One other thing. You asked about how genes can explain radical differences in body plans.
The answer is homeobox genes.
I don't think I have ever explained about the homeobox. Perhaps I will do that in the "Evolution is a Fact" series.
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ILoveTTATT2
You rock Cofty! Thanks!!
-
redpilltwice
Cofty, thanks for the references. I will look them up.
-
TheOldHippie
"Please tell me which books that present the scientific evidence FOR evolution you have studied in recent years?"
Oh, I simply LOVE such arguments! Just in the line of "no-one doubts that", "only the uninformed could think that", "not one single serious scientist doubts that" etc.
Throwing in the whole weight of the establishment. Trying to make the other guy look like a Complete fool. Rejoicing when he is finally having to admit "none".
You may win the discussion - but you definitely lose sympathy and the possibility of carrying on a respectful discussion.
-
A Ha
TheOldHippie, that's not what he's doing. He is asking--if I might assume I know his motivations, but I'm likely correct since he's made the same argument before--because most often people confidently proclaim that hundreds of thousands of experts are wrong when they themselves have never even read an entry-level book on the subject.
The argument isn't, "Nobody doubts that, so you should blindly accept it." It's, "Nobody doubts that, and if you do you need to be able to demonstrate why you're right and everyone else is wrong." I don't think cofty asks this question to bully or embarrass people, but to point out that they might be missing huge pieces of the puzzle and/or have read only wildly distorted arguments.
I was asked this question many years ago when I was first having doubts. It didn't have a large immediate effect on me at the time, but it stayed in the back of my mind, and when I finally took the mental step of accepting the JWs weren't inspired, it was the idea maybe you don't know everything and maybe your JW "education" was sorely lacking that helped me more readily accept new ideas (and new facts).
-
2+2=5
Oh, I simply LOVE such arguments! Just in the line of "no-one doubts that", "only the uninformed could think that", "not one single serious scientist doubts that" etc.
Throwing in the whole weight of the establishment. Trying to make the other guy look like a Complete fool. Rejoicing when he is finally having to admit "none".
You may win the discussion - but you definitely lose sympathy and the possibility of carrying on a respectful discussion.No need for arguments or sympathy, there are no winners or losers.
While some have a poor understanding on this subject, a few here don't.
In this case we have someone who is able explain with great clarity his knowledge and understanding and can clear up confusion with some actual facts.
I appreciate Cofty's relentless promoting of education.
-
Vidqun
I call the theory of evolution mutational, inter-species magic. You see it demonstrated and speeded up in Harry Potter-movies. However, it’s not real. I would be ashamed to believe that it was real. Here’s why evolution as such cannot happen. Allow me to explain:
The universe consists of energy, matter and information. Biological systems consist of energy, organic as well as inorganic matter. These also come with three kinds of information: 1) Structural information. 2) Operating information. 3) Communicative information. These fall under the category of Universal Information (UI). Universal Information or UI, having a sender and receiver, has the following characteristics:
Statistics. This could point to transmitted signals from the sender or received signals from the receiver (in language this would be the individual letters).
Cosyntics (code + syntax). Code as employed by the sender and understood code by the receiver (in language this would amount to the grammar of a phrase or sentence).
Semantics. Communicated idea from the sender or understood meaning by the receiver (in language, this would be the idea or meaning of a phrase or sentence).
Pragmatics. Expected action by the sender and implemented action by the receiver (practical application of material).
Apobetics. Intended purpose by the sender and achieved result by the receiver.
As seen, language, computer programs and the activities controlled by the nucleus of living cells, all qualify as UI. A very important prerequisite of UI is the will or volition, i.e., an intelligent sender and/or receiver (UI is not a property of matter, meaning it cannot originate from lifeless matter, organic or inorganic). The source of information is always an intelligent mind.
Question is: Does any part of DNA qualify as UI? DNA comprises of “letters,” i.e., adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). During protein synthesis transcription and translation takes place. By using aminoacids as building blocks, proteins are manufactured. This would be part of the cell's structural information.
The theory of evolution ignores natural laws as well as the laws of information. What about mutation and natural selection? A mutation can only change hereditary information that is already present. Without the DNA information system already in existence, biological evolution cannot get started. Mutation, by definition, is a random process, so in principle it cannot produce new functional systems (e.g., new organs). The same goes for natural selection. Natural selection favors those organisms more capable of surviving, ensuring that their hereditary material has a better chance of propagating itself. However, this process only sorts or culls information that is already there, neither improving the information nor adding anything new.
-
cofty
"Please tell me which books that present the scientific evidence FOR evolution you have studied in recent years?" - Cofty
Trying to make the other guy look like a Complete fool. Rejoicing when he is finally having to admit "none". - TheOldGrumpy
I would not criticise christianity unless I thoroughly understood the beliefs of christians. Christian theology is trivially easy to understand. Evolution is really complex. I have been studying it for 10 years and have only scratched the surface. Amusingly theists think it is intellectually honest to reject the fact of evolution despite never having read a single book on the subject - creationists books don't count!
Every "objection" I have ever heard from creationists is predicated on a misunderstanding of evolution. We have a classic example in this thread when RPT objected that he can't find any detailed evidence on how fish evolved from jellyfish. The answer is really simple - they didn't.
My challenge is perfectly reasonable. Rejecting evolution is always based on ignorance and/or religious superstition. (ignorance is not a pejorative word in this context)
-
cofty
Vidqun I have explained to you numerous times how new "information" arises.
It is a common tactic of creationists to ignore evidential answers, wait a few weeks and then repeat their ill-informed objections as if they have never been answered.
The day you compared scientists to disciples of Dagon I lost interest in having a conversation with you.
-
Vidqun
Why Cofty, if you believe in the evolutionary myth, ignoring natural laws and the laws of information, then the sky is the limit, is it not? Why not believe in the fish gods, some of them amphibians, no less? It’s not that far off from your constructed reality. Apart from Matsya Avatar of Lord Vishnu, there is the Biblical Dagon. Included here should be Oannes. Berossus, a scholar/priest, living in Babylon in the 3rd century BC, who wrote the history of Babylonia, included a story about him. He had the body of fish, but underneath the figure of a man. Yes, the evolutionary myth gives rise to painful realities, well-documented by screenwriters and Hollywood directors.