| inbetween | evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
|---|---|
 Since 6/29/2009 | since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking. I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer. However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God. Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution. Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment. This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+. So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++. Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs. My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ? 2) our brain We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ? I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear. English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that. inbetween |
| 3Mozzies | Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 8/22/2010 | My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for... Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species? Kiwis |
| Flat_Accent | Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 11/28/2011 | Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record). You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor. Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors. 2) our brain I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in. |
| inbetween | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 6/29/2009 | |
| inbetween | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 6/29/2009 | sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ? |
| leavingwt | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Post 13974 of 13980 Since 6/16/2008 | "Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution" In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance. Here are some helpful resources: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html |
| Amelia Ashton | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 11/2/2010 | Bumping for NewChapter |
| Matsimus | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 2/21/2012 | A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth". Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p |
| NewChapter | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 1/25/2011 | Finally. Firefox worked. Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again. The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us. We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level. We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing. Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others. Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original. Read. NC |
| Amelia Ashton | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 11/2/2010 | A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
|
| Matsimus | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 2/21/2012 | NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact. |
| NewChapter | Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 1/25/2011 | Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference? And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process. UGH. I need more words. NC |
| simon17 | Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 7/25/2009 | Regarding your question on evolution and missing links. Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species. |
| MeanMrMustard | Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 9/9/2010 | @NewChapter: What would be a good term to contrast that difference? "natural algorithm" ? MeanMrMustard |
| Cadellin | Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 3/28/2009 | When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book. As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change. Happy learning!!! |
| cofty | Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 12/19/2009 | inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct. If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging. As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms. Here are some suggestions for a reading list. Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne
Life Ascending - Nick Lane
The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll
|
djeggnog
JoinedPosts by djeggnog
-
29
evolution
by inbetween insince my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.
while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.
i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .
-
-
djeggnog
-
29
evolution
by inbetween insince my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.
while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.
i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .
-
-
djeggnog
[PASTED FROM PAGE ONE]
inbetween evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.
I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.
So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer.
However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God.
Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution.
Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution.
1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.
Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment.
This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+.
So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++.
Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs.
My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?
There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ?
2) our brain
We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ?
I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear.
English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that.
inbetween
3Mozzies Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 8/22/2010My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?
Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for...
Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species?
Kiwis
Rheas
Moa-nalos (extinct)
Bermuda Island Flightless Duck
Fuegian Steamer Duck
Falkland Steamer Duck
Chubut Steamer Duck
Auckland Teal
Campbell Teal
Dromornis
Genyornis
Chendytes lawi
Talpanas
Cnemiornis
New Caledonian Giant Megapode
Junin Grebe
Titicaca Grebe
Atitlán Grebe
Flightless Cormorant
Penguins
Giant Hoopoe (extinct)
Apteribis
Jamaican Ibis
Réunion Sacred Ibis
Cuban Flightless Crane
Red Rail
Rodrigues Rail
Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless)
Weka
New Caledonian Rail
Lord Howe Woodhen
Calayan Rail
New Britain Rail
Guam Rail
Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)
Tahiti Rail
Dieffenbach's Rail
Chatham Rail
Wake Island Rail
Snoring Rail
Inaccessible Island Rail
Laysan Rail
Hawaiian Rail
Kosrae Crake
Ascension Crake
Red-eyed Crake
Invisible Rail
New Guinea Flightless Rail
Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless)
North Island Takahe
Takahe
Samoan Wood Rail
Makira Wood Rail
Tristan Moorhen †
Gough Island Moorhen
Tasmanian Nativehen
Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
Adzebills
Great Auk
Diving Puffin
Terrestrial Caracara
Kakapo
Broad-billed Parrot
Dodo
Rodrigues Solitaire
Viti Levu Giant Pigeon
New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
Cuban Giant Owl
Cretan Owl (probably flightless)
Andros Island Barn Owl
Stephens Island Wren
Long-legged BuntingFlat_Accent Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/28/2011Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them.
1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.
Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record).
You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor.
Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors.
2) our brain
I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.
inbetween Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009inbetween Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?
leavingwt Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Post 13974 of 13980
Since 6/16/2008"Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution"
In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787
You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance.
Here are some helpful resources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.htmlAmelia Ashton Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010Bumping for NewChapter
Matsimus Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth".
Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p
NewChapter Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011Finally. Firefox worked.
Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again.
The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us.
We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level.
We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing.
Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others.
Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original.
Read.
NC
Amelia Ashton Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
Matsimus Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.
NewChapter Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?
And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.
UGH. I need more words.
NC
simon17 Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 7/25/2009Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.
Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.
MeanMrMustard Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 9/9/2010@NewChapter:
What would be a good term to contrast that difference?
"natural algorithm" ?
MeanMrMustard
Cadellin Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 3/28/2009When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.
As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters
Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.
Happy learning!!!
cofty Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 12/19/2009inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.
If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.
According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.
I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.
Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.
Here are some suggestions for a reading list.
Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero
- ISBN-10: 0231139624
- ISBN-13: 978-0231139625
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
- ISBN-10: 0141027584
- ISBN-13: 978-0141027586
The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
- ISBN-10: 059306173X
- ISBN-13: 978-0593061732
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne
- ISBN-10: 0199230854
- ISBN-13: 978-0199230853
Life Ascending - Nick Lane
- ISBN-10: 1861978189
- ISBN-13: 978-1861978189
The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll
- ISBN-10: 1847247245
- ISBN-13: 978-1847247247
-
29
evolution
by inbetween insince my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.
while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.
i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .
-
-
djeggnog
inbetween evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.
I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.
So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer.
However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God.
Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution.
Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution.
1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.
Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment.
This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+.
So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++.
Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs.
My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?
There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ?
2) our brain
We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ?
I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear.
English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that.
inbetween
3Mozzies Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 8/22/2010My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?
Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for...
Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species?
Kiwis
Rheas
Moa-nalos (extinct)
Bermuda Island Flightless Duck
Fuegian Steamer Duck
Falkland Steamer Duck
Chubut Steamer Duck
Auckland Teal
Campbell Teal
Dromornis
Genyornis
Chendytes lawi
Talpanas
Cnemiornis
New Caledonian Giant Megapode
Junin Grebe
Titicaca Grebe
Atitlán Grebe
Flightless Cormorant
Penguins
Giant Hoopoe (extinct)
Apteribis
Jamaican Ibis
Réunion Sacred Ibis
Cuban Flightless Crane
Red Rail
Rodrigues Rail
Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless)
Weka
New Caledonian Rail
Lord Howe Woodhen
Calayan Rail
New Britain Rail
Guam Rail
Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)
Tahiti Rail
Dieffenbach's Rail
Chatham Rail
Wake Island Rail
Snoring Rail
Inaccessible Island Rail
Laysan Rail
Hawaiian Rail
Kosrae Crake
Ascension Crake
Red-eyed Crake
Invisible Rail
New Guinea Flightless Rail
Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless)
North Island Takahe
Takahe
Samoan Wood Rail
Makira Wood Rail
Tristan Moorhen †
Gough Island Moorhen
Tasmanian Nativehen
Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
Adzebills
Great Auk
Diving Puffin
Terrestrial Caracara
Kakapo
Broad-billed Parrot
Dodo
Rodrigues Solitaire
Viti Levu Giant Pigeon
New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
Cuban Giant Owl
Cretan Owl (probably flightless)
Andros Island Barn Owl
Stephens Island Wren
Long-legged BuntingFlat_Accent Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/28/2011Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them.
1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.
Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record).
You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor.
Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors.
2) our brain
I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.
inbetween Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009inbetween Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?
leavingwt Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Post 13974 of 13980
Since 6/16/2008"Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution"
In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787
You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance.
Here are some helpful resources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.htmlAmelia Ashton Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010Bumping for NewChapter
Matsimus Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth".
Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p
NewChapter Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011Finally. Firefox worked.
Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again.
The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us.
We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level.
We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing.
Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others.
Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original.
Read.
NC
Amelia Ashton Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
Matsimus Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.
NewChapter Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?
And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.
UGH. I need more words.
NC
simon17 Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 7/25/2009Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.
Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.
MeanMrMustard Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 9/9/2010@NewChapter:
What would be a good term to contrast that difference?
"natural algorithm" ?
MeanMrMustard
Cadellin Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 3/28/2009When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.
As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters
Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.
Happy learning!!!
cofty Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 12/19/2009inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.
If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.
According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.
I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.
Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.
Here are some suggestions for a reading list.
Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero
- ISBN-10: 0231139624
- ISBN-13: 978-0231139625
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
- ISBN-10: 0141027584
- ISBN-13: 978-0141027586
The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
- ISBN-10: 059306173X
- ISBN-13: 978-0593061732
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne
- ISBN-10: 0199230854
- ISBN-13: 978-0199230853
Life Ascending - Nick Lane
- ISBN-10: 1861978189
- ISBN-13: 978-1861978189
The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll
- ISBN-10: 1847247245
- ISBN-13: 978-1847247247
-
29
evolution
by inbetween insince my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.
while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.
i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .
-
-
djeggnog
inbetween evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.
I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.
So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer.
However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God.
Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution.
Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution.
1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.
Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment.
This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+.
So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++.
Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs.
My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?
There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ?
2) our brain
We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ?
I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear.
English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that.
inbetween
3Mozzies Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 8/22/2010My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?
Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for...
Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species?
Kiwis
Rheas
Moa-nalos (extinct)
Bermuda Island Flightless Duck
Fuegian Steamer Duck
Falkland Steamer Duck
Chubut Steamer Duck
Auckland Teal
Campbell Teal
Dromornis
Genyornis
Chendytes lawi
Talpanas
Cnemiornis
New Caledonian Giant Megapode
Junin Grebe
Titicaca Grebe
Atitlán Grebe
Flightless Cormorant
Penguins
Giant Hoopoe (extinct)
Apteribis
Jamaican Ibis
Réunion Sacred Ibis
Cuban Flightless Crane
Red Rail
Rodrigues Rail
Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless)
Weka
New Caledonian Rail
Lord Howe Woodhen
Calayan Rail
New Britain Rail
Guam Rail
Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)
Tahiti Rail
Dieffenbach's Rail
Chatham Rail
Wake Island Rail
Snoring Rail
Inaccessible Island Rail
Laysan Rail
Hawaiian Rail
Kosrae Crake
Ascension Crake
Red-eyed Crake
Invisible Rail
New Guinea Flightless Rail
Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless)
North Island Takahe
Takahe
Samoan Wood Rail
Makira Wood Rail
Tristan Moorhen †
Gough Island Moorhen
Tasmanian Nativehen
Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
Adzebills
Great Auk
Diving Puffin
Terrestrial Caracara
Kakapo
Broad-billed Parrot
Dodo
Rodrigues Solitaire
Viti Levu Giant Pigeon
New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
Cuban Giant Owl
Cretan Owl (probably flightless)
Andros Island Barn Owl
Stephens Island Wren
Long-legged BuntingFlat_Accent Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/28/2011Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them.
1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.
Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record).
You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor.
Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors.
2) our brain
I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.
inbetween Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009inbetween Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?
leavingwt Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Post 13974 of 13980
Since 6/16/2008"Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution"
In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787
You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance.
Here are some helpful resources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.htmlAmelia Ashton Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010Bumping for NewChapter
Matsimus Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth".
Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p
NewChapter Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011Finally. Firefox worked.
Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again.
The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us.
We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level.
We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing.
Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others.
Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original.
Read.
NC
Amelia Ashton Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
Matsimus Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.
NewChapter Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?
And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.
UGH. I need more words.
NC
simon17 Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 7/25/2009Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.
Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.
MeanMrMustard Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 9/9/2010@NewChapter:
What would be a good term to contrast that difference?
"natural algorithm" ?
MeanMrMustard
Cadellin Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 3/28/2009When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.
As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters
Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.
Happy learning!!!
cofty Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 12/19/2009inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.
If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.
According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.
I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.
Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.
Here are some suggestions for a reading list.
Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero
- ISBN-10: 0231139624
- ISBN-13: 978-0231139625
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
- ISBN-10: 0141027584
- ISBN-13: 978-0141027586
The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
- ISBN-10: 059306173X
- ISBN-13: 978-0593061732
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne
- ISBN-10: 0199230854
- ISBN-13: 978-0199230853
Life Ascending - Nick Lane
- ISBN-10: 1861978189
- ISBN-13: 978-1861978189
The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll
- ISBN-10: 1847247245
- ISBN-13: 978-1847247247
-
86
More "Elders" Doubt They Are Appointed By The "Holy Spirit"!
by Bubblegum Apotheosis inthe study edition of the watchtower says the elders are appointed by jehovah's holy spirit.
it's confounding the society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.
i have racked my brain, wondering how many brothers and sisters actually believe this, fall hook and sinker.
-
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't believe I ever used the expression, "slave's domestics," but I did use the expression "slave's 'domestics'" in the following:
(@djeggnog:)
... it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the slave's "domestics" as well as over the rest of the Christian household to make appointments of the local body of elders, which scripturally-qualified men, who serve as "shepherds and teachers," are as "gifts" given by Jesus, men to whom Christians in the local congregation are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
I believe I did this once or twice, but in those instances, I am referring to the slave's fellow slaves or "domestics."
@pharmer wrote:
Let's make this as easy as possible to clarify your original statement, otherwise it seems I'll just have to keep asking you to clarify each subsequent answer you give. This should be quite simple and I would appreciate your patience.
I've tried to get you to just simply fill in the blank, leaving all other words the same, just simply fill in the blank with the appropriate possessive noun. I'll even make it multiple choice. Simply pick the appropriate answer and, if you would like, follow it with an explanation if you feel it is necessary.
A "multiple choice" now, @pharmer? You don't need a clarification; what you need is a puppy. I'm going to humor you here, but I'm done humoring you, so after this post, if you're still stuck, you're going to have to ask someone else to help you.
Snippet #1 is the statement you constructed:
[1] ...it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the ___???___'s "domestics"...
Snippet #2 is taken from my (earlier) statement:
[2] ... it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the slave's "domestics"....
This is the multiple choice you provided:
The following is/are the appropriate possessive noun(s):
A) Slave's
B) Master's
C) Both A and B
D) None of the above
I think your multiple choice is inane, but just compare #1 with #2 and you should be able to figure out the word in #2 you should use to "fill in the blank" in #1. Hint: It might be beneficial to see if you can get an sixth grader (an 11-year-old) to help you with this because absolutely no one would consider either "Both A and B" or "None of the above" to be possessive nouns.
@DesirousOfChange:
djeggnogg: A legend in his own mind!
Pleeeeeeeease DO NOT FEED the trolls!
Thanks, but I just love trolls! I enjoy rubbing the heads of these furry little creatures, giving them attention. I know it's just plain silly to be humoring them, but these creatures are all over the internet, and even if you don't humor them, they always come back, and, oh, did I mention that they're such furry little creatures and funny? This one thinks possessive pronouns like "his" are possessive nouns.
@djeggnog
-
86
More "Elders" Doubt They Are Appointed By The "Holy Spirit"!
by Bubblegum Apotheosis inthe study edition of the watchtower says the elders are appointed by jehovah's holy spirit.
it's confounding the society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.
i have racked my brain, wondering how many brothers and sisters actually believe this, fall hook and sinker.
-
-
djeggnog
@sabastious:
That woman had courage, something I think you believe you have, yet possess the opposite. You are free to reply, but I wouldn't spend a great deal of time on it.
Perhaps I am lacking in courage, so I won't reply.
@djeggnog wrote:
The "slave" or "steward" is in charge of or has been appointed over his fellow "domestics." I'm now going to change one word and say exactly the same thing: The "slave" or "steward" is in charge of or has been appointed over his fellow "slaves."
@pharmer wrote:
You seem to be addressing the green highlighted area, whereas I'm asking for clarification on the 'possessive [pronoun]' instead. On the original, it is the yellow highlighted area. In this latest version of yours, it is the "his" that needs to be identified (his domestics...whose domestics?) Who is the "his" to which the domestics belong?
In both instances, the possessive pronoun "his" as indicated in yellow refers to the slave's fellow slaves, to the slave's fellow domestics, where "slaves" is a synonym for domestics." In a law office, excluding the senior partner that owns the firm and the associate attorneys, there is the staff, which consists of the legal secretaries, law clerks, paralegals, personal assistants, file clerks, word processors, accountants, a messenger and a couple of receptionists, as well as an office manager that handles the day to day affairs of the law firm, including accounts receivable and accounts payable. Everyone has a role, but they are all of them employees of the senior partner ("his domestics"), individually, but they are the staff ("the slave"), collectively.
It might be said that the office manager is a slave or a domestic, no more, no less, than is the staff, who are also fellow slaves or fellow domestics, but your question is, to whom do these domestics belong in view of the fact that Matthew 24:45 says, "whom his master appointed over his domestics? My answer: The domestics individually belong to the master as does the slave collectively.
Yet you admit that the "domestics" belong to the Master (Jesus), so why do you use the possessive noun "slave's" instead of "master's"? Is this an error or is it intentional? To me, that sounds like you are contradicting yourself; on one hand you say "slave's domestics", on the other you say the domestics belong to the master ("master's domestics").
I don't believe I ever used the expression, "slave's domestics," but I did use the expression "slave's 'domestics'" in the following:
(@djeggnog:)
... it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the slave's "domestics" as well as over the rest of the Christian household to make appointments of the local body of elders, which scripturally-qualified men, who serve as "shepherds and teachers," are as "gifts" given by Jesus, men to whom Christians in the local congregation are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
I believe I did this once or twice, but in those instances, I am referring to the slave's fellow slaves or "domestics."
@djeggnog
-
86
More "Elders" Doubt They Are Appointed By The "Holy Spirit"!
by Bubblegum Apotheosis inthe study edition of the watchtower says the elders are appointed by jehovah's holy spirit.
it's confounding the society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.
i have racked my brain, wondering how many brothers and sisters actually believe this, fall hook and sinker.
-
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
Elders are duly appointed to serve in the local congregation by means of holy spirit, and the scriptural proof of this can be found by reading 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13, for it is only by examining the things we read in the Bible as to the qualifications that elders must meet that we can prove to ourselves that the holy spirit itself has appointed such men as overseers in the congregation, for it is through the Scriptures that the holy spirit speaks.
@sabastious wrote:
Dear Staff God (I haven't figured your real name yet),
You are a very dark liar, but you know that. I used to find you amusing, but now I realize that you serve a force that I cannot laugh at anymore.
After reading your post, I'm left feeling rather perspicacious. I'm thinking of how Jesus, when approached by a Phoenician woman about healing her daughter, who she had described to him as being "badly demonized," we read that she addresses Jesus with the words, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David," thus acknowledging Jesus' messiahship. Now Jesus had previously travelled through Tyre and Sidon, and had healed many of the people there of the diseases they bore, but these were pagans and not Jews, and remember Jesus had taught his disciples to "not go off into the road of the nations," not enter into a Samaritan city," but that they should "go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5, 6)
So what does Jesus do? The text at Matthew 15:21-28, says this about Jesus: "But he did not say a word in answer to her." It wasn't that Jesus didn't want to speak to her, but he has to choose his words carefully because his disciples were there with him, and so he decided to think about what he would say in reply to the women, to consider the effect that his words would have on this woman, on his disciples and on everyone else that was present.
So after thinking about the situation for a moment, Jesus knew that he would explain to his disciples his reasoning later, but the first thing he need to do was reinforce in the hearing of this disciples what he had told them their focus should be, so he said to the woman: "I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
This is what I must do now, @sabastious, so all of this is just to tell you I'm tabling my response to your post. My first thoughts would make me come off to you and others as being a very mean person, and I'm really not mean at all. I'm firm and very often I come off as legalistic in my viewpoints although this is never my intention. I'll get back to you. I do realize I could have said "I acknowledge your post, but I'll have to get back to you," but I knew at once what I wanted to say, but thought better of it and decided instead to "push pause," as it were.
@djeggnog wrote:
At Matthew 24:45, we read, "whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time," we read in the parallel citation at Luke 12:42, "whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time." A steward is put in charge of the master's house and in administering his duties, gives direction to all of the master's slaves that live in the house, even though the steward is but a slave himself.
@pharmer wrote:
To make certain then, you use the term "slave" as a substitution for "master" in this sentence. To you, is its meaning the same? In other words, is this an intentional substitution on your part Djeggnog, or is it an error?
The "slave" or "steward" is in charge of or has been appointed over his fellow "domestics." I'm now going to change one word and say exactly the same thing: The "slave" or "steward" is in charge of or has been appointed over his fellow "slaves."
I apologize if you think you've cleared this up already.
Perhaps I missed (again). Three times a charm?
@djeggnog
-
86
More "Elders" Doubt They Are Appointed By The "Holy Spirit"!
by Bubblegum Apotheosis inthe study edition of the watchtower says the elders are appointed by jehovah's holy spirit.
it's confounding the society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.
i have racked my brain, wondering how many brothers and sisters actually believe this, fall hook and sinker.
-
-
djeggnog
@Bubblegum Apotheosis:
I had a falling out with my younger brother, our falling out was due to a "crisis of conscious", he [actively] gossiped to destroy elders that did not kiss his ass. He is the top dog, among the body, he engineered his "dream team" of elders, who bend over backwards to do his will. He is a bully, a liar, and a thief, has no problem watching X-Rated movies or staying drunk for long periods of time. [My brother's] wife is the perfect "Stepford" wife, she blindly obeys this fools rantings, she [believes] that she does not have to study magazines (or read anything the Society prints), read the Bible, blatantly practices "Corban" with no [conscience].... How is that for Holy Spirit Appointment?
@djeggnog wrote:
I fail to see how putting your own sister-in-law "on blast" (as the kids put it nowadays) in front of folks who, despite the anonymity, are really strangers to you doesn't speak more to the hatred you have for your brother and his wife than it does to the question of whether your brother was appointed by holy spirit. What you said here seems more a testimony of the contempt you have for members of your own family, and, quite frankly, I don't see how you can speak this way about your own relatives unless you truly have a hatred for them.
If your younger brother should die today, it would seem that you would attend his funeral, if you were to attend it at all, for appearances sake only, because what you have done here seems tantamount to your standing above the hole that had been dug into which the casket containing your brother has already been lowered, extracting your penis from your pants and then urinating all over it. Who does this??
@The Quiet One:
What kind of mind would think this illustration up?.. would be a better question, in my view.
An adult mind.
Have you read post guideline 3, by the way?
I did read Guidelines 3. I suppose I could have just used the word "desecrate" alone, instead of providing an description, but if you don't know what constitutes the making of "obscene or vulgar comments" to which Guideline 3 refers, I do, and but I don't believe what I wrote to have been offensive. There was nothing obscene, for there was nothing with a sexual tint contained in my comment, or vulgar, for there was nothing indecent contained in my comment.
You do not say what words in my comment offended you, but did my use of the words "penis" and "urinating" offend you, @The Quiet One? If so, then I can only apologize to you for any offense caused by your having innocent read my comment, but my intent was not to offend anyone. You innocently read @Bubblegum Apotheosis' description of his younger brother, too, but I would note that you said nothing and I'm especially sensitive to people "bad mouthing" others, especially when they regretfully should "bad mouth" members of their own family. My intent was to drive home to @Bubblegum Apotheosis what I thought as to the inappropriateness of his having written what things he wrote in "actively gossiping" on here about own brother on a forum like this one. It was unloving.
@djeggnog wrote:
... it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the slave's "domestics" as well as over the rest of the Christian household to make appointments of the local body of elders, which scripturally-qualified men, who serve as "shepherds and teachers," are as "gifts" given by Jesus, men to whom Christians in the local congregation are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
@pharmer wrote:
Is this really correct JW understanding, that the GB presides over the slave's domestics? Not over the Master's domestics? Would that not mean that the GB IS the master? [¶] To whom do these domestics belong? [¶] Djeggnog, my questions had to do with what correct JW understanding was; nothing to do with my personal understanding. Try to stay focused.
Ok.
Notice in the portion I quoted you, you essentially said, the slave received its appointment (by means of holy spirit) to preside over the slave's "domestics". Do you see the ambiguity?
Yes.
You used the term slave twice in one sentence without any mention of a master. As a result, you either have two different slaves (one slave being the master over the other slave) or you are referring to one slave that is also the master.
Yes, I see what you are saying, but I might point out that I had also stated the following:
Read Luke 12:42-44. [Jesus] called the slave a "steward" and [Jesus also] referred to the "domestics" as "his body of attendants." A steward is a house manager or administrator who is placed over servants. Yet, the steward is also a servant.
So I went on to explain thusly:
(@djeggnog:)
At Matthew 24:45, we read, "whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time," we read in the parallel citation at Luke 12:42, "whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time." A steward is put in charge of the master's house and in administering his duties, gives direction to all of the master's slaves that live in the house, even though the steward is but a slave himself.
So I see the ambiguity to which you refer and I do appreciate your pointing this out to me.
So really, you were using the term slave (twice in the same sentence) when what you really meant was that the one slave (of which the GB represents) has been appointed over the Master's "domestics". Is that accurate JW understanding generally speaking?
Yes.
I notice that discussions tend to be more ambiguous than is necessary, I'm trying to prevent more ambiguity.
Ok.
Just simply do this if you would: Clarify the sentence I quoted by filling in the blank with another name other than slave in a way that communicates what you were meaning to communicate. Use "master", "steward", whomever you meant that particular "slave" to be.
... it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the slave's [fellow "domestics" or fellow "slaves,"] as well as over ["all his belongings" or "things on the earth" (Ephesians 1:10, that is to say,] the rest of the Christian household to make appointments of the local body of elders, which scripturally-qualified men, who serve as "shepherds and teachers," are as "gifts" given by Jesus, men to whom Christians in the local congregation are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
@pharmer wrote:
Would that not mean that the GB IS the master?
@djeggnog wrote:
No, Jesus is the master, something that I would expect those who had formerly been Jehovah's Witnesses to already know. But now you know, @pharmer.
@pharmer wrote:
Oh, and I've never been a JW, and yet I already knew the correct answer as to what the Bible teaches. Don't worry, I'm not as easily offended by your condescending assumptions as some might be.
There's every reason to believe that you wouldn't have known this already. My assumption about you having formerly been one of Jehovah's Witnesses was wrong and I'm sorry about that.
@Bubblegum Apotheosis wrote:
The W.T.S. believes they have control over the [magnificent] Holy Spirit, and who is saved by Jehovah.
@djeggnog wrote:
This is not true.
@palmtree67 wrote:
How is this not true?
Jehovah's Witnesses cannot give absolution to anyone. Plus, the holy spirit doesn't save anyone.
Do they not disfellowship people, supposedly with the aid of the Holy Spirit and supposedly then the people are not saved?
This is a compound question, so I will have to break up my answer to it in three (3) parts:
(1) Yes, we do occasionally have to disfellowship brothers and sisters for wrongdoing, but they are still Christians; they are just put on a "time-out," so to speak, to give the individual time to think about the actions that led to their being disfellowshipped in the hope that when they should (hopefully) be reinstated, they will have a repentant posture or attitude, since Jesus is the judge and only he can determine whether or not someone has truly repented of this sins. (Jehovah is the real judge, but 'Jehovah has committed all the judging to Jesus' (John 5:22).)
(2) The holy spirit tells us at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 that "the 'wicked man' is to be removed from among us, but we don't understand this passage to mean that we cannot treat them with respect to which every human being is entitled. I realize that those that have been disfellowshipped are often treated as if they were real lepers in many of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses when they have, in effect, spiritual leprosy, many of them because they cannot shake that urge to smoke cigarettes or they are unable to control how much alcohol they drink and some others because they may have slept with the baby's father again in a moment of weakness and failed to confess their sin, but whatever the reason, there exists no scriptural authority whatsoever for those in good standing to be mistreating or beating their brothers and sisters up that happen to not be in good standing at the time. This is unloving.
(3) You are in a saved condition because you dedicated your life to Jehovah and symbolized that dedication by water baptism. There's no way to annul this. When someone is reinstated, he or she isn't re-baptized. The disfellowshipped person is simply someone that is not in good standing during the period of time that he or she is disfellowshipped. The disfellowshipped person can be reinstated at any time by the local elders that took the action. But I don't know where it was you heard or learned that one is not saved or has lost their salvation when disfellowshipped.
How is that not true?
Because no one is saved until one has endured to the end, but Jesus know who belongs to him. If anyone doesn't have Christ's spirit, then "this one does not belong to him." (Matthew 24:13; Romans 8:9)
@djeggnog
-
86
More "Elders" Doubt They Are Appointed By The "Holy Spirit"!
by Bubblegum Apotheosis inthe study edition of the watchtower says the elders are appointed by jehovah's holy spirit.
it's confounding the society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.
i have racked my brain, wondering how many brothers and sisters actually believe this, fall hook and sinker.
-
-
djeggnog
@truthseeker1969:
if they were appointed by holy spirit then there would be no need for an appeals process in JD's "as an act of kindness".
Perhaps you weren't aware of this -- I wouldn't know one way or the other -- that the appeals process is only necessary because the elders that sit on a judicial committee aren't able to read anyone's heart nor is there anyone like the apostle Peter through whom the holy spirit speaks (Acts 5:3, 4) on whom the elders can rely to ensure that all of their decisions are just. If the elders had such a person ion their midst, then there would be no need for appeals, but none of that has anything at all to do with whether or not the elders were appointed by holy spirit.
All such appointments are made based on an examination of the spiritual qualifications that someone that the individual must have to receive such an appointment. As I pointed out in my initial response to @Bubblegum Apotheosis' post, the spiritual qualifications that such appointees must have are spelled out by the apostle Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of God's holy spirit. This means that when such appointments, based on what things Paul wrote in the Bible, are made in God's organization, we cannot rightly hold Paul responsible for having made any of the appointments of those that have served or are currently serving as elders, no, for all appointments are made by what the holy spirit said by Paul in when we read and are guided by the words penned under inspiration of the holy spirit to consider at 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13.
@Bungi Bill:
All you have just proven is that it possible to use several hundred words:
- when several dozen would have sufficed!
If this was Twitter, you might be making a valid argument here, but if you comprehend "several hundred words," then how would you possibly get the sense of what I wrote in response to @Bubblegum Apotheosis' post were I to have attempt to limit what I said to 140 characters?
@Bubblegum Apotheosis:
I read your post and would like some time to prepare some Bible based remarks, with my fifty years of experience in the Organization, and with dealings will all claims that, Jehovah has used his spirit to appoint us. I greatly appreciate your view and please allow me some time to respond to your post, Thank you for taking the time to share your viewpoint, all sincere viewpoints are appreciated by me.
Ok.
One other area deserves consideration, that Jehovah's Holy Spirit is able to be [bestowed] upon men and women who have never had contact with the Watchtower Organization.
This is not true.
In addition to the apostles Peter and Paul, who were martyred for their work in connection with God's kingdom, there was Papias of Hierapolis, a bishop, who wrote "Exposition of the Lord's Oracles," said today to have been one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and who was martyred in 163 AD, held beliefs similar to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses today. It was holy spirit that convinced Papias, based on his reading of the Bible, to believe in the millennial reign of Christ. As Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 12:3: "Nobody can say: "Jesus is Lord!" except by holy spirit."
An early Reformer, Jan Hus, who was strongly influenced by John Wycliffe, the man that had produced the very first Bible translation rendered in the English language, and Hus preached against the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Moved as he was by what things he read in the Bible, the holy spirit compelled Hus to stress the importance of the people being able to reading the Bible for themselves, which brought the wrath of the RCC hierarchy upon him, so that in 1403, the RCC ordered him to stop preaching the antipapal ideas of Wycliffe, whose books they had also publicly burned.
Ignoring the RCC's order, Hus went on to write some of the most stinging indictments against the practices of the Church, including the sale of indulgences, which led to his being tried at the Council of Constance, where he was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated by the RCC seven years later in 1410. However, Hus’ refusal to recant his beliefs led to his martyrdom, for five years later, in 1415, the same council ordered that Hus be burned at the stake, and this same council ordered that the bones of Wycliffe be excavated and burned, although Wycliffe had been dead for more than 30 years.
Michael Servetus of Spain, was martyred by his being burned to death in 1553 because of his rejection of the RCC's and John Calvin's view of Jesus Christ being part of a Trinity, for anyone in those days that had been moved by holy spirit to dissent from belief in the Trinity was considered a heretic and thought to be condemned.
Charles Russell (1852-1916) had once been associated with Congregational Church; Jonas Wendell (1815-1873) had been associated with the Second Adventist Church; Nelson H. Barbour (1824-1906) had been associated with the Millerites Adventists; George Stetson (1814-1879) had been associated with the Advent Christian Church; Henry Grew (1781-1862) had been associated with the Orthodox Church; and George Storrs (1796-1879) had been associated with the Methodist Church. All of these men were students of God's word and men upon whom God's holy spirit operated, but it was because of the contact that all of these men had with Pastor Russell that he came to acquire the spiritual insight that was required to restore true worship and to spread the message about God's kingdom throughout the earth.
Everyone JW [sic] has heard indirectly that, you have to be a "JW from the Watchtowers" worldview, so if the big "A" were to come today, for years I have heard "Jehovah would judge all of Iran, Afghanistan, China, Russia, Albany and a plethora of other countries, where the "Good News" has not been preached.
As far as the countries of China, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia, this just isn't true. As far as the country of Albania is concerned, some two years after the fall of the Berlin wall on November 9, 1989, the 24-year ban on religious activities in this nation was lifted in 1991. I might add that we are in Pakistan as well. We even have publishers in Saudi Arabia even though we no longer publish reports about this or any other nation where our work may currently be under ban. If you should no longer be involved in helping us complete the work that all Christians are obliged to do, then what difference would it make what Jehovah's Witnesses might be doing anywhere in the world? The point I would make here though is that whoever it was that suggested to you that the good news wasn't being preached in these countries was mistaken.
The W.T.S. believes they have control over the [magnificent] Holy Spirit, and who is saved by Jehovah.
This is not true.
The Bible is very clear, that Jehovah will save, [anoint] men and women, who are not [affiliated] with the Watchtower.
This is also not true. First of all, Jesus is responsible for mankind's salvation, for just as Jesus stated at John 5:26, God has granted to Jesus "to have life in himself," so Jehovah isn't involved in anyone's salvation at all. Secondly, there is no one that has received an anointing or is yet anointed by holy spirit that would not be affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses.
I digress, but I wanted to add this to our discussion, that Jehovah has people in every country, he has never left his name unrepresented (Paul speaks of men whose conscience bear witness to their actions, and implicate or [exonerate] them, through their God given sense of right or wrong, since [Adam)].
You seem to be alluding to our moral nature, which is a law about which Paul wrote at Romans 2:14, 15, with reference to the human conscience that gives to us a sense of fairness, a sense of right and wrong. The conscience is the God-given moral sense that was given to all mankind, which has nothing at all to do with Jehovah's name, and our "perceptive powers" do "bear witness ... in holy spirit" if our consciences have been "trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Romans 9:1; Hebrews 5:14)
Egg cut and pasted his form letter response on this issue.
I don't have any "form letter." I write this way because I do not wish to make it easy for my words to be taken out of context, so I'm verbose when I write, whereas I'm brief when I don't learn anything when I'm speaking, but learn much by listening.
We are told to watch the conduct of those taking the lead, and to run, if they are acting wickedly. The Society tells us not to judge the elders or the GB, only to constantly judge our own works.
That is not true, for all Christians are required to "contemplate how [the] conduct of the elders turns out" and that the only thing that Christians should "imitate [is] their faith" and nothing more than this. (Hebrews 13:7)
@curiousconfused:
3. When the prospective elder displays [Fruitage] of the Spirit, then it can be said that HS is working on him;
Every Christian ought to exhibit the fruitage of the spirit, but every prospective elder should manifest godly wisdom and give evidence of their being led by God's spirit would have their spiritual qualifications reviewed by the body of elders. (1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13; Titus 1:5-9)
make a review of their spiritual qualifications to serve as an elder. Like Christ Jesus, they should "with lowliness of mind" consider those in the congregation "as being superior to them. (Philippians 2:3-6)
@djeggnog wrote:
... it is by means of holy spirit that the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47), as represented by the Governing Body, received its appointment to preside over the slave's "domestics" as well as over the rest of the Christian household to make appointments of the local body of elders, which scripturally-qualified men, who serve as "shepherds and teachers," are as "gifts" given by Jesus, men to whom Christians in the local congregation are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
@pharmer wrote:
Is this really correct JW understanding, that the GB presides over the slave's domestics? Not over the Master's domestics?
Read Luke 12:42-44.) He called the slave a "steward" and referred to the "domestics" as "his body of attendants." A steward is a house manager or administrator who is placed over servants. Yet, the steward is also a servant.
At Matthew 24:45, we read, "whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time," we read in the parallel citation at Luke 12:42, "whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time." A steward is put in charge of the master's house and in administering his duties, gives direction to all of the master's slaves that live in the house, even though the steward is but a slave himself.
At Matthew 24:45, Jesus was really asking rhetorically, "What nation will discreetly replace fleshly Israel as God's servant and be responsible for feeding the master's domestics? This question was said with reference to the Israel of God, who had now become God's servant.
Would that not mean that the GB IS the master?
No, Jesus is the master, something that I would expect those who had formerly been Jehovah's Witnesses to already know. But now you know, @pharmer.
To whom do these domestics belong?
Let's reason this out: Jehovah is the Father, Jesus is his Son, the heir, and the domestics or body of attendants? Well, technically these domestics belong to both Jehovah and Jesus, but, in the Bible, the Son is referred to as their "master." In Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus indicates that it would be "after the tribulation" that the Son of man would come "with power and great glory," and the "day and hour" of their master's arrival wouldn't be something that his servant would know (verse 36), so since the "Son of man" is the Lord Jesus Christ, then the "master" of the domestics would also be the Lord Jesus Christ, thus the need for all of the domestics to "keep on the watch" and be "ready" for their master's arrival (verses 42-44), for the master comes on a day that none of his domestics expect and in an hour that they do not know (verses 50). Also, should there be any doubt, Colossians 3:24 points out that "the Master" is Christ and so the domestics belong to him.
@Bubblegum Apotheosis:
The critical thinking ability of JWN, is so sharp, when we all discuss these man made doctrines.
How so? I've seen evidence of a critical attitude and a lot of faultfinding and no evidence of "critical thinking ability" on here.
[My brother's] wife is the perfect "Stepford" wife, she blindly obeys this fools rantings, she [believes] that she does not have to study magazines (or read anything the Society prints), read the Bible, blatantly practices "Corban" with no [conscience].... How is that for Holy Spirit Appointment?
I fail to see how putting your own sister-in-law "on blast" (as the kids put it nowadays) in front of folks who, despite the anonymity, are really strangers to you doesn't speak more to the hatred you have for your brother and his wife than it does to the question of whether your brother was appointed by holy spirit. What you said here seems more a testimony of the contempt you have for members of your own family, and, quite frankly, I don't see how you can speak this way about your own relatives unless you truly have a hatred for them.
If your younger brother should die today, it would seem that you would attend his funeral, if you were to attend it at all, for appearances sake only, because what you have done here seems tantamount to your standing above the hole that had been dug into which the casket containing your brother has already been lowered, extracting your penis from your pants and then urinating all over it. Who does this??
This thread you started here is one about doctrine, a doctrine that you clearly don't understand, a doctrine about which the Bible speaks that you don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses understand either, and based on what things you know about your younger brother and about your sister-in-law, you have doubts as to how it is that this guy -- your brother -- could have possibly been appointed by holy spirit. Apparently you derive joy from deriding and throwing darts at your own family members in front of strangers, but what happened to the thread you started? Have you lost interest in it or was all of what you said in your opening post just a prelude to the dart-fest?
Based on your opening salvo --
The study edition of the Watchtower says the elders are appointed by Jehovah's Holy Spirit. It's confounding the Society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.... I can count twenty elders off hand, who do not agree with the Watchtower's claim on this matter.
-- I made a few comments to dispel this notion of yours that any of the elders doubt that their appointment were made by holy spirit, since it appeared to me that you were of the opinion that elders are selected by some visible manifestation of holy spirit as per those tongues that hovered above the heads of the 120 that had been gathered together in that room in Jerusalem on that Pentecost day when they became filled with holy spirit.
The Bible doesn't teach that elders are appointed in such a fashion, but that they are appointed based on whether they are spiritually qualified to do serve as such according to what the Bible says, or, to express this in another way, according to what the holy spirit says at 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13 and at Titus 1:5-9. I did expect you would respond to my post, but, as yet, you haven't done so. I suppose you will respond to it when you are done pushing this tangent of yours about most of the elders doubting holy spirit as being the source of their appointments.
@djeggnog
-
86
More "Elders" Doubt They Are Appointed By The "Holy Spirit"!
by Bubblegum Apotheosis inthe study edition of the watchtower says the elders are appointed by jehovah's holy spirit.
it's confounding the society does not realize that more and more elders, do not accept this claim.
i have racked my brain, wondering how many brothers and sisters actually believe this, fall hook and sinker.
-
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
The expression "spirit anointed Christians" is another often misunderstood phrase. "Spirit anointed" has to do with one's heavenly calling, with God's spirit having borne witness with the spirit of those who have been called and chosen by God and adopted by him as sons. (Romans 8:16) However, I myself am filled with holy spirit the same as are many other Jehovah's Witnesses (else it would not be possible for a Christian to grieve it!), but this expression -- being "filled with holy spirit" -- that some fail to comprehend doesn't imply nor does it mean that I have or anyone else has been zapped with a portion of God's holy spirit.
This expression simply means that I have been "empowered" by God's word, or energized by the same "power" that was given to Jesus' early disciples back in 33 AD, except that "power" was received supernaturally whereas this same "power" today is received through the things we read in the Bible.
@The Quiet One wrote:
So basically you are saying that true Christians today do not receive the holy spirit, they can only be directed by it through the words in the Bible?
No, what I have said here is that the true Christians today do receive God's holy spirit through their reading and studying of the Bible in applying the scriptural requirements that are applicable to Christians. I have also said:
Because Jehovah's Witnesses are led by holy spirit, only qualified men are appointed to serve as overseers based on the [standards] provided in God's word, so in this way they are appointed by holy spirit according to the scriptural requirements set forth at 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, and by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses through the recommendations made by spiritually "certified men ... full of spirit and wisdom." (Acts 6:3)
Many seem to be oblivious to the fact that Acts 15:28 doesn't just refer to what the holy spirit itself says, but also to what "we ourselves," as scripturally-qualified men appointed by holy spirit, "certified men ... full of spirit and wisdom," empowered to preside and "take care of God's congregation," might determine to be necessary safeguards for protecting the flock of God that has been entrusted to their care.
In the first century AD, holy spirit manifested itself in God's congregation by the gifts of the spirit, for we can read at 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 about the various operations of the spirit, such as speech of knowledge, so that those in the various congregations with this gift could miraculous quote from the Scriptures without there being any need on his part to have the appropriate Hebrew scroll containing the scripture in front of them, thus making it unnecessary to appoint someone as "a scroll servant" -- a toter of the scrolls, as it were -- for in the absence of this spiritual gift, someone would have had to carry the scrolls about from meeting to meeting.
There was the gift of faith, which was a gift that went beyond that which one needed to become a Christian, for those having this gift had the conviction that made his faith unshakeable, which served to energize the congregations of God. To the various congregations, there was given many other gifts as well (speech of wisdom, healings, powerful works, prophesying, discernment of inspired utterances, the ability to speak in different tongues and the ability to interpret these tongues).
Eventually though, the need for these gifts waned, for Paul himself wrote 14 letters under the inspiration of holy spirit "with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work," for the upbuilding of the congregations (Ephesians 4:12), and these same letters, which became a part of the Bible, are among the 66 books that make up the Bible canon on which Jehovah's Witnesses rely in order to accomplish our ministry today. What's important to note here is that in the first century AD, the congregations didn't carry Bibles with them in their ministry, so instead of saying, "the Bible says" as we do today, they would say, "the holy spirit said."
As was mentioned in my previous message, when Paul quoted from Jeremiah 31:33, 34, he didn't introduce this Bible passage at Hebrews 10:15-18 by saying, "the Bible said," but what he said was "the holy spirit ... has said: "'This is the covenant that I shall covenant toward them after those days...."'" Note that Paul points out that it is in this way that "the holy spirit bears witness to us," and so it is in this way when we read the Bible that the holy spirit speaks to us today.
As another example, we read at Hebrews 3:7-11, where Paul quotes from Psalm 95:7-11, his saying, not "For this reason, the Bible says at Psalm 95:7-11, 'Today if you people listen to his own voice...," but instead Paul says "For this reason, just as the holy spirit says: "Today if you people listen to his own voice...." Again, we can see how it is when we quote something from the Bible that it is in this way that "the holy spirit says" this or that, and so it is in this way that the holy spirit speaks to us today whenever we read the Bible or whenever we hear a passage from the Bible being read by someone else.
Now I mentioned earlier how Acts 15:28 doesn't just refer to what the holy spirit itself says, but also to what "we ourselves" say as scripturally-qualified men appointed by holy spirit, since the central body of elders and the local body of elders are the ones empowered by God's spirit to preside over God's congregation. This means that the elders must also make decisions based on their understanding of what the holy spirit says to the congregations through their reading of the Bible, which is why in the congregations of God you will find certain things are not approved for Christians in certain congregations that may be approved in other congregations, such as sporting a beard.
Smoking is disapproved in all of the congregations of God today and playing the state lottery or buying lottery tickets is also frowned upon, just as having social contact with disfellowshipped persons is someone not approved in the congregations of God today. While these things are not laws, per se, that are specifically commanded in God's word -- IOW, while you cannot point to a single scripture that explicitly says, "Christians should not smoke" -- "we ourselves" may discern in the Bible that when the holy spirit says to Christians at 2 Corinthians 7:1, that in order to perfect holiness in God's fear we must "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit," that what this means is that "Christians should not smoke."
There is single scripture that explicitly says, "Christians should not play the state lottery" -- "we ourselves" may discern in the Bible that where the holy spirit says at Isaiah 65:11, that those "leaving Jehovah" are those that are "forgetting my holy mountain" (how?) by "setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck," that playing the lottery would be gambling in its appeal to greed (why?) because winning becomes an idol. There when the holy spirit says to Christians at 1 Corinthians 10:14 to "flee from idolatry," "we ourselves" discern from the principle established at Isaiah 65:11 that "Christians should not gamble," for playing the lottery would be tantamount to apostasy.
And that being ''filled with the spirit'' actually means to be 'moved to action through what the spirit has said' ?
Yes.
@djeggnog
