Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[nPeace]

Then at best you are ignorant. Let's forget your rather bogus word salad definition of "design". That definition was so vague as to be worthless and only confirms my claims. Tell us how you would define design in regards to life? It fails if it is circular in nature.

Here is a reasonable test that your definition must be able to pass. How would you tell if an observed trait or condition was "designed" or if it arose naturally?

First of all, the definition is not mine.
Secondly do you even know what design is?
Thirdly I am quite sure that you don't even know what ignorant means, because you use it the same way a two year old would.

 

[nPeace]

Then you are claiming that what creationists do is not science. That is if you understood your link.

It seems to me you do not know the definition of evidence. There are many fields for gathering and analyzing evidence.
Science is limited in it's scope.
How many times was this explained to you. Why don't you understand it yet?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It seems to me you do not know the definition of evidence. There are many fields for gathering and analyzing evidence.

The theory of Evolution draws evidence from practically every field of science there is.

Science is limited in it's scope.

Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?

 

[Woberts]

If you don't want to be a JW anymore then there's the door.....if people want to make a fuss, then dissenters are not welcome because they only cause division in the congregation. There is enough division in the world and we value our unity and peace. We respect our teachers. Disrespect and pride kills unity and joy, both of which we enjoy in our ranks. There are ways to ask questions that don't involve either pride or disrespect.

The only ones kicked out are those who want to stay and cause contention and division....and quite frankly, we don't need them.

Do you not see a problem with this? Anyone attempting to bring the very significant problems to light is immediately cast out.

 

[Woberts]

Is there a methodology you can recommed which doesn't have any kind of limits?

I've got one! Pulling out a bible and saying that its myths actually happened!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First of all, the definition is not mine.
Secondly do you even know what design is?
Thirdly I am quite sure that you don't even know what ignorant means, because you use it the same way a two year old would.

I'm interested in your answer to their question, though, so if you don't mind I ask a slightly different version of the same question.

Let us say that you are presented with two objects, and I tell you one object is designed and the other is not. You have no idea of the origin or function of either object. What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?

 

[nPeace]

If someone found the body of Colonel Mustard in the library with machine parts shoved down his throat, and you were the last person to see him alive....would the police suspect you to be the murderer? After all, you had had words with Col. Mustard just the day before, sending him a very threatening email and now the police are knocking on your door (Oh, if only it was Jehovah's Witnesses!) You are arrested on suspicion of murder and you know that you are not guilty (as if a nice fellow like you could do such a thing) But circumstantial evidence looks damning. What do you do to prove your innocence? The educated guesses of the detectives are making you look guiltier by the minute!

Don't you wish that the real murderer would show up and confess so that you could go home to a nice tasty haggis for dinner with the missus?

Well, that is what we hope will happen with evolution......the real Creator will show up and confess to designing the whole thing, putting this baby to bed once and for all. The Bible says he will.
The scientists will look really stupid and will be forced to stop whining about no evidence for an Intelligent Designer....and we believers can all get on with the life we were supposed to live in the first place....rewarded for our patience and long suffering. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

What is evolution offering?



If someone is going to kill God, they better have more conclusive evidence than what has been presented so far. It appears to me that humans are easy to talk into anything if you keep repeating something and acting like you can prove what you say, when you really can't. Suggestions and educated guesses are then mistaken for facts.
.
Micro is testable.....macro is not. It is backed up by conveniently inconclusive evidence that requires just the right interpretation to imply that it can all happen outside of what can be proven. I don't buy it. Others can if they wish....

Worst yet Deeje, they find fingerprints on the door handle, a drop or two of blood, and forensic evidence shows DNA is a match.
So the conclusion - Hedidit. End of story. Case closed.

You know what I find most interesting, an eyewitness steps forward, and says, "No, he didn't do it. I saw who did it."
Their response - "Get lost creep. We've got our man. You can sell your fairytale story in the gossip column."

Wait a minute... direct evidence and they dismiss it, and say proudly, "We know those testimonies are not reliable."
So you are right, no amount of evidence will cause them to. The one who did it has to step forward... and show who done it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Worst yet Deeje, they find fingerprints on the door handle, a drop or two of blood, and forensic evidence shows DNA is a match.
So the conclusion - Hedidit. End of story. Case closed.

You know what I find most interesting, an eyewitness steps forward, and says, "No, he didn't do it. I saw who did it."
Their response - "Get lost creep. We've got our man. You can sell your fairytale story in the gossip column."

Wait a minute... direct evidence and they dismiss it, and say proudly, "We know those testimonies are not reliable."
So you are right, no amount of evidence will cause them to. The one who did it has to step forward... and show who done it.

This analogy doesn't really work. For example, let's say that, along with the one eyewitness, several others come forward - each of them stating that they saw a different person commit the crime in a different way. Who would you trust in that scenario?

And, in this case, literally all possible avenues of evidence all unanimously point towards evolution being the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution
In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution
In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

Selectively quoting scientific sources which don't actually support your conclusions is dishonest. Here is the conclusion of the article:

"When a retrovirus reproduces, identical copies of LTR sequences are created on either side of the retroviral element; the divergence of LTR sequences within a species can be used to estimate the age of an initial infection. Eichler and colleagues estimate that gorillas and chimps were infected about 3-4 million years ago, and baboon and macaque about 1.5 million years ago. The disconnect between the evolutionary history of the retrovirus and the primates, the authors conclude, could be explained if the Old World monkeys were infected by "several diverged viruses" while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source.

As for how this retroviral infection bypassed orangutans and humans, the authors offer a number of possible scenarios but dismiss geographic isolation: even though Asian and African apes were mostly isolated during the Miocene era (spanning 24 to 5 million years ago), humans and African apes did overlap. It could be that African apes evolved a susceptibility to infection, for example, or that humans and Asian apes evolved resistance. A better understanding of the evolutionary history and population genetics of great apes will help identify the most likely scenarios. And knowing how these retroviral elements infiltrated some apes while sparing others could provide valuable insights into the process of evolution itself."

Nowhere in this article does it suggest ERV's aren't an indicator of common lineage, and your dismissal of them as evidence doesn't change the simple, mathematical impossibility of humans and chimps sharing dozens of ERV's without common ancestry.

 

[tas8831]

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution
In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

Given your amazing science background and knowledge of genetics, is it your learned opinion that PTERV1 is the only kind of ERV there is?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution
In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

Please note the text you quoted indicates that they found ONE, that does not occur in humans. ONE. This is out of dozens of others that do occur in both the targeted apes and humans, and again, in the same specific locations, and the same viruses.

And the one they found is a scenario that one might certainly expect once the lineage that includes humans had branched off on its own. If humans were already immune to the virus PTERV1 by the time it was making its way through other ape populations, this could be one explanation. Or, alternatively, if the other apes besides humans during that span of infection had developed a susceptibility, this could also explain it. Regardless, there are plenty of possible, realistic scenarios that could see something like this happening. I believe I read the exact article you're referencing recently, and if so, it made some of these same points I believe.

You can't just choose ONE virus that doesn't manifest as a match between these species, and conclude that it eradicates the evidence of dozens of others that ARE all matches. That's essentially what you're trying to say, and it reeks of desperation.

 

[tas8831]

Worst yet Deeje, they find fingerprints on the door handle, a drop or two of blood, and forensic evidence shows DNA is a match.
So the conclusion - Hedidit. End of story. Case closed.

Sounds good so far.

You know what I find most interesting, an eyewitness steps forward, and says, "No, he didn't do it. I saw who did it."
Their response - "Get lost creep. We've got our man. You can sell your fairytale story in the gossip column."

And with good reason - eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases

"To protect the public from wrongful convictions based on an eyewitness misidentification, it is important that both law enforcement and the courts take notice of recent developments on the issue in the social sciences. The courts must be aware of the malleable nature of human memory and the lineup practices used by law enforcement in the jurisdiction. Although they are downstream of the primary problem, the courts have the power and duty to properly instruct jurors, the ability to refuse to admit evidence that does not meet a fundamental level of trustworthiness, and the ability to work with justice system partners to improve the criminal justice system."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8d0625d82190

"Over the past quarter-century, more than 1,400 people convicted of serious crimes have been proved innocent, according to the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations. But why were these people wrongly convicted? In a great many cases, one significant factor was faulty eyewitness identifications."

Wait a minute... direct evidence and they dismiss it, and say proudly, "We know those testimonies are not reliable."

If the testimony is contrary to more empirical sources of evidence, why not?

So you are right, no amount of evidence will cause them to.

How ironic! In your little 'example', YOU are dismissing 2 kinds of empirical evidence in favor of someone's testimony! Yet we do not know if the witness actually saw anything, if the witness was biased, etc.

Typical.

 

[tas8831]

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

Which anti-evolution site did you copy-paste that from, out of curiosity?

 

[tas8831]

It seems to me you do not know the definition of evidence.

Then please define it for us all.

There are many fields for gathering and analyzing evidence.

Examples, please. And maybe a note on their success rates?

Science is limited in it's scope.

Most things are. Science cannot address that for which no evidence exists,this is true. But what about the analysis of events for which there should be evidence, but there isn't? Say, a world-wide flood? Say, contemporary corroboration of the sky going black, earthquakes, and the dead rising from their graves when Jesus died?

How many times was this explained to you. Why don't you understand it yet?

Self-reflection is not that hard.

 

[nPeace]

I wouldn't mind hearing your take on it, sure. Do you accept that Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.? If yes, what direct evidence do you think exists for that event?

There is none.
Do you know that mountains erupt? Yes or no.
Say you did not know, How would you find out?
Let us say that you never saw mountains erupt, and it takes millions of years. Would you mind demonstrating that you would not have to interpret, and make suppositions, in order to draw conclusions.
Can you say that your conclusions are 100% correct?

Here is one.
You never saw a plane in your life.
Out of the blue, you saw one.
How would you go about figuring out how it came to be?

What?
If there is evidence there is no need for supposition. Do you not get that?

No I don't. Explain it to me please.

A scientific hypothesis is generally stated as something along these lines - 'If X is true, then we should expect to find Y in conditions A, B and C, ' or 'I have repeatedly observed X under Y conditions, so I predict that Y causes X,' something like that.
You make some observations, perform some experiments, etc., and you in fact find that in conditions A, B and C, you find Y.
Hypothesis supported (correct).

Until it loses support with further research that turns that support on its head. Then what? We continue our research. That's science, right?

Science knowledge is subject to change in the light of new evidence or new interpretation of existing evidence.

Where is the supposition?

May I ask, are you a scientist? Why are you asking me this?

A supported (correct) hypothesis is in and of itself not 'an argument.' It may be used AS evidence in an argument for something else, but a 'proven' hypothesis is just that.

If a hypothesis is correct, why does it need to change, and would it being used as evidence, not mean that, ideas are being use as evidence - even though these ideas are really only being supported by other ideas?
Thank you for honestly putting proven in inverted commas.

You had written:
"The most that can be said, if one is honest, is that the evidence for the hypothesis can be a strong argument for those who present it - which can be said for many arguments... but it isn't "a done deal". It's not fact - although evolutionist want it to be."

The evidence supporting the hypothesis is also not an 'argument.' It is evidence.

My hypothesis A states that when X, we should see Y. Here is X, look - there is Y.

What is 'the argument'?

See above.

The point I made was that you were taking the content of a press release, in which the author of the press release used the sort of sensationalist language that a layman would use, as 'evidence' that pelvic bones in whales have a function and thus are not vestigial.

The issue is that why should whales have pelvic bones at all if they were 'created' to live in the oceans? Evolution explains why they have these bones. Creationism makes farcical assertions.

Did the whale need these bones on land, or in the ocean?
I thought it was the ocean, therefore, I don't see how creation is ruled out.
Dolphins have them also, don't they?

Why do the couple creationists you linked to trump the multitude that see things realistically?

Did you not read any of my links? There were good explanations showing how Tomkins was being dishonest (or incompetent).

If that is what you are looking for, then why did you not indicate as much instead of just posting links and implying that your sources were the bearers of the REAL truth?

Sorry about that. I plan on doing things a bit differently, but there were two links, and I don't think you commented on the second.

And I should also note, that I did not, sadly or otherwise, 'just say' that anyone was lying, I wrote, for example:

"Tomkins' claims are routinely debunked by scientists lacking the drive to prop up a religious belief."

Did you interpret that as calling Tomkins a liar?

I didn't say what I said to you. The person I was referring to, knows whom I meant. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

I have referred to some as having lied on here, for I know of no other way to describe a person that, just days after having been given evidence for evolution, turns around and says yet again that there is none.

I see evidence, as information gathered primarily through the senses, which can lead one to believe something.
So while you may think, or believe that you have evidence for evolution, by examining that information, another person may look at that same information and say that evidence does not support evolution - to them it supports something entirely different.
So why do you think you are right in calling the person a liar? Would the person not be right to return that "compliment"?

Parasites are generally eukaryotic organisms, not bacteria.

Yes, thank you. I was asking how these parasites that depends on a host, survived.

 

[nPeace]

Facts and evidence

Facts and evidence that lead where? To other conclusions perhaps.

That is untrue. My life was saved by a blood transfusion in 2001.

How do you know it was the blood transfusion that saved your life, may I ask?
For example,
Some have been given a blood transfusion and died.
Some have refused a blood transfusion ad lived.

And I'm a godless heathen unworthy of saving.

Come on. No one is saying that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I see evidence, as information gathered primarily through the senses, which can lead one to believe something.
So while you may think, or believe that you have evidence for evolution, by examining that information, another person may look at that same information and say that evidence does not support evolution - to them it supports something entirely different.
So why do you think you are right in calling the person a liar? Would the person not be right to return that "compliment"?

Do you believe that if two people observe the same evidence and come to different conclusions that both a equally likely to be correct? What do you call the methodology we use to determine which interpretation of the evidence is more likely to be correct?

Or are they both somehow correct?

 

[nPeace]

And dead proof that they do:

Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds
Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds | CBC News

Isn't that contradicting... for you, I mean?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do you know it was the blood transfusion that saved your life, may I ask?
For example,
Some have been given a blood transfusion and died.
Some have refused a blood transfusion ad lived.

Some have been shot in the head and died.
Some have been shot in the head and survived.
Some have never been shot in the head and died.

If you can accept the above facts and yet still understand how being shot in the head can and does regularly lead to death, you should be aware of how the exact same medical expertise goes into determining the importance of blood transfusions and how vital they can be in saving lives.