions" are "identified" based on the assumption of evolution to begin with, and then based on this how they are then "identified" as being caused by neutral, advantageous, deleterious, causes etc.), and also give reasons why such an arcticle should not be used as an attempted refutation of Haldane style poplation genetics calculations.
Wait a sec here. Don't you think that if we evolved that we would still be evolving ? Do people actually think that we evolved and then just stopped evolving ? C'mon I cannot possibly buy that theory. If anything evolved it would still be evolving. And then how do we explain all the plants , trees, animals, etc.... Are these things still evolving ? NO they are not ! Scientist believe in evolution but then I guess if they didn't there would be no need for scientist and no need to waste all those tax dollars in trying to disprove creation. I look at all the wonderful creations God made for us here to enjoy and I just can't see evolution but beautiful creations in everything on this planet.
Thats my theory and I'm stickin to it
oldflame:
Wait a sec here. Don't you think that if we evolved that we would still be evolving ?
Yes.
Do people actually think that we evolved and then just stopped evolving ?
I've never heard of anyone who thinks such a thing
C'mon I cannot possibly buy that theory.
That's because you don't understand it. Think of erosion. I'm sure you have no problem believing that cliffs and other features were formed by erosion. So why aren't they still eroding? Well, they are, of course, but it happens slowly, so we don't notice it. Continental drift is another phenomenon that can't be easily observed in a single lifetime.
If anything evolved it would still be evolving.
Correct, subject to selection pressure of course.
And then how do we explain all the plants , trees, animals, etc.... Are these things still evolving ? NO they are not !
Yes they are. Obviously it's hard to observe evolution just by looking at a few generations, and impossible to do so just by observing a single organism.
Scientist believe in evolution but then I guess if they didn't there would be no need for scientist and no need to waste all those tax dollars in trying to disprove creation.
What?! You think evolution is a scam dreamt up by scientists to waste tax dollars? Ha! That's a new one anyway. If only the USA would spend some tax dollars on science and education rather than defence, you might not make such embarrassing statements.
I look at all the wonderful creations God made for us here to enjoy and I just can't see evolution but beautiful creations in everything on this planet.
I look out at the earth and I see something flat. Sometimes you can't trust your first instinct.
Thats my theory and I'm stickin to it
Then you're depriving yourself of so much, but that's your choice.
That's because you don't understand it.
No, and you don't either. Adaptation of species I understand. Extinction of species I understand. A horse changing into a frog, I don't understand. A mindless something that some how came into existence from nothing and then deciding it needed to see (and in color at that) using evolution to acquire a wonderfully complex eyeball, I don't understand. Evolutionists believe in a very complex fairy tale and maybe they choose to do this because belief in God would require acknowledging one's responsibility to him.
