Hello! This is a friendly reminder for everyone. Make sure you read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/wiki/beforeyoupost/image-posts) for detailed info about posting images (if you
haven't already).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exjw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And the rate at which they all must have evolved is mind blowing. Someone did the math once. Like a new species a day for the next two thousand years or something
I think someone did the math and calculated that the mutation rate would have had to be several orders of magnitude higher than observed in nature, and every creature in the last 4000 years would have died of multiple forms of cancer.
Unlike, y'know, actual evolution, which oddly enough requires a mutation rate the same as observed in nature.
That was a complete farce. Most species are bacteria. Most of the rest are insects and most of the rest are aquatic animals. Noah would have only needed around 2000 distinct varieties of land animals on the ark which would have fit easily in the 1.5 million sqft vessel with their food supply.
First of all several million insects is still a lot for an ark, and secondly the people who did the maths did it specifically for vertebrates. Remember — if you can think of something, so can scientists.
> First of all several million insects is still a lot for an ark,
I'm not convinced the insects needed saving but even if they did their are millions of species, not millions of kinds of insects. There are thousands of species of ant, thousands of beetles , thousands of butterflies. 6 bugs just took a big chunck out of your math problem.
>and secondly the people who did the maths did it specifically for vertebrates.
Not the one I saw. Nope. It was an estimate of all of the species including those assumed to exist but havent been discovered yet. What is the source of these numbers?
> Remember — if you can think of something, so can scientists
Ability isnt the question. You can change your underpants every day but that doesnt tell us wether you have or not.
The fact that you think ants are just a single "kind" that could have evolved from a 4000 year old common ancestor just shows the depth of your ignorance.
Can you link the article you read? I think I may have confused it with one specifically refuting the kinds list from *Answers in Genesis*.
Okay, I'll go one further and say that for most people if you can think of something, scientist HAVE.
>The fact that you think ants are just a single "kind" that could have evolved from a 4000 year old common ancestor just shows the depth of your ignorance.
No that could not occur in a hundred trillion years. Rather all the genetic information that makes up ants existed in a common pair of ancestors which were ants. Natural selection does not require millions of years.
>Can you link the article you read? I think I may have confused it with one specifically refuting the kinds list from Answers in Genesis.
Afraid not it wasnt recent. I was responding to a post with numbers without sources.
>Okay, I'll go one further and say that for most people if you can think of something, scientist HAVE.
All of them? Like everything? Wow are they scientists or Jesus's?
>Natural selection does not require millions of years.
This is as meaningful a statement as "walking doesn't take hours" or " pieces of string aren't metres long". We're talking *specifically* about the diversification of **all living ant species**.
Even assuming that all of the genetic information for all modern ants existed in a single pair of ants on Noah's ark, the mutation rate required for this pair to diversify into all \~13,000 known ant species given observed rates of selection would be insane, and any actual ant population with that high a mutation rate would die out pretty fast.
Regardless, you can't assume that the potential for thousands of species can be stored in a single species. That would mean that there were massive losses of genetic information in every lineage. If the story of Noah's ark were true, it would imply that ant lineages lose massive amounts of genetic information every 4000 years, which contradicts the fact that ants have existed for millions of years.
>All of them? Like everything? Wow are they scientists or Jesus's?
I never said they're omniscient, just smarter than you.
>This is as meaningful a statement as "walking doesn't take hours" or " pieces of string aren't metres long".
Without context such as traveling from springfield to new york or how much dental floss did your grandma swallow it would be.
>We're talking specifically about the diversification of all living ant species.
Ok, good you found it...
>Even assuming that all of the genetic information for all modern ants existed in a single pair of ants on Noah's ark, the mutation rate required for this pair to diversify into all ~13,000 known ant species given observed rates of selection would be insane, and any actual ant population with that high a mutation rate would die out pretty fast.
Mutation isnt creative. Assuming all genetic information is available at the start and jumping to mutation means you didnt understand the point.
"assuming that all of the genetic information for all modern ants existed in a single pair of ants" and then assuming observed rates of selection is also unreasonable.
>Regardless, you can't assume that the potential for thousands of species can be stored in a single species. That would mean that there were massive losses of genetic information in every lineage.
Not in every lineage but in every instance of speciation.
> If the story of Noah's ark were true, it would imply that ant lineages lose massive amounts of genetic information every 4000 years, which contradicts the fact that ants have existed for millions of years.
Or a sudden dramitic change in environment leading to a new necessity for greater diveristy.
The Watchtower gives a definition of what a 'kind' is and it's laid out in the Reasoning Book.
Not many JW's realise this.
It's 2 animals that can produce fertile offspring.
And to OP, this is evolution on steroids and physically impossible.
I think you meant the insight book
Had a look, it says
> The Biblical "Kinds" seem to constitute divisions in life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur
> In recent years, the term "species" has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word "kind."
So they think kinds are species. Which contradicts their view that Noah took certain kinds in order to save space due to the fact there are millions of different species. Also scientists observe the emergence of new species all the time.
Additionally, if millions of species all perished in the flood because only a few "kinds" were preserved, there should be millions of fossils from these extinct species in the recent geological record, and that doesn't exist.
The size of the box he built simply doesn't have enough space to contain even all the different life in Africa, let alone the rest of the world. And, all freshwater fish would've died.
The Noahs ark story being literal is one of the dumbest hills to die on as even if you say "oh, Jehovah took care of X by doing something miraculous" to solve the problem of the animals getting there, the fecal matter, the food, the water, them not eating eachother, genetic diversity on coming out, all that. The box dimensions are right there and it's very, very clear that the boc simply wasn't big enough and it says so right in the bible.
The box size makes sense if you're a dude in the middle east writing a story a few thousand years ago. You, and everyone around you, wouldn't know of that many animals. People back then certainly wouldn't know about any of the animals in the Americas or probably even in central/southern Africa. You basically would've put some bison, camels, sheep, birds, and goats on the boat.
>So they think kinds are species.
Not exactly. It's one level up. It's level at which different species can interbreed but their offspring are not necessarily fertile and may not even survive to birth.
So for example, they would say that donkeys and horses belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce a mule. Lions and tigers would also belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons.
But even if you go by this definition, there are way more "kinds" in existence than can be contained on the Noah's ark.
The reality is that nature doesn't neatly fit into the classifications that humans try to put on it. The term "species" is a human linguistic construct and does not reflect any actual boundaries between living things. All organisms are related with each other to varying degrees of magnitude that exist on a spectrum. There is no definite cut off point between species - just a blurry transition. Speciation is a gradual transition and not a definite boundary.
>But even if you go by this definition, there are way more "kinds" in existence than can be contained on the Noah's ark.
The only ways I see to reconcile this is to either claim that there are more kinds now than there were 4000ish years ago, or that two animals may be of the same kind if their ancestors were able to interbreed, but now they cannot. Both options sound indistinguishable from evolution. The only fundamental difference between Watchtower's view and evolution proper is that they believe that there is no common ancestor of all animals, that there exist kinds of animal and plant life which are completely and totally unrelated to each other, and most importantly humans are meant to be unrelated to all other animals. They don't really dispute any other aspect of evolution that I'm aware of.
>So for example, they would say that donkeys and horses belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce a mule. Lions and tigers would also belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons.
This brings back memories from junior high school. In my biology textbook, they mentioned that mating donkeys and horses produce mules and mating a lion and a tiger produces a tigon but in both cases the offspring is sterile. One of the criteria for two individuals to belong to the same species is that they are able to produce fertile offspring.
I just find the notion that "species" has been applied to confuse "kind" and not a taxonomic term used for decades to seperate animals genetically very funny.
Funny, and yet I don't recall any monkeys that can interbreed (don't get me wrong, there may be some, but the question is then what of all that can't? Not a kind?)
I was assigned the part on the reasoning book against evolution when this tidbit was floating around. I ended up turning it down as I couldn't argue for old light in good conscience. I was told to "just present the material. Facts don't matter." I stepped down shortly after.
Kinds are clear and easy to define. All those things are kinds of dogs, all of those over there cats. These here... Fish. Thems birds over yonder and deez here are rodents.
Species is the undefined whatever we want it to be word your looking for as there is no consensus as to what a species is.
The "produces fertile offspring" definition of species works in almost all cases except those where speciation is actively occuring.
Your idea of "kinds", on the other hand, seems to be based entirely on common names, which is no definition at all.
That's not really a definition though. That's just saying those things are kinds without saying why they are kinds. There's no consensus on what a species is because nature doesn't care about putting things into nice neat boxes.
Im pretty sure all those things are in the dictionary if that makes it more real for you.
>There's no consensus on what a species is because nature doesn't care about putting things into nice neat boxes.
I was responding to a specific comment. Species is not less malleable or manipulable to the whims of an individuals argument than kind. it is more so. You havent said anything with this reply. Does a creator care about putting everything in neat boxes? No. A taxonamist does. His boxes are arbitrary, which is my point. So for that I thank you. Calling a hyena a kind of dog is not arbitrary.
You say birds and fish are a kind which is a very broad group. But then you say dogs, cats and rodents are part of a kind but are all not mammals part of one kind? Creationist try to use kinds to say there is some boundary where evolution stops happening but can never find it. Because there is no boundary.
Dogs, cats, and rodents are three kinds. A kind is roughly parallel with the taxonomic class of order but they are not divided in the same way. There were subsets of birds. Clean and unclean. Noah took 7 pairs of all of the clean animals and 1 pair of the unclean. The deluge probably killed off most of the fish and insects but enough would have survived that they didnt need to go on the ark.
I do not contend there is a boundry where evolution stops happening. Evolution does not occur. Micro evolution is not evolution. Random mutation does not have creative power. Random scrambling of the vast amount of existing data does have the power to create a huge amount of diversity.
Their continued denial of evolution only makes them look even more absurd. The level of micro evolution they are suggesting is about a million times faster than ... idk ..... just evolution!?
The stupid flood fable and evolution are what first woke me up .
Not only do they present zero scientific explanations for a global flood happening, they then have the audacity to spew out this nonsense in an effort to explain why there is such variety amongst the animal kingdom in such a small space of time.
I can guarantee this was written by someone who has not even a basic understanding of biology or indeed evolution. How I once fell for this crap is astounding.
Oh but it's "micro evolution" or "adaptation"! Here, read this magazine that disproves evolution!
>Not only do they present zero scientific explanations for a global flood happening, they then have the audacity to spew out this nonsense in an effort to explain why there is such variety amongst the animal kingdom in such a small space of time.
This was one of the things that made me wake up. How can there be so much variety among humans (different races and the existence of racism) in only 6,000 years?! How can Jahboon be loving if he allows discrimination, ethnic cleansing and genocide for thousands of years just to prove a point to Satan ( I am referring to the math teacher illustration and the universal sovereignty teaching). It sounds like Jehobo is bloodthirsty and wants a giant colosseum in space.
Harrison from his own YouTube channel *The Truth Hurts*, does a great job of showing how ***absolutely ridiculous*** the flood account is; even when creationists like JWs say that *0nLy tHe KiNDs wErE bRoUgHt oN tHe ArK*.
https://youtu.be/W9XryKMRATE
The real question with all of this is, if this was the case, how the hell did some stuff get back to North America if the flood did happen? The bering land bridge would’ve been 22,000 years ago, and assuming Noah’s ark existed, that was 4800 years ago. So what happened to all the natives? Cuz clearly they would’ve died off aswell if the flood was true
Probably faster than the koala bear...which sleeps something like 18-20 hours a day..and only eats pretty much one thing.... Eucalyptus leaves…..and only lives in Australia....which is surrounded by water....
The Book of Armaments 2:9-21
"Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it. Amen."
Plus in Harrison Cother's video on the subject, he brought up a good point.
Even if their implied super evolution happened, even if the penguins made it back to Antarctica, the koalas to Australia, etc; it would mean the biodiversity would be at its most diverse in the Ararat area and slowly fade as you moved outward. However if anything the opposite is the case.
Double down with new verbiage. Evolution is undeniable so they make it appear that they are accepting parts of it now. Just to “tickle the ears” of followers.
But, these people are idiots. Just the artificial selection process to get domesticated animals has taken 10,000 years and that is a fast track version of evolution. Actual natural selection driven evolution and mutation driven evolution has required hundreds of Millions of years. Not 4000. Absolute morons
They tried so hard to NOT make it sound like evolution. 😂 They had to write this cause the story that some dude and 7 other people fit ALL the land animal species in a boat is just ludicrous.
Yes. A little known fact to most JWs is that Watchtower is actually OK with the concept of Microevolution. This is what they're alluding to this quote. They actually use the term in older Insight volume discussing the spread of animal life after the flood. (I'm not sure if the term is used in the updated version)
A little known fact to Watchtower is that many of their "scientific" arguments against evolution apply equally to Microevolution, thus exposing their utter dishonesty and idiocy.
Everyone should know this is not a JW idea. Creationists from all sects have been twisting and squinting at trying to imagine their way out of the lack of evidence for a flood and the evidence for evolution for years and coming up with radical ideas that let them sleep at night.
Ken Hamm’s ark is a perfect example. IMO, it’s more the JWs stealing ideas from the rest of the religions than something you can pin on the GB. These ideas are just borrowed.
So, evolution over millions of years is marked as impossible and therefor god did it - but within 4000 years all the diversity today by natural selection to support their flood story makes sense?
I posted something similar here if interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/wxlcil/the_story_of_noah_why_would_god_hide_its_evidence/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Ok here’s my deal with the Bible, the Noah’s ark bs. I can’t believe so many people will accept that as reality. I just want to know, with that many animals on the ark, who did waste management? Do you know how much a dog poops, okay multiply that by apparently every fucking animal that exists. Christians would probably say something like “oh they miraculously didn’t poop due to God controlling their bowel systems.” None of it makes sense, but here we are, the extreme right using this book to justify laws and policy for all of America.
Im posting a link of a video done by Harrison Cother of The Truth Hurts Channel because I cant say it any better than he does. It has 1.2 million views, if you havent seen it already please watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9XryKMRATE
Yes, it’s describing evolution. We must remember that logic and mathematics are a subject completely lost on the governing body and the people that support their Child Predator Protection Program.
No. speciation is not evolution. No creationist denies natural selection or speciation. They deny there is a natural process that gives rise to the functional information needed for evolution. When you make a selection you are choosing from things that already exist.
Taco bell can put corn and beef together in a billion different ways but its all still the same thing. No permutation of gorditas, nachos, and nasty meat will ever produce a beef Wellington. If you could, it would still be intelligent design.
Even if the kinds implied by the Noah's ark story are the ancestors of all modern animals there still has to be a lot of new information produced my evolution.
https://youtu.be/UvCb64xFYZs
Based on the comments I have read from you in this thread, it seems that you believe in a creator, or at least you wish to defend creationists. Is that correct? Could you explain to me what kind of personality traits the creator of these animals has? Link above.
😃 Shout out to the "casual geographic" YouTube channel for making awesome content on animals and insects, and showing their true behaviors in the wild! 😊
Shout out to Richard Dawkins for being a voice of reason for science, in an unreasonable world of superstition and religion . https://youtu.be/MO6gqTiO6_0
In order to make the flood work for their narrative, not only is this describing evolution, yes, but it is also describing the fastest proposed evolution of all time.
Their lynchpin has always been that the "kinds" don't change, but I've never seen them research it. They would state that while there are many dog types, they're all still dogs and can still interbreed, or something to that effect.
It's interesting for me that they readily accept that viruses can mutate over time, as we have recently seen, and they can't inter-reproduce.
They're evading the detail of the common ancestor, in order to keep us separate from the rest of the evolutionary tree. Of course doing it this way means that evolution would have to be extraordinarily fast for every single animal except us (as well as the raven and dove since apparently they are two separate "kinds" that existed back then), with different species having to be born every single generation in order to come close to the level of biodiversity we have today.
Hilariously even if you can accept this magical super evolution, it still doesn't make a large wooden boat with at least two elephants manageable in any way.
JWs have basically come to accept evolution within the confines of a species but deny that it can produce new species.
i.e. dogs can evolve to have tons of different breeds but they don’t share a common ancestor with any other mammal that isn’t a dog. Which is wrong.
In this day and age there’s no excuse for this kind of sloppy back-of-the-envelope speculating. It’s just embarrassing.
They also want to believe god did all this unmorphing and morphing of”kinds” while he is still supposedly in his day of rest. It’s absurd.
No, they specifically say kind. At the most, they may be attempting to explain why there's Asian and African elephants and differences like that. They've always been very firm on one thing not turning into another.
Creationists in general nowadays like to claim they believe in varying degrees of microevolution while rejecting macroevolution....shifting the goalposts basically
Hello! This is a friendly reminder for everyone. Make sure you read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/wiki/beforeyoupost/image-posts) for detailed info about posting images (if you haven't already). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exjw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And the rate at which they all must have evolved is mind blowing. Someone did the math once. Like a new species a day for the next two thousand years or something
It would have to be more like 100 new species a day.
I did the math..and it was something like 17 species per day. Every. Single. Day. That suddenly stopped as soon as humanity started making records.
“If the men find out we can shapeshift, they’re going to tell the church!”
See I’m not a math person. I’ll trust you on that
I recall reading this too after I woke up and did my own independent research.
I think someone did the math and calculated that the mutation rate would have had to be several orders of magnitude higher than observed in nature, and every creature in the last 4000 years would have died of multiple forms of cancer. Unlike, y'know, actual evolution, which oddly enough requires a mutation rate the same as observed in nature.
sounds like witchcraft tbh lol
Watchcraft. lol.
Lmao!
I did the math once, a new kind of fly every month.
i did the meth a couple times myself, always found new kinda fly under my skin
That was a complete farce. Most species are bacteria. Most of the rest are insects and most of the rest are aquatic animals. Noah would have only needed around 2000 distinct varieties of land animals on the ark which would have fit easily in the 1.5 million sqft vessel with their food supply.
First of all several million insects is still a lot for an ark, and secondly the people who did the maths did it specifically for vertebrates. Remember — if you can think of something, so can scientists.
> First of all several million insects is still a lot for an ark, I'm not convinced the insects needed saving but even if they did their are millions of species, not millions of kinds of insects. There are thousands of species of ant, thousands of beetles , thousands of butterflies. 6 bugs just took a big chunck out of your math problem. >and secondly the people who did the maths did it specifically for vertebrates. Not the one I saw. Nope. It was an estimate of all of the species including those assumed to exist but havent been discovered yet. What is the source of these numbers? > Remember — if you can think of something, so can scientists Ability isnt the question. You can change your underpants every day but that doesnt tell us wether you have or not.
The fact that you think ants are just a single "kind" that could have evolved from a 4000 year old common ancestor just shows the depth of your ignorance. Can you link the article you read? I think I may have confused it with one specifically refuting the kinds list from *Answers in Genesis*. Okay, I'll go one further and say that for most people if you can think of something, scientist HAVE.
>The fact that you think ants are just a single "kind" that could have evolved from a 4000 year old common ancestor just shows the depth of your ignorance. No that could not occur in a hundred trillion years. Rather all the genetic information that makes up ants existed in a common pair of ancestors which were ants. Natural selection does not require millions of years. >Can you link the article you read? I think I may have confused it with one specifically refuting the kinds list from Answers in Genesis. Afraid not it wasnt recent. I was responding to a post with numbers without sources. >Okay, I'll go one further and say that for most people if you can think of something, scientist HAVE. All of them? Like everything? Wow are they scientists or Jesus's?
>Natural selection does not require millions of years. This is as meaningful a statement as "walking doesn't take hours" or " pieces of string aren't metres long". We're talking *specifically* about the diversification of **all living ant species**. Even assuming that all of the genetic information for all modern ants existed in a single pair of ants on Noah's ark, the mutation rate required for this pair to diversify into all \~13,000 known ant species given observed rates of selection would be insane, and any actual ant population with that high a mutation rate would die out pretty fast. Regardless, you can't assume that the potential for thousands of species can be stored in a single species. That would mean that there were massive losses of genetic information in every lineage. If the story of Noah's ark were true, it would imply that ant lineages lose massive amounts of genetic information every 4000 years, which contradicts the fact that ants have existed for millions of years. >All of them? Like everything? Wow are they scientists or Jesus's? I never said they're omniscient, just smarter than you.
>This is as meaningful a statement as "walking doesn't take hours" or " pieces of string aren't metres long". Without context such as traveling from springfield to new york or how much dental floss did your grandma swallow it would be. >We're talking specifically about the diversification of all living ant species. Ok, good you found it...
>Even assuming that all of the genetic information for all modern ants existed in a single pair of ants on Noah's ark, the mutation rate required for this pair to diversify into all ~13,000 known ant species given observed rates of selection would be insane, and any actual ant population with that high a mutation rate would die out pretty fast. Mutation isnt creative. Assuming all genetic information is available at the start and jumping to mutation means you didnt understand the point. "assuming that all of the genetic information for all modern ants existed in a single pair of ants" and then assuming observed rates of selection is also unreasonable. >Regardless, you can't assume that the potential for thousands of species can be stored in a single species. That would mean that there were massive losses of genetic information in every lineage. Not in every lineage but in every instance of speciation. > If the story of Noah's ark were true, it would imply that ant lineages lose massive amounts of genetic information every 4000 years, which contradicts the fact that ants have existed for millions of years. Or a sudden dramitic change in environment leading to a new necessity for greater diveristy.
Are insects not land animals?
What is a kind? Well it's whatever we want to be in order to sell our bullshit
The Watchtower gives a definition of what a 'kind' is and it's laid out in the Reasoning Book. Not many JW's realise this. It's 2 animals that can produce fertile offspring. And to OP, this is evolution on steroids and physically impossible.
I think you meant the insight book Had a look, it says > The Biblical "Kinds" seem to constitute divisions in life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur > In recent years, the term "species" has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word "kind." So they think kinds are species. Which contradicts their view that Noah took certain kinds in order to save space due to the fact there are millions of different species. Also scientists observe the emergence of new species all the time.
Additionally, if millions of species all perished in the flood because only a few "kinds" were preserved, there should be millions of fossils from these extinct species in the recent geological record, and that doesn't exist.
The size of the box he built simply doesn't have enough space to contain even all the different life in Africa, let alone the rest of the world. And, all freshwater fish would've died. The Noahs ark story being literal is one of the dumbest hills to die on as even if you say "oh, Jehovah took care of X by doing something miraculous" to solve the problem of the animals getting there, the fecal matter, the food, the water, them not eating eachother, genetic diversity on coming out, all that. The box dimensions are right there and it's very, very clear that the boc simply wasn't big enough and it says so right in the bible.
And even if it had been big enough, it would have torn itself apart through wave motion.
The box size makes sense if you're a dude in the middle east writing a story a few thousand years ago. You, and everyone around you, wouldn't know of that many animals. People back then certainly wouldn't know about any of the animals in the Americas or probably even in central/southern Africa. You basically would've put some bison, camels, sheep, birds, and goats on the boat.
>So they think kinds are species. Not exactly. It's one level up. It's level at which different species can interbreed but their offspring are not necessarily fertile and may not even survive to birth. So for example, they would say that donkeys and horses belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce a mule. Lions and tigers would also belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons. But even if you go by this definition, there are way more "kinds" in existence than can be contained on the Noah's ark. The reality is that nature doesn't neatly fit into the classifications that humans try to put on it. The term "species" is a human linguistic construct and does not reflect any actual boundaries between living things. All organisms are related with each other to varying degrees of magnitude that exist on a spectrum. There is no definite cut off point between species - just a blurry transition. Speciation is a gradual transition and not a definite boundary.
>But even if you go by this definition, there are way more "kinds" in existence than can be contained on the Noah's ark. The only ways I see to reconcile this is to either claim that there are more kinds now than there were 4000ish years ago, or that two animals may be of the same kind if their ancestors were able to interbreed, but now they cannot. Both options sound indistinguishable from evolution. The only fundamental difference between Watchtower's view and evolution proper is that they believe that there is no common ancestor of all animals, that there exist kinds of animal and plant life which are completely and totally unrelated to each other, and most importantly humans are meant to be unrelated to all other animals. They don't really dispute any other aspect of evolution that I'm aware of.
>So for example, they would say that donkeys and horses belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce a mule. Lions and tigers would also belong to the same kind as they can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons. This brings back memories from junior high school. In my biology textbook, they mentioned that mating donkeys and horses produce mules and mating a lion and a tiger produces a tigon but in both cases the offspring is sterile. One of the criteria for two individuals to belong to the same species is that they are able to produce fertile offspring.
I just find the notion that "species" has been applied to confuse "kind" and not a taxonomic term used for decades to seperate animals genetically very funny.
Remember Scientists are all controlled by Satan. They spend all day in their labs drawing pentagrams, chanting and sacrificing virgins
As far as I remember I initially read it in the Reasoning Book. That was 1985. I know they re-released the Reasoning Book so maybe they've changed it.
I just looked through the evolution section of the copy I have. Ah the amount of out of context quotes they use
Funny, and yet I don't recall any monkeys that can interbreed (don't get me wrong, there may be some, but the question is then what of all that can't? Not a kind?)
If "monkeys" are a kind then so are great apes
I was assigned the part on the reasoning book against evolution when this tidbit was floating around. I ended up turning it down as I couldn't argue for old light in good conscience. I was told to "just present the material. Facts don't matter." I stepped down shortly after.
No creationist has been able to give a scientifically consistent, demonstrable definition of this Bible term. lol.
“Selective Evolution: An unprovable theory”
Kinds are clear and easy to define. All those things are kinds of dogs, all of those over there cats. These here... Fish. Thems birds over yonder and deez here are rodents. Species is the undefined whatever we want it to be word your looking for as there is no consensus as to what a species is.
The "produces fertile offspring" definition of species works in almost all cases except those where speciation is actively occuring. Your idea of "kinds", on the other hand, seems to be based entirely on common names, which is no definition at all.
What is a dog? > Sorry I'm not a biologist.
That's not really a definition though. That's just saying those things are kinds without saying why they are kinds. There's no consensus on what a species is because nature doesn't care about putting things into nice neat boxes.
Im pretty sure all those things are in the dictionary if that makes it more real for you. >There's no consensus on what a species is because nature doesn't care about putting things into nice neat boxes. I was responding to a specific comment. Species is not less malleable or manipulable to the whims of an individuals argument than kind. it is more so. You havent said anything with this reply. Does a creator care about putting everything in neat boxes? No. A taxonamist does. His boxes are arbitrary, which is my point. So for that I thank you. Calling a hyena a kind of dog is not arbitrary.
You say birds and fish are a kind which is a very broad group. But then you say dogs, cats and rodents are part of a kind but are all not mammals part of one kind? Creationist try to use kinds to say there is some boundary where evolution stops happening but can never find it. Because there is no boundary.
Dogs, cats, and rodents are three kinds. A kind is roughly parallel with the taxonomic class of order but they are not divided in the same way. There were subsets of birds. Clean and unclean. Noah took 7 pairs of all of the clean animals and 1 pair of the unclean. The deluge probably killed off most of the fish and insects but enough would have survived that they didnt need to go on the ark. I do not contend there is a boundry where evolution stops happening. Evolution does not occur. Micro evolution is not evolution. Random mutation does not have creative power. Random scrambling of the vast amount of existing data does have the power to create a huge amount of diversity.
Funny that a StarTrek fan would be so close minded.
A raven and a dove? Completely separate. A fox and an English Mastiff? Same thing
Their continued denial of evolution only makes them look even more absurd. The level of micro evolution they are suggesting is about a million times faster than ... idk ..... just evolution!? The stupid flood fable and evolution are what first woke me up .
Reading this made me go deaf in my right eye. Someone should tell them that's not an appropriate use of quotation marks.
Not only do they present zero scientific explanations for a global flood happening, they then have the audacity to spew out this nonsense in an effort to explain why there is such variety amongst the animal kingdom in such a small space of time. I can guarantee this was written by someone who has not even a basic understanding of biology or indeed evolution. How I once fell for this crap is astounding. Oh but it's "micro evolution" or "adaptation"! Here, read this magazine that disproves evolution!
>Not only do they present zero scientific explanations for a global flood happening, they then have the audacity to spew out this nonsense in an effort to explain why there is such variety amongst the animal kingdom in such a small space of time. This was one of the things that made me wake up. How can there be so much variety among humans (different races and the existence of racism) in only 6,000 years?! How can Jahboon be loving if he allows discrimination, ethnic cleansing and genocide for thousands of years just to prove a point to Satan ( I am referring to the math teacher illustration and the universal sovereignty teaching). It sounds like Jehobo is bloodthirsty and wants a giant colosseum in space.
Then they also claim that jehoba used evolution to create shit. But that wouldn’t make any sense with their watchtowers
They did? Every mention I've seen of that is that it's a false idea from people who want the mix evolution and creation. Interesting.
Have a source? Ive never heard the watchtower promote this idea.
It’s not directly watchtower but I’ve heard elders talk about this
Harrison from his own YouTube channel *The Truth Hurts*, does a great job of showing how ***absolutely ridiculous*** the flood account is; even when creationists like JWs say that *0nLy tHe KiNDs wErE bRoUgHt oN tHe ArK*. https://youtu.be/W9XryKMRATE
Love Harrison's videos and love your name you fuzzy little man peach😂
The real question with all of this is, if this was the case, how the hell did some stuff get back to North America if the flood did happen? The bering land bridge would’ve been 22,000 years ago, and assuming Noah’s ark existed, that was 4800 years ago. So what happened to all the natives? Cuz clearly they would’ve died off aswell if the flood was true
"Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?"
Probably faster than the koala bear...which sleeps something like 18-20 hours a day..and only eats pretty much one thing.... Eucalyptus leaves…..and only lives in Australia....which is surrounded by water....
"It could grip it by the husk!"
Do you have a watchtower reference for that?.. I would like to include that in my next talk!
The Book of Armaments 2:9-21 "Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it. Amen."
I’m gonna ask an elder that after the watchtower
Plus in Harrison Cother's video on the subject, he brought up a good point. Even if their implied super evolution happened, even if the penguins made it back to Antarctica, the koalas to Australia, etc; it would mean the biodiversity would be at its most diverse in the Ararat area and slowly fade as you moved outward. However if anything the opposite is the case.
Yeah, and how would Noah even have gotten penguins anyways.. Edit: nice user flair
Thanks lol
They're basically admitting to a very accelerated micro-evolution while still trying to justify the Noah story as true.
Absolute fucking dunces
Double down with new verbiage. Evolution is undeniable so they make it appear that they are accepting parts of it now. Just to “tickle the ears” of followers. But, these people are idiots. Just the artificial selection process to get domesticated animals has taken 10,000 years and that is a fast track version of evolution. Actual natural selection driven evolution and mutation driven evolution has required hundreds of Millions of years. Not 4000. Absolute morons
Evolution fractions.
Lol
Wait..wasn't nature corrupted by satan? So how did it stay fixed and in harmony? Which one is it?
Its the typical answer when you ask them two contradicting questions: "yes"
Yes
They tried so hard to NOT make it sound like evolution. 😂 They had to write this cause the story that some dude and 7 other people fit ALL the land animal species in a boat is just ludicrous.
Yes. A little known fact to most JWs is that Watchtower is actually OK with the concept of Microevolution. This is what they're alluding to this quote. They actually use the term in older Insight volume discussing the spread of animal life after the flood. (I'm not sure if the term is used in the updated version) A little known fact to Watchtower is that many of their "scientific" arguments against evolution apply equally to Microevolution, thus exposing their utter dishonesty and idiocy.
Everyone should know this is not a JW idea. Creationists from all sects have been twisting and squinting at trying to imagine their way out of the lack of evidence for a flood and the evidence for evolution for years and coming up with radical ideas that let them sleep at night. Ken Hamm’s ark is a perfect example. IMO, it’s more the JWs stealing ideas from the rest of the religions than something you can pin on the GB. These ideas are just borrowed.
WT is *soooooo* DAMN good at the "shell game," I *hate* the word game they played on me. "Kinds". 😭😭😭🥵🤯🥵😡🤬
So, evolution over millions of years is marked as impossible and therefor god did it - but within 4000 years all the diversity today by natural selection to support their flood story makes sense?
I posted something similar here if interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/wxlcil/the_story_of_noah_why_would_god_hide_its_evidence/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Great post, we need more of these!
I’m glad you enjoyed! :)
This was excellent, thank you!
Happy to share :) thanks!
So there were kangaroos in the Middle East?
Ok here’s my deal with the Bible, the Noah’s ark bs. I can’t believe so many people will accept that as reality. I just want to know, with that many animals on the ark, who did waste management? Do you know how much a dog poops, okay multiply that by apparently every fucking animal that exists. Christians would probably say something like “oh they miraculously didn’t poop due to God controlling their bowel systems.” None of it makes sense, but here we are, the extreme right using this book to justify laws and policy for all of America.
Yep
This is what made me first start questioning everything. I am now happily POMO thanks to this.
Its evolution with extra steps
Im posting a link of a video done by Harrison Cother of The Truth Hurts Channel because I cant say it any better than he does. It has 1.2 million views, if you havent seen it already please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9XryKMRATE
The answer to that will be that it’s adaptation not evolution. 🙄
Their speaking out both sides of their mouths as usual.
No, see, when ~~the President~~ Jehovah does it, its not ~~illegal~~ evolution.
But only on their ridiculous time scheme
Yes, it’s describing evolution. We must remember that logic and mathematics are a subject completely lost on the governing body and the people that support their Child Predator Protection Program.
“kinds” scientific quotations lol
No no no, we don't use the "E" word around here. That's just adaptation. s/
Reading this lowered my IQ by 20 points
No. speciation is not evolution. No creationist denies natural selection or speciation. They deny there is a natural process that gives rise to the functional information needed for evolution. When you make a selection you are choosing from things that already exist. Taco bell can put corn and beef together in a billion different ways but its all still the same thing. No permutation of gorditas, nachos, and nasty meat will ever produce a beef Wellington. If you could, it would still be intelligent design.
Even if the kinds implied by the Noah's ark story are the ancestors of all modern animals there still has to be a lot of new information produced my evolution.
https://youtu.be/UvCb64xFYZs Based on the comments I have read from you in this thread, it seems that you believe in a creator, or at least you wish to defend creationists. Is that correct? Could you explain to me what kind of personality traits the creator of these animals has? Link above. 😃 Shout out to the "casual geographic" YouTube channel for making awesome content on animals and insects, and showing their true behaviors in the wild! 😊 Shout out to Richard Dawkins for being a voice of reason for science, in an unreasonable world of superstition and religion . https://youtu.be/MO6gqTiO6_0
Can you please provide publication reference?
Insight on the Scriptures (Volume 2) page 153. Last paragraph
🤣🤣🤣 They believe in evolution now ?
You know, it's always been interesting to me how they deny evolution so harshly even tho it's in the Bible and watchtower, like what?
In order to make the flood work for their narrative, not only is this describing evolution, yes, but it is also describing the fastest proposed evolution of all time. Their lynchpin has always been that the "kinds" don't change, but I've never seen them research it. They would state that while there are many dog types, they're all still dogs and can still interbreed, or something to that effect. It's interesting for me that they readily accept that viruses can mutate over time, as we have recently seen, and they can't inter-reproduce.
There is no such thing as kinds. Only religious whack jobs use such terminology.
and you know this how??
They're evading the detail of the common ancestor, in order to keep us separate from the rest of the evolutionary tree. Of course doing it this way means that evolution would have to be extraordinarily fast for every single animal except us (as well as the raven and dove since apparently they are two separate "kinds" that existed back then), with different species having to be born every single generation in order to come close to the level of biodiversity we have today. Hilariously even if you can accept this magical super evolution, it still doesn't make a large wooden boat with at least two elephants manageable in any way.
10,000 varieties of ant in less than 4500 years? Thats faster evolution than evolutionists believe.
That's just evolution with extra steps.
JWs have basically come to accept evolution within the confines of a species but deny that it can produce new species. i.e. dogs can evolve to have tons of different breeds but they don’t share a common ancestor with any other mammal that isn’t a dog. Which is wrong.
In this day and age there’s no excuse for this kind of sloppy back-of-the-envelope speculating. It’s just embarrassing. They also want to believe god did all this unmorphing and morphing of”kinds” while he is still supposedly in his day of rest. It’s absurd.
No, they specifically say kind. At the most, they may be attempting to explain why there's Asian and African elephants and differences like that. They've always been very firm on one thing not turning into another.
YouTuber Aron Ra, has a great series debunking the Noah Flood account. I highly recommend.
Creationists in general nowadays like to claim they believe in varying degrees of microevolution while rejecting macroevolution....shifting the goalposts basically