by gubberningbody 66 Replies latest jw friends
GB,
Good to see you realise that there is no biological difference between micro and macro evolution.
When a novel new ability such as the ability to feed on nylon waste in bacteria appears, the evolutionary mechanism is exactly the same as that for 'minor genetic changes' why is it the same? Because it has been studied. Not that you very much experience of how science works, clearly!
Personally I am very comfortable with saying I don't know, when that is the case.
BTW, I've not googled anything. Everything I've posted comes from the inexaustible font of truth I have within. I simply cannot help but let the waters flow up to impart everlasting life.
Too bad finding that "font of truth" requires your
head to be stuck so very far up you own ass.
[inkling]
Thanks for playing.
My point is:
People generally don't know the difference between what they know, what they think they know, what they actually know and what can be actually known and their reasons are generally ill-defined, the terms they use in their reasons are ill-defined, and their reasons for selecting to follow one path or another always have bias.
My bias is that I'd LIKE to think there is a God or gods who care about me and my wants, needs and desires and is really going to make sure I get what I want.
This fuels my searching
Consequently because I know that this bias lead me to spending 25 years as a JW/pioneer/elder even when all the while I REALLY tried not to allow bias to corrupt my decisions, I know I need all the more to present my thoughts and my supposed facts for public examination.
I accept that the evolution I've observed taking place has taken place and for the reasons presented.
I do not accept that those same processes can account for the delta in information content and the gross morphological differences we find between a virus and a violinist. (making violins may be easy, and making a human may be too, but a violinist?)
Why? Because the case has not been made.
No one can even imagine a path whereby a random or an even non-random walk could take one from a so-called low form of life, like an amoeba to an American.
I suspect that what happens is that people look around, see diversity, see that called "evolution". They play "telephone" and they can hear the changes in the message. Then someone asks them: "Is anything possible?" and they say "Yes". Then the person thinks "Yeah, if I just try every combination over eternity then it's eventually going to work." So the abracadabra becomes "Mutation plus Natural Selection plus Forever equals Life" (or for those who think math add clarity (M+NS)*T=L)
These don't know what a mutation is, they aren't sure what natural selection means and forever is a really, really long time. That coupled with the fact that people like to be thought of as smart (when was the last time someone you knew had an average baby? aren't all babies geniuses?) and "all the smart guys in lab coats are believing it" and "all the oppressive, narrow-minded religionists are disbelieving it" leads people to going with the flow. Maybe these watched Cosmos as kids. Maybe they grew up watchting sci-fi. All the things they saw on TV are taken as real by the human mind (read Gerry Mander's "Four Reasons for the Elimination of Television") and so they KNOW it's so.
What this leads me to conclude is that agnosticism is the only defensible position.
What I'd like to see is less time spent in defense of positions and more spent on doing real research. Of course research is expensive and no one has yet found a commercial use for manufacturing life from scratch.
If someone could actually engineer (not a computer simulation) a real, self-replicating entity, then studying this process could explain how this might have been accomplished. (Unfortunately using the natural mechanism of a mutagen in an organism hasn't helped in generating novelty of the useful sort yet. Perhaps a DIRECTED approach might be a better option.)
Once that is done, it won't mean that's the only path for biogenesis, but it will provide a clearer view of what needs doing to get the life that we've got. Knowing that will allow one to know what minimal things would be necessary agencies (daemons) to engineer life into various forms.
The fact that people don't know the basic processes involved in evolution and have instead shot-gunned answers has so far confirmed what I've long suspected.
I'm guessing you didn't fancy actually reading what the others had written then?
Now THAT, is pathetic.
PP - I commented adequately on what was written. If I'd wanted the thread to go in another direction, then perhaps I would have commented on the tangential content, but this thread had an agenda and now that agenda has been completed.
Thanks for playing.
Gunshot answers? What the hell? Most that have replied to this thread understand the core concepts very well: genetic mutation, natural selection, etc. You were a elusive with what you were looking for in your initial post.
No need to be an ass.
Seriously, you guys need to keep focused.
What my attitude is or isn't is immaterial to this concluded discussion.
You have been exactly what I expected. I got a perfect bell-curve.
I don't think you need a deep understanding of the subject to reject it. Evolutionists can blind you with information but that doesn't prove their theories are right. A lot of information is based on the unobserved past that they have theorised from evidence they look at now, from the position that evolution is fact.
SO they are fitting the pieces into a already drawn Jigsaw but to be fair christians that believe in God are doing the same.
If people could present proof of abiogenesis then I might listen but beyond that not really interesting. I made the mistake once of researching ervs this apparently fantastic proof of evolution but while you can find some supposed correlation between apes and man there are none between fish and man or birds and man which there would be if all creatures are linked by common ancesters not just the nearby ones.
Reniaa
I don't think you need a deep understanding of the subject to reject it.
Of course you don't, but you could be rejecting something without understanding it fully or being aware of all the evidence.
The rest of your comment shows your limited understanding of Evolution. No surprise there, because it is likely limited to what propaganda the WTS published on the topic. It is humorous that JWs can think they are so well versed in a topic when they have only been fed a few bits of information.
.... there are none between fish and man or birds and man ...
That is demonstrably not true. There ARE definite, absolute genetic links. Of course your WTS "research" on this topic would never show you that information.
Don't reply to Reniaa.
