What does the JW literature have to say about the fact that human embryos develop, and then lose, tails and gills?
Or do they just ignore it?
Anyone have any links?
Evolution
by goddidit 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Anony Mous
They just ignore it just like most of the scientific evidence with regards to anything really and if you really press them they may answer generically with: even doctor's don't agree on evolution but we have the truth so you should believe us.
-
Terra Incognita
I recall the Watchtower literature making reference to it. I believe they mentioned that it was rejected by scientists.
However what was actually rejected by scientists was the claim that embryos have the functional equivalent of those other creatures in their adult stage. It is still acknowledged that human and other embryos go through similar stages that the embryos (not adults) of other creatures go through.
Whale embryos begin to grow legs but then they disappear.
Chicken embryos start with fingers which then fuse together.
For a medical article on human tails see this PDF .
Cute baby.
-
sizemik
You might find this article interesting also . . . it contains some interesting links as well . . . none to WT publications however.
http://www.livescience.com/558-human-ears-evolved-ancient-fish-gills.html
Of course, the WT are only likely to touch briefly on any subject that even hints at supporting evolutionary theory . . . and then they usually quote the more wacky theories that are more easily debunked and ridiculed. They are cunningly selective when dealing with the subject.
If you use the search function on the WT official website, under "evolution" you will find this selective treatment becomes very obvious. Little or nothing about the actual mechanics of evolution is presented and references to it are religiously weighted. Most articles dealing with scientific issues in general are about 80-90% bible quotes etc. For example they ask questions like "Did man really come from animals?" The question implies skepticism before the answer is even treated. The scientific premise is that man IS an animal, so it's a religious rather than a scientific question, weighted by including a perceptive distinction.
If anyone wants to treat the subject objectively they are thus obliged to go beyond anything the WT has to say. The beliefs of the average JW regarding what evolution teaches are thus actually way more wacky than even the most extreme evolutionary scientist would believe. Clever huh?
-
John_Mann
"...even doctor's don't agree on evolution but we have the truth so you should believe us."
But they never mention in what matter all scientists don't agree. The matter is not the evolution per se, but the mechanisms of it. They are doin' their job, testing hypothesis by skeptical thought. That's science at all...
-
goddidit
Great replies. Thanks all.
