- Thread starter
- #21
I'm afraid you provide no supporting documentation for your opinions. My assertions about biological evolution derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with the Bible. If you have evidence for the existence of the Gods, evidence of the Gods creating humans 6,000 years ago, evidence of any Biblical miracles, please present that evidence.You repeat a series of falsehoods and errors that are common among those who have an agenda to vilify science. Firstly, you need to understand that abiogenesis and biological evolution are different subjects. Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life.I found one older thread relevant to this - which I bumped/posted on (by ChemEngineer).
This subject is a huge subject of study - it will be hard to post all of the relevant details let alone document the experiments and what they prove (1 Thess. 5:21 - "prove all things" - KJV)
For starters, I will link to 2 of our brochures on this subject and invite you all to comment on any point therein - or any other point relevant to the origin of life:
Starting with our brochure entitled "Origin of Life - five questions worth asking: -
Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
Second - our brochure entitled "Was Life Created?" -
Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
I'll start off with one point from the first brochure:
"What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.
Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1
Reference 1:
How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
So, what do you all think about the evidence scientists have discovered? Feel free to post links - I love doing research!
There is no requirement for "belief" in biological evolution. The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.
So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
Holie - thank you getting us back on topic - however, as usual, you provide no documentation for your assertions. For example, you imply I do not understand the difference between abiogenesis (chemical evolution) and Darwinian (biological) evolution. However, you seem to not know the difference between micro-evolution (which is a fact) and macro-evolution (which is false speculation).
The fossil record proves micro-evolution as do more recent scientific discoveries (e.g. epigenetics). The fossil record runs contrary to both the phenomenon of Equilibrium (variation about a mean) which Dobzhansky observed in his studies of radiation induced mutations in fruit flies and also the fossil record.
Why do you think Gould, with his punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, called this macro-evolution (the fossil record proves the equilibrium part but not Gould's theory of the cause of the punctuation).
Abiogenesis and chemical evolution is on topic - the other points you bring up are really off topic- albeit interesting.
Would you believe I disagree with many of your conclusions? One reason is your lack of documentation - notice in contrast the documentation (bibliography) in the 2 brochures I linked to in OP.
We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Biological evolution is one of those ideas. There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. But there is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.
I noted that you continue to be confused about terms such as abiogenesis (the beginning of biological life) and Darwinian (biological) evolution because your earlier post made no distinction between those two processes. As I noted previously, you confuse macro-evolution with speciation which has abundant evidence.
Here is some reference material yo better help you understand Dobzhansky's work.
2.2 The Biological Species Concept
Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.
2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept
The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as
Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it."... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as
"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)
It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.
The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as
"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is
"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists. Two facts account for this. First, these are the groups that the authors of the BSC worked with . (Note: Mayr is an ornithologist and Dobzhansky worked extensively with Drosophila). More importantly, obligate sexuality is the predominant form of reproduction in these groups. It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists. Terrestrial plants exhibit much greater diversity in their "mode of reproduction" than do vertebrates and insects.
Regarding Gould and theory of Punctuated Equilibria, Let's go to the source, shall we?
"Evolution as Fact and Theory", originally published in 1981:
[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
I'm afraid your charge of "lack of documentation" is quite obviously false. On the other hand, I've consistently asked the creationists for their General Theory of Supernatural Creation, but alas, that hasn't happened.
Thank you for providing some documentation for your beliefs. Not sure what they have to do with thread title however.
But concerning your tangent on speciation:
As I have posted repeatedly: we are not creationists and we do believe in speciation within the Biblical kind.
Also, the definition of species is not as simple as you reference. Take the Cat kind for example - how many species in the Cat kind?
Feline | Definition, Species, and Facts
Feline, any of 37 cat species that among others include the cheetah, puma, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, tiger, and domestic cat. Cats are native to almost every region on Earth, with the exception of Australia and Antarctica. They are carnivorous mammals that live in a wide variety of habitats.
www.britannica.com
"Feline, (family Felidae), any of 37 cat species that among others include the cheetah, puma, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, tiger, and domestic cat."
Felidae - cats, cheetahs, lions, tigers, leopards | Wildlife Journal Junior - Wildlife Journal Junior
There are 38 species of cats in this family. Species in this family are found in all areas of the world, except for Australia and Antarctica. They vary in size from the domestic cat to the lion. The members of this family are built for hunting. They stalk, chase, and pounce on their prey. Unlike...
nhpbs.org
"Felidae - Cats, Cheetahs, Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Ocelot.
There are 36 species of cats in this family."
21 Rare Wild Cat Species You Probably Didn’t Know Exist
We all know about lions, tigers, cougars, leopards and even jaguars, but there's a whole world of wild cats out there, especially a bunch of rare, small and/or weird varieties that you've probably never heard of!
www.boredpanda.com
"21 Rare Wild Cat Species You Probably Didn’t Know Exist"
See the pictures of these 21 cat species - are you sure they cannot interbreed?
For example:
Serval (Leptailurus Serval)
Kodkod (Leopardus Guigna)
Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis Bieti)
Pallas Cat (Otocolobus Manul)
Caracal (Caracal Caracal)
Clouded Leopard (Neofelis Nebulosa)
Jaguarundi
Leopard Cat (Prionailurus Bengalensis)
Fishing Cat (Prionailurus Viverrinus)
Bay Cat (Catopuma Badia)
Take for example: Rusty Spotted Cat (Prionailurus Rubiginosus)
"Common Name: Rusty Spotted Cat
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata (Vertebrata)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felinae (Prionailurus)
Species: rubiginosus"
Are you sure this is really a species of cat not able to interbreed with other cats?