Posts by Midget-Sasquatch

48

Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

Midget-Sasquatch

Hooberus,

Chimpanzees don't factor into this at all. The time-point for human chimpanzee divergence is a separate matter....that uses a different method....a popular one is the difference in cytochrome c sequences and its changes are dependant on nuclear DNA mutation rates - not mitochondrial DNA.

LIke SNG wrote you only need to know how much change has happened to the sequence over time and how much time it takes for that change to happen (i.e. rates for human mitochondrial DNA - In the late eighties when the first paper came out, the rate was pegged at about ten times higher than that of nuclear DNA, but since then its been found to be higher...so thats why the age for mtEve was reduced somewhat if you're wondering).

They only had to look at the mitochondrial DNA of the individual people they sampled and find the amount of changes/differences among the sample.

They then fit the samples into a geneological tree (one which fits in all the samples but that requires the least amount of changes overall - you see they're not trying to inflate the age)....that gives a relative outline of which sequences were ancestral or descended from which. The rate can then be used to figure the age.

88

Am I right about the WT being wrong?

by FreedomFrog in

jw
friends

hi everyone.... i was "raised" as a dub and got baptised in '86...so in total i had been a jw for over 20 years.

i came to realize that the "way of life" i was living was in fact made up of mostly lies.

i started "questioning" the borg about 6 years ago and finally came out with almostatheist last sept. i know in my heart that they are mostly wrong and very legalist.

Midget-Sasquatch

Hi FreedomFrog,

I personally think that the hardest thing about leaving jws is how to live with alot of the uncertainty. Consider: Just a couple of things they "do have right" is enough to trigger those feelings, even though you realize alot of their errors.

I'd ask myself : Are my second thoughts, this impulse to maybe turn back, really just a desire to regain some of the certainty? If so then by addressing that the "deprogramming" as you put it should go a bit more smoothly.

Like you I grew up in the JWs. What really will help quell any of those feelings is to learn just how little the higher ups care about the rank and file. Their motives speak volumes.

32

What Happened to the Body?

by hmike in

i'm fairly new here, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before.

it seemed like an appropriate time to bring this up.. suppose we accept that there really was a man jesus, rabbi, teacher, etc., but just a mortal man.

so if he didn't resurrect, what happened to the body, and how was the "myth" of the resurrection perpetuated, especially in light of the numerous "witnesses" (some of whom were still alive when the accounts were written, if we can believe that part of the accounts) and the effect this had on their lives?

Midget-Sasquatch

What if he wasn't resurrected? .... Well, many of those crucified as criminals by the Romans would be thrown into common graves (usually lime ones which did a quick job of decomposing the flesh). There'd be no way to easily point to a body to refute the claims. I don't find that a very inspiring ending to a life that meant alot to so many - but its one possible (and also a likely) scenario.

Much more interesting to think about what happened to the body with a resurrection:

The Gospel of Peter suggests a docetic view in one part of it:

[19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.

But then it describes the resurrection of Jesus like this:

[36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens.

Maybe the christians who liked this gospel were no taller than me....I can go for that sorta resurrection.

46

Favorite TV show

by Pwned in

seinfeld, simpsons, sopranos and the wire (i cant wait for season 3 on dvd)

Midget-Sasquatch

My pickings were and are limited with my never having had steady cable service (my dad was cheap ... and I'm just poor. )

Current: The Simpsons, 24, any CSI variant (no preference, I catch them sporadically), Jon Stewart's The Daily Show and Bernie Mac (the earlier episodes more).

Recent Past: Star Trek:TNG, The X Files (not so much the last few seasons though), Nowhere Man (it spoke to my paranoia ), Highway to Heaven and alot of the eps of Nikita.

Showing my age: V, MacGyver, Buck Rogers, Little House on the Prairie , and I've never seen it ever again:The Phoenix.

24

Jesus' Resurrection, shouldn't that also be celebrated?

by JH in

jw
friends

jesus was the first one to resurrect for eternal life.

every christian religion celebrates jesus' resurrection.

why don't the witnesses also celebrate this important event?

Midget-Sasquatch

Why do we celebrate his death, and not his birth? He couldnt have died for us, if he was never born! So that day seems like it should be more important than any of them.

He could have deviated, he could have rebelled or decided not to go through with the sacrifice. So a sinless death was important to the idea of ransom atonement.

24

Jesus' Resurrection, shouldn't that also be celebrated?

by JH in

jw
friends

jesus was the first one to resurrect for eternal life.

every christian religion celebrates jesus' resurrection.

why don't the witnesses also celebrate this important event?

Midget-Sasquatch

I think the_classicist has hit on a major underlying reason the WTS doesn't celebrate it.

Celebrating it would be too close to paralleling the Easter celebrations of other christian faiths and they have a fanatical need to keep their cult separate and distinct from the others. Much like their ignorance and deception on Jesus being impaled instead of actually having been crucified.

46

What evolution is NOT, Installment 1: "How coud it all happen by chance?"

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

as a supplement to my series on simple evidences for evolution, i thought i would also write occasional articles addressing common misunderstandings regarding evolution.

in this one, we'll address that common stumbling block, "but how could something so complex have come about by chance?

the probability is just too small.".

Midget-Sasquatch

Well Narkissos' musings on adaptions and environment were somewhat similar to those of a handful of microbiologists (albeit for a short time) in the late 80s to early 90s. It was an interesting phenomenon that Euphemism and others well versed in biology may have come across.

Under certain adverse environmental conditions, it looked like specific adaptations were being induced in E.Coli by the environment rather than just selecting mutations that happened beforehand. This same thing was also seen in yeast. Cairns was the scientist who brought this up I believe. He first called it "directed mutation" then it was renamed to "adaptive mutation" and others called it "Cairnsian mutation".

IIRC, subsequent research, has shown that the adverse conditions (usually an environment that starves the organism) apparently trigger mechanisms in the cell that increases mutation rates. A sort of internal means for the cell to influence its adaptedness if I understand it properly. The process of generating variants is sped up (and so then, is "hitting on" fitter ones). That can explain how it looked like the adaptations are being generated as a response to the environment or induced by it. But essentially the mutations that form are themselves still random ( in line with the accepted understanding of how things work).

G'night all.

52

Did You Feel Stupid Going From House To House??

by minimus in

jw
friends

did you just hate going door to door or were you one of the few that loved the work?

Midget-Sasquatch

Hated it..........around the world and back snap

Hey, is that from the "In Living Color" skit about the gay men movie critics? Aaah I loved watching that show.

In any case, I definitely hated going out to service.

46

What evolution is NOT, Installment 1: "How coud it all happen by chance?"

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

as a supplement to my series on simple evidences for evolution, i thought i would also write occasional articles addressing common misunderstandings regarding evolution.

in this one, we'll address that common stumbling block, "but how could something so complex have come about by chance?

the probability is just too small.".

Midget-Sasquatch

Hi Golf,

SNG's analogy was meant to be a simplification. It just aimed to highlight the impact of environment as a seletive pressure on organisms. It wasn't a thorough modeling of the process, but it nicely did what it set out to do. Showing how randomness coupled with selection can result in what looks like intelligent/deliberate outcomes.

You had a good question on Eskimoes for example. Humans are not considered to be a specialist species (highly fitted to a particular ecological niche or environment) but a generalist one. Our intelligence and adaptability makes us flexible. Organisms can be placed on a continuum of generalist to specialist ecological niches.

So I wouldn't get too caught up with the analogy's specifc details. If you like to address real details then you'll have to look into population genetics. Theodosius Dhobzansky (hope I spelled that right) is the classic authority on that.

Take care Golf

SNG,

I'm enjoying all your installments.

8

The Bible and divine revelation

by Narkissos in

in two recent threads eduardo (oroborus21) makes the following assertion:the bible is not itself the revelation about god to mankind.

the bible is a record of the revelation about god to mankind.. .

i find this nuance interesting, although problematic imo, and i think it might be worth its own thread (i hope eduardo doesn't mind).. what do you think?

Midget-Sasquatch

If its a record of that revelation, then it will be done through the lenses or subjective view of the writers. One can see a scenario entirely differently with/without some key information that changes one's perspective. So I think with that amount of subjectivity there's going to be issues with interpretation. Personal revelation would be so much better and would eliminate doubt/dependency on other's interpretation. Can't say I've experienced that though.