by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends
it seems to me that the only two ways to reject that conclusion are to either reject that evidence or to present evidence of your own that would refute it. I think it is most telling that opposing arguments presented by advocates of creation often fall into the former catagory. It's a pattern that seems to have unfolded even on this thread. (Despite its title!) - TD
Ironic isn't it?
Embracing either evolution or creation seems to me like a waste of a good hug All that needs to be embraced is life - right now.
We are the only species on earth that give a moments thought to such matters. Proven scientific knowledge and the breakthroughs it leads to, does influence the future of the world.
These debates are conjectural; entertaining and mentally stimulating, but our opinions make little difference. Please don't let me discourage you from embracing Darwin or Jesus. Go on - be greedy and embrace them both. Hedging your bets is often a wise move!
Well, I guess we're not quite done, eh (and peace to you all!). Dear Tams... peace to you and thank you for that clear, concise clarification. It is accurate. Unfortunately, one of my faults is that I am verbose... not because I simply "like" to talk but because of what is IN me. Obviously, a lot. So... I will try, as briefly and clearly as I can, to explain what I've tried to explain previously.
My question, which hasn't been touched (and dear TD's contribution does NOT touch on my questions)... although it WAS stated clearly (and so the repeated excuses that it is unclean, muddy, etc., are just false attempts to redirect the discussion TO the beliefs in evolution) was regarding the premise, belief, and so pushing... that the e.coli experiment was "proof" of "evolution." I vehemently agreed that it WAS... with regard to evolution of the SPECIES... but not BETWEEN species... which is the premise in human evolution. And certainly not between GENUS.
Homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, homo ergaster... homo sapien... are all supposedly different SPECIES... in the same GENUS: homo. The premise is that homo sapien "evolved"... from these prior "sister" SPECIES. FROM ergaster... TO erectus... and so on. In the e.coli experiment, while it is true that they indeed adapted to become a stronger species... it was STILL the species e.coli. They did not change into another species. Even if they DID... it would be a SUB-species... and not an entirely NEW species. In the observation of the finches, the medium ground finch was forced to develop a smaller beak in order to survive. So, now, it becomes a small-BEAKED... medium ground finch. A SUB-species. But STILL the species geospiza fortis.
So, I am TRYING to understand how these, the e.coli experiment and medium ground finch observation (primarily, the e.coli matter) SHOW... that humans, homo sapien... EVOLVED... from ANOTHER, DIFFERENT species. Such as homo neanderthalensis... erectus... or any of the others. If you condescend to go back and actually read what I posted (which is why I take YOUR comments line-by-line... because I READ them), you will see that this is what I've asked... and keep asking.
Dear TD's offering (supported by dear Cofty's subsequent post - and peace to you both!) does show evolution within a certain non-hominid animal genuses, larus, which I have NO problem with. However, it does not "prove" evolution within the HOMINID category. I have stated that I believe in evolution of the species... and within species... with the exception of the homo sapien species. I believe this because I believe that ALL life came through One, Christ. Which is why ALL life has basic commonality. For instance, how each loaf of sourdough... regardless of the other ingredients... contain the same basic property(ies) as the "mother dough." Each were created according to their kind (class/family/genus)... and in order to populate the ANIMAL and PLANT kingdoms, excluding humans, all further "evolved" to create the plethora of species we currently have and continue to have. I believe the hominid KINDS were limited TO their kinds, including "homo"... "pan"... "gorilla"... "pongo", etc. From these KINDS, the pan, gorilla, and pongo evolved a bit more... but HUGELY MUCH LESS SO than the other animals. And homo... not at all. I believe that this shown in that certain animal species continue to evolve (as observations show)... while others do not at all (as observations show) and speculating about one based on what others do is NOT conclusive.
I believe, given the track record... that, contrary to what science "knows" NOW... they WILL conclude, in 10-20 or LESS... that "neanderthalensis" and "sapien" are actually the SAME species... but mutated due to tribal inbreeding, and other factors such as environment, climate, health, diet, blood-born and other diseases, bacteria, etc., during the period of such inbreeding... some of which changed the genome "landscape" even to the point science is not yet aware of. Because they don't have the tools/"science" TO be so aware at this point. I have NO doubt, however, that they will. I also believe that, given another 50-100 years, they will conclude the same thing as to the OTHER so-called homo "species"... that they, too, are mutations, as well, due to such factors... inbreeding, the health of the common ancestor, issues regarding disease and mutation... of the genes, DNA, and flesh... that "we" don't know and understand yet, today.
I believe these things for a reason: they were the reason FOR the Law... which directed Israel in its hygiene, sexual, and other habits/tendencies/practices. Because the nations around them at the time weren't all informed or caring as to such things... which manifested such mutations.
Now, I realize someone will take issue with the TIMELINES. I understand that. And, again, I don't believe in the literal timelines. I am not at liberty to explain further, however, is because that is all I've been told, including that the timelines are NOT accurate. But my Lord has not concluded with me on the matter (I have not asked - it really isn't of concern to me and he will give it to me and when HE believes I can "bear" it, so...). When that occurs, I will most certainly share it, as I stated before.
So, now, if someone wants to respond to my question (see bold, above), that would be great. Otherwise, let's all move on because it's tantamount to an impasse: those of you who believe human evolution IS proven by such experiment/observation will continue so, even though they don't so prove but only lend themselves to further speculation. We are all entitled to speculate, of course. I just don't think it's fair to call those who DON'T so speculate and DON'T buy into the premises just because it sounds "likely" names... or insult them (and their intelligence)... why taking issue with believers that YOU say do the exact same thing: base their beliefs on speculation and "explanations" that don't really prove the premise.
Okay, that's as brief as I can get. If it's too much, well, I'm sorry. Maybe that's why I was able to get through law school: helluva lot of reading, there.
Peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Proven scientific knowledge and the breakthroughs it leads to, does influence the future of the world.
The operative word here, is "proven," isn't it, dear Glad? And I absolutely agree and am thankful for proven scientific knowledge. It's all the speculation that causes me to pause. Religion is based on a helluva LOT of speculation... and, to be honest, I am MORE than through with that.
Peace to you and THANKS for the quote!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
(Via artificial insemination)
The operative word HERE, dear TD, is "artificial", yes? It is not something that would occur NATURALLY. Which I thought "evolution" was supposed to me.
Peace to YOU, dear one... and thank you for YOUR quote!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
My question, which hasn't been touched (and dear TD's contribution does NOT touch on my questions)... although it WAS stated clearly (and so the repeated excuses that it is unclean, muddy, etc., are just false attempts to redirect the discussion TO the beliefs in evolution) was regarding the premise, belief, and so pushing... that the e.coli experiment was "proof" of "evolution." I vehemently agreed that it WAS... with regard to evolution of the SPECIES... but not BETWEEN species... which is the premise in human evolution. And certainly not between GENUS.
AGuest, did you happen to read my post a few pages back where I listed a HUGE number of "observed evidence of speciation"? Those are observed instances of evolution between species and genus.
The operative word here, is "proven," isn't it, dear Glad?
Thank you A Guest - that is why I used the word 'proven.' One has to be quick in the arena.
It's all the speculation that causes me to pause.
I doubt if you will ever pause, but each of us marches to a different drum, and the variety of tempos allows us to find a pace that suits us.
Peace to you, and may your gods go with you.
AGuest, did you happen to read my post a few pages back where I listed a HUGE number of "observed evidence of speciation"? Those are observed instances of evolution between species and genus.
I did, dear Tuesday (peace to you!). No problem with speciation... except as to the homo genus.
I doubt if you will ever pause, but each of marches to a different drum and finds a pace that suits us.
Ahh, yes, dear Glad (peace to you!). Must still take pokes. May I ask why? My apologies, but I just don't get why people resort to such things just because others don't agree/see things their way. If I've learned nothing else, I've learned that there is not much difference between believers/non-believers, religionists/non-religionists, "christians"/athesists, evolutionists/non-evolutionist: all have their ridiculers... and treat their dissenters the same when it boils down. For this reason, I don't want any part of either.
Again, peace to you both, truly.
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
AGuest
Must still take pokes. May I ask why? My apologies, but I just don't get why people resort to such things just because others don't agree/see things their way.
Perhaps, what you see as a poke is simply humour. If you want to know what a poke is, perhaps you should re-read the comments directed at you on this thread and many others. I am capable of ridiculing and poking but have chosen to hang up my sword and enjoy a little banter.
Peace to you...
I think that Gladiator was just commenting on your tenacity Shelby, I don't think it was meant to be offensive.
As for this thread...well....
