Capsule of Evolution

by patio34 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • patio34
    patio34

    This section from 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins has really answered questions for me:

    The genetic dictionary has 64 DNA words of 3 letters each. The language appears to be arbitrary n the same sense as a human language is arbitrary (there is nothing intrinsic in the sound of the word "house", for instance, which suggests to the listerner any attribute of a dwelling).

    'Given this, it is a fact of great significance that every living thing, no matter how diefferent from others in external appearance it may be, 'speaks' almost exactly the same language at the level of the genes.
    'The genetic code is universal. I regard this as near-conclusive proof that all organisma are descended from a single common ancestor.

    'Molcular biology suddenly opened a new treasure chest of resemblances to add to the meagre list offered by anatomy and embryology.

    'Though all living things share the same dictionary they don't all make the same sentences with their shared dictionary. This offers us the opportunity to work out varying degrees of cousinship.

    Closely similar protein or DNA sentences can be assumed to come from close cousins, more different sentences from more distnt cousins.
    We can measure exactly how many steps separate one animal from another. ..

    The molecular clock allows us to estimate, not just which pairs of animals have the most recent common ancestors, but also approximately when those common ancestors lived.

    We can use the molecular clock to date branch points in the evolutionary tree.

    DNA sequences are the gospel documents of all life, and we have learned to decipher them.

    Chimpanzees and hmans share more than 99% of their genes.

    The last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived perhaps as recently as 5 million years ago, dfinitely more recently than the common ancestor of chimps and orangutans, and perhaps 30 million years more recently than the common ancestor of chimps and monkeys.

    (Taken from pps. 263 and 270,271)

  • terraly
    terraly

    "Blind Watchmaker" is a very good book. Have you read anything of Gould's? He's a very interesting read, but for the style and for the ideas.

    I swear, if evolution wasn't such a personal issue- if it didn't involve the implication that we are merely descended for animals- it wouldn't be fought tooth and nail by people.

    I really know that most creationists are not stupid. They simply do the old JW trick of not really accepting any information which doesn't fit into their world-view. They hear, but they do not listen.

    I think that's why books can be helpful. They're more insidious at getting around these defenses because you can't win an argument with a book, can't confuse it and make it go away. You can only reject it, and even then, what you've read may remain.

    Go literacy.

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thanks Terraly,

    I agree the 'books are the most patient of teachers.'

    Dawkins points out that 99% of biologists agree that evolution DID happen. Whether one wants to believe a creator directed it, etc., is not their area of expertise.

    It's wonderful to be able to read these things now. One thing is clear, the WTS publications were grossly, almost criminally, inaccurate in presenting the evolutionists' side of the issue. It was stupid of me to rely on their books.

    One other thing you mentioned is humans descended from animals. Really, it seems more like humans branched off from them and developed much more.

    I haven't read anything by Gould, but, of course, he's referred to in Dawkins' book. I did read a very good article by Gould on having cancer that was on the Internet.

    Evolution is a complicated subject and very new to me, but fascinating.

    Take care,
    Patio

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    Well this is really off topic, but since we've brought up DNA.. This book notes an interesting mathematical correlation between the DNA and the I-Ching. Before you discount it out of hand as new age foo-foo, you should know that various other scientists have made the correlation before and some of it is published works.

    . http://www.insight-books.com/new/1556430973.html

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thanks, Francoise! I'll check it out!

  • Francois
    Francois

    Is there any problem with the idea that God created everthing; evolution was his technique?

    After all, it's not our physical bodies that separate us from the animals, it's something intangible; our spirit for instance, that same spirit that imbues us with altruism. Animals have no altruism, they have instinct that mimics altruism.

    I'm convinced that as evolution progressed and our brains became more and more complex, and generated more and more electrical activity, it became possible for that electrical field to support a segmentation of the cosmic mind. Sort of like a hologram. The cosmic mind being the reference, the human mind being the inteference. It's not so fantastic as you might at first think.

    The problem with the JWs and their arguments in and around scientific topics depend for their effectiveness on the ignorance, perhaps the willful ignorance of their readers. Witnesses use arguments against positions and scientific data that were improved upon or replaced with better scientific data years ago. Like the carbon-14 reliability data from the fifties. Replaced long ago with much better science, but the JWs still base many a premise dealing with evolution on it.

    Each time religion dares to cross swords with science, religion eventually skulks away with its tail between its legs like the cur it is. Religion should abstain from taking any interest in science, and concentrate instead on the scientist.

    Francoise

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit