Awake! January 2014 - Which 'basic' kind are humans? (page 2)

nicolaou

Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

That is a LIE, plain and simple.

undercover

This seems to be a pretty significant concession. I.e., "we don't call it evolution, but others do". It's not such a big leap from that point to "evolution is at least partially true".

Fits in with their MO of gradually introducing ideas that would, if sudddenly changed, cause massive cognitive dissonance.

Yea. Hard core creationists are scorned by most people who give half a minutes thought to the debate. While the WTS version of creation isn't hardcore, it is just as ridiculous in the face of science. I think they realize that they can't hang on to it for very much longer.

But, it does raise another problem. Creation of Adam. 6000 years ago. They can't shake that one. If they give in on the Adam myth, then the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is moot. What's the point of being sacrificed, buying back what Adam lost, if Adam wasn't a real person?

TD

They seem to be rather like the proverbial goldfish with the 3-second memory, incapable of realizing they are swimming round and round and round the fish bowl.

LOL - That's priceless

Anony Mous

@undercover: Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

That is indeed correct. Modern research does support the idea that species do not change quickly over large periods of times and that is the entire thesis of evolution. When the periods of time are "vast enough" then evolution between point 1 and point 2 does occur.

Creationists require speciation to occur very quickly (flood story, creation story) but there is no evidence for that. Creationists require speciation to occur quickly where it inconveniences them yet allow for speciation to occur quickly where it fits them. It takes thousands of generations for new species to develop but if unpressured, some species may never need to adapt (sharks or crocodiles). Large animals that live long take a long time to cover thousands of generations. And that is where creationists play on the minds of the gullible - since you can't "see" speciation occuring OVERNIGHT in species you interact with daily it must not be true, therefore here is a catch-all solution: Gawd.

However if you look at the bacteria, lifecycles are counted in minutes or hours and there speciation may occur in a few days, months or years. Look at the flu virus, common cough, ... practically every 6 months-1 year there is a new species (which is why you need yearly vaccinations for flu but only one vaccination for eg. the polio virus), however if we as a humans do not eradicate or contain species like polio or bird flu viruses or staph bacteria quick enough, the strains change and vaccinations and antibiotics become useless.

Horse and dog breeding is a form of (un)natural selection. We are basically pressuring evolution in shapes that we ourselves deem necessary (we guarantee survival of the traits we want), you can see the evolution in 1 or 2 generations of dog or horse.

"Gawd did it" really doesn't explain anything, ever, it raises more questions to anyone that thinks. Off course religious people simply are not allowed or do not want to think.

TD

And from that 'kind', the canine, came all the types of wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingos, etc that populate the planet today. And this all happened in just 4000 years. Yet, above they accept that "the basic categories of animals have changed little over vast periods of time"

Even if we forget the insanely short period of time, many branches of the dog family have diverged to the point where they can't reproduce with any of the other branches So I guess this means that new 'kinds' actually do come into existence over time, since the only definition of 'kind' they've ever offered is reproduction.

snare&racket

"This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created."

This is so evidently a lie or embarrasingly ignorant.... take your choice. The deeper we dig down, the further back in time we go. If evolution is true, you will find the animals in layers over time as they evolved, from basic life deep down, to complex life futher up. As evolution is progressive over hundreds of millions of years, you would expect species to be in specific depths only, you would never fing a fox in the early single celled life layer for example or a long dead dinosaur in a modern higher up layer..... of course this is EXACTLY what we find. This is what the whole theory of evolution was based on!

YOu never find more evolved animals in the early development of life when digging down through time and likewise you don't find long ago evolved from and forgotten species randomly appearing in later layers.

So simple pre school level question for the Watchtower writers....." Erm, what about all those 'kinds' we have found fossils for that don't exist today? Also where did you get your biology degree? You need a refund! "

It is worth noting that dinosaurs for example ruled the earth for 150 million years. That is 150 million years of different species of plants, fish, dinosaurs, trees, insects and birds.... EVERYTHING !!!!

AND what about the millions of animals that exist today and are not found in the fossils of dead animals of our past?

How did the earth have several different populations of animals, the only factor of change being time? Did god kill them all several times over and start again? That contradicts the bible.... Genesis is clear that Adam was present on the forming of all the kinds and named them all. (Jesus how did we not spot the bronze age thinking in that myth..... embarassing....almost as bad as tower of babel, origin of langauges bull crap!)

The bible and Watchtower.... are ignorant bullshitters. Anyone with a shovel can prove what they are saying as wrong, alternatively a bus pass to a local museum where you can TOUCH animal remains that don't exist today and then go to a zoo and SEE animals that are never found in the past.

A watchtower education...... oxyMORONIC

Snare

snare&racket

My favourtitestestest scientific diagram in the whole wide world.......

http://206.130.100.179/images/Evo_large.gif

DATA-DOG

Is it possible that wolves, dingos, hyenas, coyotes and other canines, all came from different "kinds" entirely? Why would a wolf and hyena have to come from the same common ancestor? Fossils require a very specific process, so isn't it possible that these "canines" each have their own different ancestor?

That's what I would say if I was the GB. Especially since no one knows exactly how many types of animals have become extinct through the ages. Then they could gradually work in evolution as being a slow change overtime, but just among the "kinds" of wolves, or "kinds" of hyena and so forth. That way they appear more modern and mainstream, but can avoid speciation for years.

DD

cofty

Working out relationships between species used to rely on evidence like comparative anatomy, embryology and biogeography.

More recently it is being confirmed, and in some cases rewritten, by comparative genetics.

A very useful guide is Dawkins "An Ancestor's Tale".

Snare, that picture is fantastic.

zound

Awesome chart!

By the way - a Hyena isn't a canine, its a Hyaenidae. (interesting bit of trivia)

Awake! January 2014 - Which 'basic' kind are humans?

Share this