Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  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

  Lenski's experiment demonstrates the immense power of random beneficial mutations. In fact not just one mutation but a combination of mutations of the kind that exponents of IC claim can't happen. If by "show" you are implying "prove" then of course it does not prove any such thing by itself. The evidence for evolution is an immense accumulation of facts from a wide variety of disciplines but we have already said that.

  The reason TD and I raised the subject of Gulls was to find out what you currently beleive about speciation. Even in your latest post you seem unclear in your own mind about it. At some points you seem ready to permit multiple species evolving from a common ancestor species and at other times you only seem to want to allow "sub-species". The example of gulls would have been a useful way to clarify your position if only you hadn't dismissed it so blithely.

  Your particular area of interest seems to be in human evolution and specifically how scientists know that we share a common ancestry with other animal and plant species.

  The answer is multi-faceted. If you asked a group of scientists what particular sort of evidence they find most convincing I am sure you would get a variety of answers but all of them would stress that it does not rest on one fact of group of facts. That is why a number of contributors to this thread have recommended you commit to studying a good introduction to evolution.

  If I was pressed to choose one thing that I find most compelling it would be genetic evidence. The quantity and quality of evidence for human's common ancestry with other apes and our descent through unguided evolution that resides in every cell in your body is overwhelming. (okay pedants, apart from red blood cells)

  Shelby I have been disapointed by your tactics in this thread. Your high-handed assertions that others refuse to, or can't, answer your question is so clearly unfair when you look at how much patience has been shown to you. Your posts have been the very epitome of obfuscation.
• 

  Tuesday

  I did, dear Tuesday (peace to you!). No problem with speciation... except as to the homo genus

  Sure, that's actually in the merger of chromosome 2 from 2 primate chromosomes. It's in that same Ken Miller speech that I linked to here as well. Once the merger of those 2 chromosomes appeared that was the speciation of the homo genus from the primate genus.
• 

  TD

  Chelle,

  The operative word HERE, dear TD, is "artificial", yes? It is not something that would occur NATURALLY.

  Lord no! A male dromedary probably weighs 8-10 times what a female llama weighs. I'm not sure it's even anatomically possible....

  I wasn't suggesting that hybridization between species that are this far apart is a mechanism of evolution in animals. (Plants are a different story) Fertility between different creatures is very strong evidence of shared ancestry. A shared ancestry between different species and different genera is in turn, very strong evidence that they do diverge from common stock.

  I realize that this still doesn't come to grips with your question above. I agree with you that evidence of genetic drift, divergence and speciation in other organisms is not in and of itself proof that the same thing has happened with the human species.
• 

  tec

  Whereami - Haven't watched the videos yet, but I am keen on doing so now that I understand more clearly what theory of evolution (from this species and genus evolution) implies about common ancestry. So again, thank you, TD for that very clear presentation - which helped me to understand your next statement:

  A shared ancestry between different species and different genera is in turn, very strong evidence that they do diverge from common stock.

  I then appreciate that you also said this:

  I agree with you that evidence of genetic drift, divergence and speciation in other organisms is not in and of itself proof that the same thing has happened with the human species.

  'Evidence of' is not 'proof of' - even though the evidence strongly suggest something. It shouldn't be a threat to concede something like that. It is no one's job to convince anyone of anything. Present the evidence you have, and let the people listening/reading decide for themselves. I do understand that often in a creationist/evolutionist debate, even the smallest concession from one side becomes a victory in the sight of the other side. But I personally think that's silly.

  Creation and evolution can co-exist (and not just in a live and let live capacity, but an actual mergence - and of course if science discovers things, then from my pov, that's just the science God created anyway). There are alternatives to the biblical accounts (by way of understanding/interpreting them, I mean) that allow this co-existence to be so, and if I can think of a few different ones (some pretty off the wall, but still), then I'm certain there are even more that have not occurred to me.

  But again, thank you for taking the time to increase my understanding of evolution, and what the evidence is meant to imply :)

  Tammy
• 

  Gerard

  AGuest, the experiments are done on bacteria or yeast because their generation time (or "doubling time") are of several minutes, (drosophila flies are very useful too for genetic research) compared to that of mammals which require several years to grow and produce progeny to observe and analyse. The results obtained from bacteria are very significant because all living organisms use nucleic acids (DNA & RNA) and most -if not all of its mechanisms function identically in all living beings. In a period of a few months you could follow the genetic makeup (be it mutations, drift, etc.) of hundreds (or thousands) of well characterized generations. This work can be extrapolated with a great degree of reliability to eukariotic life as the mechanism is practically the same but in slower motion. Once the scientist gets a "golden key" or a significant insight, she/he may adapt her research to using eukariotes, or medium sized mammals or even primates to take it a notch further.

  Regarding the different branches of hominids, I do not believe there has been much philogeny (the evolutionary development and history of a species) done, mostly because of the great difficulty of obtaining DNA samples from fossils, as the organic material has been replaced by minerals. Is this a dead end? No. Molecular biology is a very new field and it is still in diapers - sort of speaking.

  DNA has been passed on from the earliest generations and it still encodes for proteins not required now under this atmosphere and environment. In other words, the DNA of any species is a "living book" of each species, and we are just starting how to decipher its past history still encoded in DNA.

  Also, be aware that not a single lab test is used to establish common descent. Like in criminal law or in forensics, you would use a collection of several individual physical evidence and known mechanisms and/or scientific evidence (all in agreement) that indicate that so far, it is the most likely scenario (or as you would say in your field:" proof beyond reasonable doubt".) SO don't get hang up on some E.coli experiment and see the whole battery of experiments done.

  Peace,

  Gerard
• 

  Lion Cask

  Is anyone who is actually reading all this stuff as exhausted as I am?

  Go back and read Gladiator's post. He's a wise man. Ignore the intense avatar.

  It would be good if this post ended soon. If not, may I be so newbie bold as to suggest a time out? Everybody in here is certain he/she is right and at the same time reasonable when none of us is right and some of us are unreasonable.

  Unrelated, Shelbie, I saw this deluge coming at you and regret if I spurred it on, but some of your questions and answers confuse me. And it's maybe just me. As I get older I realise that we really don't get to understand anyone really well, especially over the internet, even after a decade. If you're happy believing what you believe and no-one gets hurt that's great. You'll get to live and die happy, and that's all that matters and don't let anyone tell you differently. I'll say the same thing to anyone on this board with the complete confidence that none has the same mind I do and will therefore never perceive reality as I do. Peace to you, sister.

  Why do we argue about this stuff? Why is it all so important for people to see things the way we do?
• 

  cofty

  Why do we argue about this stuff? Why is it all so important for people to see things the way we do?

  Perhaps becasue the tension between science and dogma really does matter. It was appeals to the superiority of traditions and superstitions over objective truths that kept us in the borg. Science has the potential to solve the biggest problems that the world faces, its achievements are already awesome and millions owe their lives to it progress.

  There is no problem with people believing in a higher power if they wish and worshiping as they see fit, but when they elevate religious feelings over objective reality and expect others to share their delusions it matters.

  As JWs we were denied access to amazing truths about our world, as ex-jws many still deny themselves and go on trying to poison the well for others - that matters.

  Religious fundamentalism poses a real threat to the world, and not only from Islam. When we escaped the borg it was not just a release from one particular cult it was an opportunity to embrace a life unfettered by dogma. When people promote other versions of what we escaped from I think it matters.
• 

  Gerard

  Had AGuest name her god GAIA, I may be interested in listening more.

  What does it say about me? (A rethorical question for my own amusement).
• 

  Lion Cask

  Are you happy, cofty? If other people are happy and they're not hurting anyone, what's wrong with that? Enlightenment is important to your happiness, I can tell. Mine too. Others are satisfied with the enlightenment they have. If it is that you have a problem with people who are deliriously happy insisting on you sharing in the same delirium as they, I understand your point.
• 

  AGuest

  Couple/few comments, if I may (may you all have peace!) and then we really can move on, if all are willing. If not, well, let's see where we go.

  First, dear Glad (peace to you!), my apologies for misunderstanding the "tone" of your statement. I would like to blame it on the course of the thread but that would be entirely accurate. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

  Now, then: I really did want answers to my questions. I was not baiting anyone, but only trying to understand what I didn't (and still don't - will explain below. Maybe.)... and some of you said I SHOULD. Apparently, I didn't ask "right" ("Please, oh, please, dear believers in evolution, enlighten my poor stupid delusional mind and whatever you tell me I WILL believe because you say it is so... even if the 'evidence' doesn't quite show what you're saying it does..."). I am not being sarcastic. That is truly my perception of what has occurred with some... most... on this subject/thread.

  As for the comment that "The evidence for evolution is an immense accumulation of facts from a wide variety of disciplines but we have already said that..." (and I can't recall who posted it, but peace to you, as well!), I would counter that that is exactly what religionists say. They use ancient writings, histories, archeology, anthropology, etc., as "proof" of their positions (i.e., certain people lived during certain times, various locations and artifacts SHOW that people, places, and events written about in the Bible did occur and... given the accumuation of these facts... it is evident that... such and so")... although none of these actually prove anything... but just make a whole lot of things seem likely. Which is what all of the "evidence" presented here does. And I did read the contents of each link (because, again, I really did want to know).

  I understand that if we manipulate nature, well, heck, we can get all KINDS of things to occur. Perhaps even within "kinds" (I shudder, however, to think of the animals subjected to such "experiments"... all for the pleasure/curiosity of man. I digress). But, I GET that.

  Dear Gerard (peace to you!) made a statement that might help you see, if you care to, where I am coming from. Maybe not. He wrote:

  I do not believe there has been much philogeny (the evolutionary development and history of a species) done, mostly because of the great difficulty of obtaining DNA samples from fossils, as the organic material has been replaced by minerals. Is this a dead end? No. Molecular biology is a very new field and it is still in diapers - sort of speaking.

  As I stated to dear Zid (peace to you!) earlier, apparently progress has been made in the area of DNA sampling from fossils (which some of you should have known but apparently didn't... which was also interesting to me). However, that sampling, regardless of its stage, diaper or otherwise... did not show what many folks thought it unequivocally would: that neanderthalensis and sapien are extremely different species. To the contrary, it showed SUCH a similarity between the two "species" that some are now saying they are actually the same species. I believe that, in time, science will show that it IS the same species, as are some of the others... but mutated (and some will be shown to be even other genuses - for example, pan, pongo, or gorilla). Science changes species designation... even genus designation... all the time.

  But it is MOST interesting to ME that there hasn't even been "much philogeny" DONE... because the DNA couldn't even BE sampled. IMHO, it is all speculation... based on assumptions drawn from observing other "kinds"... which observations prove NOTHING within the hominid kind... homo genus... or sapien species.

  So, dear ones, while I understand that perhaps it looks like... appears... seems likely... is reasonable to believe... and all whatever other qualifiers one might use to push the human evolution as a TRUTH...merely looking like... appearing... seeming likely... and being considered by others as reasonable to believe... is not sufficient for ME. Anymore than it is with regard to religion.

  I hope this help clarify... and I don't really have anything more to contribute at this point.

  However, I do wish you all peace, truly.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA

  P.S. I have to send a wish for peace specifically toward dear LC (peace to you!) and say, first, thank you, and... (1) I am VERY happy in my life, and not deliriously so, but due to the freedom I have received from my Lord, as well as my wonderful family and dear, dear friends, my puppies, my singing gigs, and my forthcoming agency; and (2) I have never tried to force anyone to believe what I do. That would actually go counter to the purpose for my service. I think most here know this, though.