Posts by LeeT

8

Researching the "The Origin of Life" brochure

by Doug Mason in

i am preparing a critique that looks at the 51 instances the wts's brochure "the origin of life" uses scientists.. without preempting what i am looking for, i will appreciate your thoughts on the following endnotes: 7, 12, 17, 21, 23.. i need you to read what the brochure's author wrote and then compare that with the source.. thanks,.

doug.

LeeT

Doug,

I see you've had no response so I'll give this a whirl. I've included links and quotes from the brochure in the hope that I'll reduce the workload for the next respondent. This response has taken me a good length of time and I barely get to show off my ignorance. I'm a million miles from knowledgable on cell biology and genetics. I do catch a fair bit of evolution, phylogeny, palaeontology discussion but this really is one of my weak areas so my own comments are kept minimal and fairly broad. I confess I haven't read all the links to the WT article sources yet (too tired). Somebody who knows their stuff could spend hours responding to this.

I've added a couple of links to Youtube vids which might help. Also, see the "Weighted" link I suggested on the other evo thread that is still current here, that may have useful input.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/3wil5bzi59b2l8f/Weighed1.1.pdf/file

-----

7. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, https://pr.princeton.edu/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml

Origin Life - 5 Questions says

"Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few. 7"

They're playing a game of wowing the audience with big numbers.

They like to play the complexity game. It works like this, first note that some things which have the feature of complexity are intelligently designed by humans. Then extend that beyond all logic to conclude that all things which are complex must have an intelligent designer who just so happens to be their God.

-----

12. Molecular Human Reproduction, “The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/15/5/271/981939

Origin Life - 5 Questions says

"The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA (section 3 discusses this molecule) is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins. *
* Some of the cells in the human body are made up of about 10,000,000,000 protein molecules 11 of several hundred thousand different kinds. 12"

The reference is only really to the end of the asterisked note but I've given what preceded for context.

I'll shortcut to Jackson Wheat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEXtQazdpOs

My note is they're trying to wow the audience with big numbers. They seem to be concluding the current system cannot artise in a single bound (or a few steps). I suspect there might be an analogy between the supposed conundrum here and the way creationists try to use symbiotic relationships as some sort of 'gotcha' which often seem to fall apart on examination.

-----

17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.

Origin Life - 5 Questions says

"Many biologists and other scientists feel that DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events that took place over the course of millions of years. They say that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions. 17"

Ah, DNA as computer code again. Analogies have limits and the comparison always breaks when stretched too far.

I'll pass it on to this discussion which I remember being informative at the time though the details escape me now.

Start at 16 minutes mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-SVcqJ8mc4

-----

21. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead

https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779571271148/project%2023_cantilever%20resonators%20for%20DNA.pdf

Origin Life - 5 Questions says

"The DNA required for the seven billion people living on earth now would barely make a film on the surface of that teaspoon. 21"

Wowing with tiny, tiny, you wouldn't believe how tiny. It's the same game as the big numbers trick.

-----

23. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.

Not found source link

Origin Life - 5 Questions says

"Above a glass case containing a length of model DNA is a sign that reads: “Push Button for Demonstration.” You push the button, and a narrator explains: “DNA has at least two very important jobs. The first is called replication. DNA has to be copied so that every new cell will have a complete copy of the same genetic information. Please watch this simulation.”
Through a door at one end of the display comes a complex-looking machine. It is actually a cluster of robots closely linked together. The machine goes to the DNA, attaches itself, and begins to move along the DNA as a train might follow a track. It moves a little too fast for you to see exactly what it is doing, but you can easily see that behind it, there are now two complete DNA ropes instead of one.
The narrator explains: “This is a greatly simplified version of what goes on when DNA is replicated. A group of molecular machines called enzymes travel along the DNA, first splitting it in two, then using each strand as a template to make a new, complementary strand. We cannot show you all the parts involved —such as the tiny device that runs ahead of the replication machine and snips one side of the DNA so that it can twirl around freely instead of getting wound up too tight. Nor can we show you how the DNA is ‘proofread’ several times. Errors are detected and corrected to an amazing degree of accuracy.”—See the diagram on pages 16 and 17.
The narrator continues: “What we can show you clearly is the speed. You noticed this robot moving at a pretty good clip, didn’t you? Well, the actual enzyme machinery moves along the DNA ‘track’ at a rate of about 100 rungs, or base pairs, every second. 23"

I'm not sure whether the reference is to the whole section quoted. This extended analogy is probably helpful to give a vague impression of what is going on. As I said above though, analogies have limits.

62

Evolution - A Conversation with Alex Williams

by cofty in

alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.

this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.

it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.

LeeT

Slimboyfat (and others)

Presumably Russell elaborated on the subject elsewhere.

See "The Bible Versus Evolution Theory", WTBTS, 1898

http://www.watchtowerwayback.org/jw-wb/English/Books/Teachings/1898%20The%20Bible%20versus%20the%20evolution%20theory.pdf

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar

LeeT

When do you think Daniel went into captivity?

Scholar

617 BCE

Dan 1:1 (NWT)

In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

Dan 1:3 (NWT)

Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent.

Dan 1:6 (NWT)

Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah.

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***

Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.)

Daniel would have been a pretty poor student if, having been trained in Babylon and writing in exile there, he didn't adopt the Babylonian accession year dating system. If we assume that to be the case, a plain reading of Dan 1:1 points to 625 BCE.

*** it-1 p. 418 Carchemish ***

In 625 B.C.E. a decisive battle was fought at Carchemish between the Egyptian and Babylonian armies. Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonians to a smashing victory over Pharaoh Necho’s forces

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***

The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at Carchemish

So Dan 1:1 seems like the same year as B. Carchemish took place.

And yet
*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***

Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1
You say this is in 617 BCE.

The society claims their interpretation to be "evident" yet doesn't, as far as I can see, explain what this evidence is. Could you, a scholar provide the evidence for this interpretation?

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar
"My careful exegesis which plainly you have not done proves that Jer. 25:11, 2 Chron. 36:17-21; Dan. 9:2 all discuss and link the beginning of the seventy years with the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar with the desolation of Judah, the commencement of the Exile and the nation of Judah under servitude to Babylon all for the period of 70 years."
None of which refer to the destruction of the temple which is what I was asking about. I'll try a third time. Why do you associate the beginning of the period of Babylonian dominance when nations came to serve Babylon, including Judah, with the same date as the destruction of the first temple?

"Jeremiah was not confused as you are because he foretold specific consequences in a judgement message"
But not specific in setting any date which we can discern now, 2,600 years later. That was my point.

"COJ is not known for his humility in relation to his criticism of 607 BCE."
Isn't an answer to the question I asked. I'll try again.
"Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?"

"Jeremiah . . . the 70 years was quite descriptive and specific and could only have begun with the destruction of the City of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land in Neb;s 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 the regnal year."
How do you reach that conclusion from Jeremiah?

When do you think Daniel went into captivity? Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?

You criticized Doug for not proposing an alternative thesis. What is your alternative thesis to explain the body of the secular record? By your own standards, you cannot criticize it without one. Are you proposing a massive conspiracy to replace all the original records with ones portraying a fabricated history or do you have another idea?

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar,

"Jer. 25: demands careful exegesis which I have done "
So how did your careful exegesis lead you to equate the destruction of the first temple with the start of 70 years? You seemed to skip over that part of my question which you quoted in the reply above.

"It cannot be a period of Babylonian domination because we cannot determine a precise year as a beginning of that Period."
How does our inability to determine the exact start date the writer of Jeremiah had in mind preclude the idea he was talking about a period of Babylonian domination? This looks like a non sequitur.
Besides, didn't you tell me the precise time was when Babylon conquered Jerusalem making it a global power?

"even COJ is confused about the matter shown by comparing his discussion of both dates in his 3rd and 4 the edn of his GTR."
Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?

"Criticism is fine and has its place but . . . you must argue your case or thesis in order to be credible"
Jeremiah doesn't tell us a start date. Doug has pointed that out.
"The Bible does not state ―this is when the Seventy Years‖ started, showing that those people were not concerned with identifying a specific moment or incident"
Page 14
https://jwstudies.com/Critique_of_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
That is the case he's arguing. Like most others who've spent mch time on this, he seems to have concluded that there are a few possible options which could mark the start of the seventy years. He also spends some time trying to differentiate between the seventy year period of servitude and the idea that the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple which would only happen later if Judah didn't mend its ways. That makes it clear that in his view, the destruction of the temple could not mark the start of seventy years.
As far as I can see he has backed a horse. The horse is uncertainty in the scriptures.

Doug, if you'd like to respond to that please correct me if needed. I don't want to misrepresent your position.

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar

Your listing of the reigns of the Babylonian Kings is falsified by the biblical seventy years which proves that there is a 20 year Gap between Neo-Babylonian Chronology and Bible Chronology. The fact is that the biblical evidence proves that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem"

What makes equate the beginning of 70 years with the destruction of the temple rather than the beginning of a period of Babylonian dominance?
What is the period in which "these nations" served Babylon for 70 years?

You are aware you are putting your faith, not in the Bible, but in the WT Society (and their uncelebrated scholars) interpretation of it aren't you?

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar

"you [Doug] do not provide an alternative so unless you can argue for a better date your criticisms although interesting have little value."

Why does Doug need to back a different horse? All he's doing is pointing out that the three-legged nag which is due for the knackers yard which you have placed your money on isn't going to win the race.

62

Evolution - A Conversation with Alex Williams

by cofty in

alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.

this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.

it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.

LeeT

Cofty

"If you have any other examples of misleading references in Origins of Life I would love to see them too."

You might try downloading this review of the 5 Questions and Was Life Created brochures.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3wil5bzi59b2l8f/Weighed1.1.pdf/file
It's pretty lengthy (40 pages) but also serves as a good intro to evolutionary theory although the referencing could have been better.
If you just want to pick out the selective quote-mining the text is searchable.

I'm fed up of explaining to JW's that branching descent means that statements like "but we see that dogs always produce dogs" are correct and exactly what evolutionary theory says we should expect. They seem to have some odd straw man caricature to demolish and never seem to bother to learn much about the theory they oppose.

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar

A.1. Babylon was a World Power for 68 years 607 BCE-539 BCE

What particular events in 607 BCE do you think marked this transformation to World Power Status? Do you think conquering Judah, a fairly insignificant power in a strategically important region marked a tipping point whereas defeating Assyria didn't?

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

LeeT

Scholar

Why did you not get your Certificate?

I was doing another degree at the time and didn't want the added pressure of deadlines or the added expense.

one must make a choice between the Biblical history of the Period and the contemporary documents

I see you as choosing a particular interpretation of Biblical history. Others seem to have little difficulty in arriving an interpretation which conforms to their understandings of both the Bible and history or even to arrive at an inconclusive conclusion.

How would you go about testing whether a particular interpretation of historically related Biblical text is accurate? Surely you'd expect it to be in conformity with well arrested secular evidence or have a compelling case for why the secular record is in error.

You don't need to abandon inerrancy to abandon an interpretation.

Personally, I'm an atheist and quite happy with the idea that there are errors, intentional hyperbole, rounded figures and that different writers may have had differing opinions and written from their own perspective. I'd like to make sense of it all, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that some of the 'rough' is a feature and needn't be smoothed away to create a gloss finish.
Eg I find it quite OK for Jonsson to conclude that he isn't certain of a start date, that there are merits and demerits to alternative positions.

What must be explained is the silence of the Babylonian records pertaining to the missing seven-year reign of Nebuchadnezzer

British Museum, No. BM 34113 (sp 213), and was published by A. K. Grayson in Babylonian historical-literary texts, 1975 might be what you want but it's hardly conclusive of anything.

2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered
3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ......]
5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach [....]
6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [. . .]
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) - - -]
11 He does not show love to son and daughter [. . .]
12 ... family and clan do not exist [. . .]
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) (. . .)]
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [......]
18 His prayers go forth to [......]

http://a-laymans-journey.blogspot.com/2009/12/text-of-bm34113-british-museum-no-bm.html

What if the silence is because nothing much actually happened to be recorded or it a misremembering of Nabonidus' long stay in Teima? People doing business would still have recorded the dates of their dealings and if the madness was real. If seven years of madness exist, they're already included amongst the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar II's rule.

the omission of any mention of the seventy years hegemony over Judah and the other serving nations roundabout

Yes, there doesn't appear to be much bombast and the chronicle records seem sparse.

the length of the Neo-Babylonian Period is problematic and far from settled as it has not accounted for the twenty-year Gap proved by the 70 years of Babylonian domination

I was a bit lazy above in using 66 and 86 year periods. WT agrees that Nebuchadnezzar II reigned for 43 years and appear to give Nabonidus 16 years so the window for the 20 missing years can be narrowed substantially. Is it fair to say the WT believes the 20 years must be inserted somewhere between the 43rd of Nebuchadnezzar II and the 1st of Nabonidus?