Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[ecco]

This is a thread about evolution.....

Uh, no. It's a thread about Putting the JW stand on evolution in perspective.

The JW stand on evolution is: IT NEVER HAPPENED - I KNOW BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.

 

[ecco]

NOMA
Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read authors of popular science of his generation.
......
Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium...
......
The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record.
......
He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "non-overlapping magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap.
......
Raised in a secular Jewish home, Gould did not formally practice religion and preferred to be called an agnostic. When asked directly if he was an agnostic in Skeptic magazine, he responded:
If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.
......
The "Darwin Wars"
Gould received many accolades for his scholarly work and popular expositions of natural history, but a number of biologists felt his public presentations were out of step with mainstream evolutionary thinking. The public debates between Gould's supporters and detractors have been so quarrelsome that they have been dubbed "The Darwin Wars" by several commentators.
......
One reason for criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, and argued for the importance of mechanisms other than natural selection, mechanisms which he believed had been ignored by many professional evolutionists.
......
The conflicts between Richard Dawkins and Gould were popularized by philosopher Kim Sterelny in his 2001 book Dawkins vs. Gould. Sterelny documents their disagreements over theoretical issues, including the prominence of gene selection in evolution. Dawkins argues that natural selection is best understood as competition among genes (or replicators), while Gould advocated multi-level selection, which includes selection amongst genes, nucleic acid sequences, cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades.
Dawkins accused Gould of deliberately underplaying the differences between rapid gradualism and macromutation in his published accounts of punctuated equilibrium. He also devoted entire chapters to critiquing Gould's account of evolution in his books The Blind Watchmaker and Unweaving the Rainbow, as did Daniel Dennett in his 1995 book Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
.......
Non-overlapping magisteria
In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion." He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution." The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover "the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry." He suggests that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that NOMA is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."

This view has not been without criticism, however. For example, in his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that the division between religion and science is not so simple as Gould claims, as few religions exist without claiming the existence of miracles, which "by definition, violate the principles of science." Dawkins also opposes the idea that religion has anything meaningful to say about ethics and values, and therefore has no authority to claim a magisterium of its own. He goes on to say that he believes Gould is disingenuous in much of what he says in Rocks of Ages. Similarly, humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that Gould was wrong to posit that science has nothing to say about questions of ethics. In fact, Kurtz claims that science is a much better method than religion for determining moral principles.

Gould's separate magisteria
In a 1997 essay "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion.", from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani generis (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution", and describes the NOMA principle as "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values - subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve." "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

.... In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures":.....Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values. He went on to present "an outline of historical reasons for the existence of conflict, where none should exist;"

In a speech before the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Gould stressed the diplomatic reasons for adopting NOMA as well, stating that "the reason why we support that position is that it happens to be right, logically. But we should also be aware that it is very practical as well if we want to prevail." Gould argued that if indeed the polling data was correct - and that 80 to 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and such a belief is misunderstood to be at odds with evolution - then "we have to keep stressing that religion is a different matter, and science is not in any sense opposed to it," otherwise "we're not going to get very far." He did not, however, consider this diplomatic aspect to be paramount, writing in 1997: "NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance."

Creation and Evolution Quotes
Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, in “Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution” by Jonathan Sarfati, Published: 24 September 2008(GMT+10), available at Evolutionist: it's OK to deceive students to believe evolution - creation.com:
‘it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’ (Zivkovic, Bora (aka “Coturnix”), Why teaching evolution is dangerous, <scienceblogs.com> 25 August 2008).

‘You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. (emphasis added)’
......
Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in the case of Campbell’s school, and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.’
cont'...

WOW! A huge post. You don't need to continue to show you know how to cut and paste. A five-year-old can cut and paste.

What we don't see from you is any original thought. Is that because you can't formulate your own thoughts and post them or is it because you don't have any?





Oh, BTW, do you think anyone bothers to read any of your cut and paste nonsense?

 

[tas8831]

Hoo, boy... Here we go - the 'expert' rants:

I have to smile because of all the accusations of inaccuracies supposedly posted by myself and other ID creationists, you say something like this.....its hilarious....and blatantly obvious that you have no idea what we believe. That was the response of a three year old.

Yes, your response was that of a 3 year old. My 'accusations' of inaccuracies posted by you and other creationists are backed up by references and explanations. Explanations and references that you have ADMITTED to being unable to understand at an appropriate level. Take this post - you are using Evolution 101 to 'support' your position despite the fact that you should know by now that that site is set up to explain concepts in a simplified format for people with little or no science background. You complain that you cannot understand actual scientific publications and need them dumbed-down, and then you use a dumbed-down site like Evolution 101 to wonder where the science is?

Again I ask - do you really think nobody notices this stuff?

You base your "belief" in evolution on interpretation of evidence that can be read several ways.

I presented you evidence and you could not interpret it at all, then dismissed it. Because Jehovah. And you have the ego to condescend to others. How Jesus-like.

So, INTERPRET this science:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.​

Your buddy nPeace gave it a try, but I caught him being silly and disingenuous.
Now, I know you think that scientists hide behind jargon (you've claimed this 62 times on this forum - I did a search. congrats!), but that is just because you cannot understand it. But if you cannot understand the science, how can you possibly think that you can assess it?

Of course the evolutionary scientists are going to interpret that evidence to fit into their obscure little evolution box.

And of course religious fanatics that have been brainwashed into rejecting anything that does not comport with their INTERPRETATION of translated ancient middle eastern tribal deity tales and who have no science education or knowledge will just dismiss it and claim scientists are hiding behind 'jargon'...

Look at this little gem......Whale Evolution....

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

"Oh look, we found an ear bone that makes that land dwelling, four legged furry creature, Pakicetus into a whale!"
Isn't that amazing!? All that from an ear bone that "strongly resembles" a whale's.

You cannot even be honest from one sentence to the next - how did you get:

"Isn't that amazing!? All that from an ear bone that "strongly resembles" a whale's."​

from this:

"However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall"​

Isn't that amazing!? The follower of Jehovah misrepresents just one sentence after her quote!
You are so used to disinforming, deceiving, and misrepresenting in order to justify your acceptance of your religion that you may not even be able to see how foolish and dishonest - and ignorant - you make yourself look.

"Seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals. . . . with their less extreme-looking relatives. " This is critical evidence???

SMH....

You are looking at a KIDDIE site, and then wondering why there is no deep scientific discussion??? And when there IS deep scientific discussion, you dismiss it as 'hiding behind jargon'!

NOBODY can possibly take you seriously or as an honest discussant. Because your posting history shows that you are not.


Here is some more adult stuff for educated and non-brainwashed people on the evolution of whales:

G.M. Thewissen, L.N. Cooper, J.C. George, and S. Bajpai. 2009. From land to water: The origin of whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Evolution: Education & Outreach 2:272-288.

Bajpai, S., and P.D. Gingerich. 1998. A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:15464-15468.

Barrick, R.E., A.G. Fischer, Y. Kolodny, B. Luz, and D. Bohaska. 1992. Cetacean bone oxygen isotopes as proxies for Miocene ocean compostion and glaciation. Palaios 7(5):521-531.

Thewissen, J.G.M., L.J. Roe, J.R. O'Neil, S.T. Hussain, A. Sahni, and S. Bajpai. 1996. Evolution of cetacean osmoregulation. Nature 381:379-380.

Yoshida, N., and N. Miyazaki. 1991. Oxygen isotope correlation of cetacean bone phosphate with environmental water. Journal of Geophysical Research 96(C1):815-820.​

You know where I got that?

The page YOU JUST LINKED TO AND QUOTED FROM.

How about you look at one of them and tell us all about how it is not science, using your obvious vast relevant background in geology, paleobiology, vertebrate paleontology, etc.

The one thing that stands out for me is the fact that there is nothing linking these creatures except science's imagination. Similarity does not necessarily mean relationship...

And misrepresentation does not mean that the sources you denigrate are actually wrong, just that you not well informed enough (or honest enough) to assess and address the actual evidence at an adult level.

We see design everywhere in nature and in the multitude of systems that interact to make humans and other living things function. For evolutionists, its all a monumental series of fortunate flukes that don't really stand up to reason or statistics, and they have no real evidence to confirm that macro-evolution is even possible.

You reject or ignore the evidence or are too ignorant to understand it, then you write these pompous proclamations to make yourself feel all special.
And all anyone that understands the material sees is more misrepresentation and dopey arguments from awe and ignorance.

Nice diagrams, but if there is no proof for the claims then you have as much "belief" in science as I have in the Creator.

More misrepresentation and distortion. So 'honest'. So 'Christian.'

 

[ecco]

Do you remember that show? Mankind was supposed to have had a base on our Moon, by then....we’re nowhere near that advanced yet!

There was another show, back in the ‘60’s (?), where the scene was set in the 1990’s, and hover cars were the common mode of transportation

Yep. Some stuff from TV shows hasn't come to be. Yet you are OK with BIible Predictions (Jesus' return) not coming true.

 

[ecco]

Yes, for 1,000’s of distinct species.....But each one appears in the record suddenly!

There can be only one explanation - GodDidIt.

 

[ecco]

Not so odd, when we understand what Genesis 3 tells us...that God’s rulership was challenged, and the issue of man ruling himself instead of God ruling mankind, was brought to the fore.

An omniscient, omnipotent god is challenged by a ball-of-mud-turned-into-human and the omniscient, omnipotent god concedes defeat!

And here we thought David vs Goliath was a big deal.

 

[Polymath257]

Allow me to show my ignorance here: There are two masses involved but there is no gravitational effect?

That's correct. The two masses determine where the center of mass will be. That isnt a gravitational effect. It is simply an effect of the distribution of masses.

The actual orbit of the moon, once we know the center of mass, is determined by the gravitational force, but the mass of the moon cancels out in the relevant equation.

Similarly, the way things fall (their acceleration, for example) in a gravitational well does not depend on the mass of the falling body.

 

[ecco]

That is just a small addition to what is presented in the video.

We were talking about the primary reasons cannabis was outlawed. You said it was Big Pharma. I said it was W. R. Hearst. You presented nothing to support your case. I did.

I didn't bother to watch much of your conspiracy theory video when it quickly became clear that it was off topic.

Interesting but not surprising that you dismiss them out of hand so readily. You don't think you can be fooled along with the best of them?
Let's wait and see who the "Nutcakes" are.....

Skeptics like me aren't the ones who have repeatedly accepted predictions about the end of times happening any-day-now. That's a peculiarity of the JW followers like you. You get fooled over and over and over and just say "Wait till next year".

These are my personal views BTW.....they have nothing to do with JW teachings, although I do find the information presented to align with the state of the world foretold in the scriptures to occur at the time of the end. Not coincidental methinks.

See above.

As I have said before....a good way to hide the truth is to surround it with half truths and lies. People can make up their own minds about whether it rings true for them or not. It explains lot of things to those who wonder how we got into this mess.

Another deceptive tactic that some people use is to try to quietly slide away from their own bogus comments. For example, you asserted that Big Pharma was responsible for pot being illegal. When confronted with the actual truth you ducked and dodged. You went so far as to post a lengthy right-wing conspiracy theory video to try to draw attention away from your nonsensical Big Pharm Pot Ban rant.

But what you didn't do was admit you were wrong. Is that a JW thing or is that just you?

 

[Jose Fly]

How would you define the HONEST edition of quotes?

Seriously? How about one that doesn't alter the author's intent and/or message?

No. I am operating under the clear impression that 'We have still not found the missing link between us and apes'. That is the title of that BBC report.

Then we agree that we don't need to know the identity of the last common ancestor between two lineages before we can say they are related.

Which leads me to the quite wonderful discovery that you must have some degree of faith........ you have FAITH that we are evolved.

Um....no. Given what you just agreed to above, why do you think that?

Science likes to be sure., whereas you seem to be content with Faith about this.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you agree that not knowing the identity of the last common ancestor for two lineages doesn't preclude us from concluding that they are related. But you also seem to be saying that since we don't know the identity of the last common ancestor, it's just "faith" to conclude that they are related. Can you clarify?

You science folks? Are you a science folk?

Yes, and you can spare the personal insults.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don’t live on here....I’ve got other responsibilities. I try to answer reasonable responses. That MO sometimes excludes you and a few others.

Your persistent dodging is noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why read a whole book when one can go to a creationist website and copy-paste quotes of dubious authenticity that prop up one's a priori beliefs?

You know, I have yet to see any creationist even try to defend the practice of quote mining. They usually just post the mined quote and run.

 

[oldbadger]

This made me think of the ‘70’s TV show, “Space:1999”, w/ Martin Landau.

Do you remember that show? Mankind was supposed to have had a base on our Moon, by then....we’re nowhere near that advanced yet!

There was another show, back in the ‘60’s (?), where the scene was set in the 1990’s, and hover cars were the common mode of transportation, and ‘aliens’ — mostly females w/ purple hair — lived among humans? Does that sound familiar? I can’t recall the title.

We have a few females with purple hair around where I live....
I don't remember those shows, but ones like them, yes.
But when StarTrek featured video-radios whereby both parties could see each other on their screens, most if not all people thought that this had gone too far down the fiction end of scifi........ if only we had known....

The biggest buzz I have got out of this thread is the clear, detached and objective news reports of the clear disconnect between 'evolution of species' and mankind.

And so after all the 'I'm a scientist' posturing and pretension we discover that most of those (they know who they are) have taken a 'Leap of Faith' to close up the chain...... that's not the open mindset of the true and proper scientist, methinks. QWhat a cop-out....... What a laugh!

 

[Jose Fly]

You people are so mundane and predictable.

I keep finding myself thinking "Man these creationists need a new shtick". But then I remind myself to look around and note how things have improved just over the last 10 years or so. Creationism is pretty much dead (ID creationism certainly is) and continues to decline in public support. I think this board is a good reflection on the state of the "debate", where there's about 10 of us science advocates for every one creationist. Plus, if you look at the blogs that were dedicated to countering creationists (e.g., pandas thumb) they're pretty much dead too. And that's a good thing, as it shows that creationists aren't really doing much.

Certainly we have to stay vigilant for when some yahoo school district tries to include creationism in their science classes, but overall things have progressed much more rapidly than I expected. Once the baby boomers are gone I figure this'll decline to about the level of the flat earth "debates". IOW, it'll just be the true, hard-core crazies left.

 

[oldbadger]

I know you didn't ask me, but here's how I would respond...

1. Did you read the article?
2. What is your understanding of the gist of the article?
3. What was your objective in posting a link to it?

Duh.......... I was answering several of your points..... I copied your words to show clearly my points. And you couldn't understand such simplicity. Don't try and cope with anything too complicated, is my advice.

And it seems that you too, just like the JWs or any other folks who believe in some Creation belief, you too share in this unless you are prepared to accept that there is not yet any solid evolutionary link between the apes and Man. Otherwise you are just another 'believer'.

 

[Jose Fly]

I asked you to imagine that I understand biology but know nothing of evolution and to EXPLAIN what you wrote to me. And you didn't.

Nice job finding that book. But you can expect cowboy to just bail, wait a few days or so, then come back and act like nothing ever happened.

 

[Jose Fly]

Uh, no. It's a thread about Putting the JW stand on evolution in perspective.

The JW stand on evolution is: IT NEVER HAPPENED - I KNOW BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.

The Jehovah's Witness stand on evolution also includes this little gem: "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose." Kinda puts things in a new light, doesn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Oh brother, lol!)

No, but Jehovah allows others to do so, for now. That’s on them.

You do not seem to understand that since the evidence clearly says that the myths of Genesis did not happen the only way that that evidence could exist and the myths of Genesis to be true was if God planted that evidence. You are calling your God a liar every time that you say that you believe the myths of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, for 1,000’s of distinct species.....But each one appears in the record suddenly!

Is it really that hard to grasp? Of course, your bias would inhibit you from grasping the correct concept.

Since when was at least 20 million years "suddenly"? Yes, compared to 3 billions of years of evolution leading up to that date 20 million years is a short time period, but it is not so for you and me.

This is the problem when you quote mine. You have to understand what the word "suddenly" means in the context that it appears. It does not mean magically "suddenly" as you believe.

 

[tas8831]

You know, I have yet to see any creationist even try to defend the practice of quote mining. They usually just post the mined quote and run.

Or they will post other quote mines in support of it.

 

[tas8831]

Nice job finding that book.

It has a lot of nice pics in it - all B&W, unfortunately.

But you can expect cowboy to just bail, wait a few days or so, then come back and act like nothing ever happened.

Oh, I know.
Deeje is actually still claiming that there is no evidence for evolution. They are un-educable and blind to their own prejudices.