By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. (page 6)

cantleave

Philosophy is then needed to understand all facets of evolution.

No it isn't................What the hell are you taking Simon Says?

DATA-DOG

Well, philosophy is the love of wisdom, so "philosophy" is needed to understand evolution.

Oh, SNAP!!!! That just happened!!!

DD

This is another incredibly embarrassing article for any JW with even a little scientific knowledge. I can't believe they included that box on how evolution is not a scientific theory. Thank you, StrongHaiku for the link to the Scientific American webpage on 15 answers to creationists. It's an excellent article, indeed. In particular, for any lurking JWs who still buy into this notion that evolution is not scientific because it can't be observed, reproduced or it does not make predictions, please note that:

(1) These are simple negative assertions made by the WT, without a shred of evidence to support them.

(2) Evolution has been observed, has been reproduced and does make predictions. In fact, the article that StrongHaiku posted includes this observation:

Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

One recent excellent example is the discovery of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik roseae, which was only able to be discovered based on paleontologists making predictions about where such a fossil might be found, based on evolutionary theory

Crazyguy

I think we need to just straight ask Jw's why did god if he is so loving create viruses like Ebola and the Plague? Their minds will go all fussy while trying to figure out a response. So while this is happening we can follow up with a comment like, Satan is never said to have the power to create in fact he had to get permission to torture and kill jobs family so again why did this loving god create Ebola, since there's no way it evolved?

Cadellin

I want to add something else about this horrendous article. The WT quotes two Asian scientists, both of whom are JWs apparently. One of them says that he believed in evolution until he learned about how complex DNA is and then he decided it had to be created by God. This kind of reductive thinking is hard to be believe from a working scientist who, presumably, has a Ph.D. in his field. I would love to ask him how he now understands the profusion of "clear, unambiguous and compelling" evidence (I'm quoting from the excellent Scientific American webpage posted by StrongHaiku) for evolution, both micro and macro.

In other words, the veracity of evolution does not rest solely on the nature of DNA or the complexity of the cell or any one line of evidence. It's supported by a tsunami of highly diverse, independent and yet convergent paradigms that fit very nicely into Darwin's theory of natural selection (as modified by later refinements). If you dismiss evolution in toto, as these Asian scientists seem to do, then you are left with a hella lot to explain about the natural world. As Theodore Dobzhansky noted, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

cantleave

why did god if he is so loving create viruses like Ebola and the Plague?

Whenever I asked that, I was told they must have served some useful purpose but that was changed after Adam and Eve sinned.

Like all religitards they have an illogical answer for everything.

cofty

Has Sab returned?

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

why did god if he is so loving create viruses like Ebola and the Plague?

And who brought them and all the other diseases aboard Noah's ark? Did Noah collect two of all the millions of animal species and two specimens of every disease?

Mephis

That's a moronic piece even by their standards.

Vidiot

fadingtruth - "Why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?"

When creationists claim that evolutionists "state that apes turned into humans" (regardless of what evolutionists actually say), it gives the appearance of debunking evolution in general whilst not actually doing so at all.

It's a form of misdirection, i.e. cheating.

x

And once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...

...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

x

(Besides, I think a strong argument could be made that, genetically, humans are a subset of ape. We're really closely related to them, that's for damn sure.)

By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

Share this