“Hello Sir, do you have five minutes to talk about evolution?”
“Yeah…”
“Basically, I follow the imperfect teachings of Charles Darwin, and the vast accumulation
of evidence since his day, and I have a wonderful message for you.”
“…” “The universe WASN’T created with you in mind (isn’t that amazing?);
there’s NO objective evidence to indicate that you’re going to see your deceased loved
ones; and when you die you die… your consciousness ends forever (isn’t that amazing!).”
“Did you just say that universe wasn’t created with me in mind?”
“Yes!”
“Such arrogance!”
*Sigh*…
“Truth is harder to sell that fiction, folks.”
A few days ago two lovely Jehovah’s witnesses knocked on my door and preached the bible,
and I, being the dude I am, invited them in for tea, cake, and a jolly good conversation.
Long story short, I conveyed why exactly I believe that the existence of evil is incompatible
with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, and they conveyed why exactly they reject
evolution… because to them, if evolution is wrong, then Jehovah must be right (even
though this is a rather obvious Black & White fallacy).
Anyhow, one of them described himself as an “ex-evolutionist” (which is a claim that
a lot of creationists make), but when I asked him to explain what evolution is, he couldn’t.
He said “It’s the belief that random chance, all by itself, produced all forms of life”,
and then went on to say “It’s the belief that lighting struck a puddle and then BANG…
life came to be.”
Now this is the problem with creationists… they DON’T understand evolution by natural
selection, and one of the primary reasons for this is that they’re victims of propaganda;
their sources of knowledge are creationist websites, which deliberately misrepresent
evolution in order to make it easier to attack.
Hence, when pressed, the “ex-evolutionist” insisted that I visit JW.org for “the facts”
on evolution.
Well, I’ve done just that, and…
(“If I only had a brain”)… this is Jehovah’s Evolution – Debunked.
If you visit JW.org (“Just […] don’t […] do it!”), you’ll likely notice that
it prominently features many of its Watchtower brochures and booklets, and the one I was
directed to is titled “Was Life Created?”
It contains many chapters, such as “Who designed it first” (because, you know, loaded
questions are fun), but the chapter I’m going to focus on is titled “Evolution – Myths
and Facts”.
It opens with a quote from Richard Dawkins – that being “Evolution is as much a fact
as the heat of the sun”, and I want to open by explaining why exactly Richard is correct
(as, if I’m honest, this is a convenient way to refresh everyone, including myself,
of all the key-terms).
Evolution simply means “Biological change over generations”, and a fact (in science)
means “An objective and verifiable observation”, and so since it’s objectively the case that
organisms biologically change over generations, evolution is therefore a fact – it’s as
much a fact, as Richard said, as the heat of the sun.
The scientific theory as to WHY this change happens is of course natural selection, but
Jehovah’s Witnesses (and creationists in general) confuse and conflate these terms,
and truth be told, most of them don’t even understand what a scientific theory is.
To put it bluntly, evolution is a theory in the same sense that Einstein’s General Relativity
is a theory (which is to say that in everyday colloquial language, it’s a fact, but scientifically
speaking, it’s a theory).
Anyhow, there’s a lot to get through here, and so I’m going to fast-forward to the
alleged “myths.”
“In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths.
Consider the following.
Myth 1.
Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes
in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely
new families of plants and animals.”
So first off, evolution DOESN’T rest on the proposition that GENETIC MUTATIONS can
produce new species (again, evolution is just the observation that organisms change over
generations, and that’s it).
Secondly, the theory of natural selection ALSO doesn't rest on this proposition… random
mutations play a vital part, of course, but what causes speciation is natural selection;
the organisms with mutations best suited to their environment have a greater chance of
surviving to reproductive age, and hence their genes (and mutations) have a greater chance
of making it into the next generation.
Or to put it metaphorically, genetic mutation is the fuel to the fire, but natural selection
is the engine.
“But do mutations really produce entirely new species?
What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed? […] the data
now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation
breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of
mutations to produce new species.
After examining the evidence, [Wolf-Ekkehard] Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform
an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one.
This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th
century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature?
The evidence answers no!”
So first off, Wolf has been discredited, and most of his publications are in NON-scientific
journals, and so quoting him as if he’s the be all and end all of evolution is barely
an Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
Secondly, and more importantly, notice that the Watchtower’s conclusion didn’t address
the supposed myth – that being “Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create
new species”, instead, it concluded by saying “Can mutations cause one species to evolve
into a completely new kind of creature?
The evidence answers no!”
Indeed, the evidence suggests that mutations ALONE won’t cause speciation, but here’s
the thing… no one asserts as much!
However, as for mutations providing raw materials to create new species, this is not only overwhelmingly
supported by the evidence, it’s a scientific fact.
When organisms reproduce, the offspring receives a copy of its parent’s DNA, and sometimes
the copy isn’t perfect (it’s mutated) – and these mutations can be beneficial,
detrimental, or neutral, but in any case, they ARE the “raw materials” needed for
natural selection to create new species.
Hence, and to say it again, mutations are the fuel to the engine of natural selection.
With that, let’s move onto myth 2: “Myth 2.
Natural selection led to the creation of new species.
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favour those life-forms best
suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off.
Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection
chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment
[…] What proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection
chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species?
A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States
refers to “the 13 species of finches--" You know, I’m going to do you favour and
skip The Watchtower’s misrepresentation of the NAS, by simply straight-up presenting
an example of speciation by natural selection.
The Greenish Warbler is a “kind” of bird that evidently first emerged in the Southern
Himalayas, but over generations expanded east and west around the mountains, slowly adapting
(or evolving) to their new environments.
Eventually, many generations later, both started inhabiting the lands north of the mountains,
but curiously, they couldn’t successfully reproduce.
They were, and still are, by definition, different species.
But here’s the thing, they’re not necessarily different “kinds”, because the word “kind”
is ambiguous!
It’s arbitrary!
We say, for example, that Sheep and Goats are different kinds, but guess what?
They can successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and so while we refer to
them as different “kinds”, they’re technically the same species.
For what it’s worth, if you want a more in-depth debunk of the term “kind” then
please check out my now quite dated video, titled Macroevolution Cannot Occur – Debunked.
“So, does natural selection really create entirely new species?
Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether
natural selection had such power.
In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may
be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything
new.”
Now, I found this quote from Jeffrey to be quite peculiar (given that he definitely accepts
evolution by natural selection), and so I did some research, and as it turns out, he’s
actually replied DIRECTLY to this quote by saying "This reference is taken out of context
from my book Sudden Origins”, and hence, the Watchtower is guilty of quote mining.
And as for them referencing George (“Evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began
questioning whether natural selection had such power”), they’ve done so simply to
seem more credible.
The fact of the matter is that George also accepted speciation via natural selection,
and once wrote “Darwin based his theory on generalizations that were strictly empirical.
You can go out and see that organisms do vary, that variations are inherited, and that every
organism is capable of increasing its numbers in sufficiently favourable circumstances.”
This quote mining from The Watchtower is pretty damn despicable.
“Myth 3.
The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes.
The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils
found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution.
It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians,
between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of
descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from
one to another particular species.”
“The facts.
The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising.
Why?
Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there
is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no
evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”
So, you probably won’t be surprised to hear that likewise to the previous references to
evolutionary biologists, this is yet another act of quote mining… but do you know what?
It’s one the most egregious I’ve ever seen.
Niles, along with Stephen Jay Gould, is responsible for the theory of punctuated equilbrium, which,
put simply, proposes that evolution occurs primarily through short bursts of intense
speciation, followed by lengthy periods of stasis or equilibrium – and what’s happened
here is that the Watchtower has taken a quote of Niles saying as much, stripped it of its
context, and presented it as if he’s saying something that he really isn’t!
Honestly, this level of deception is insane.
“To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils
and billions of small fossils.
Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups
of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing
as suddenly as they arrived.”
Now this simply isn’t true…
I mean, it’s not even a misrepresentation, it’s just made up!
It’s propaganda!
And that’s probably why The Watchtower offers no references (“Many researchers agree”)…
the truth is that we have countless examples of transitional fossils, which date exactly
to what we’d expect them to; from Archaeopteryx to Pakicetus, to Pezosiren to Tiktaalik, it’s
all there, despite the lies of the Watchertower.
Take Tiktaalik, for example - it's a perfect transitional form between water and land vertebrates!
It has scales and gills like water vertebrates, but strong limb-like fins and a flexible neck
like land vertebrates – what more could you ask for?
“If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or
atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of
scientific findings.
You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms,
despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly
defined species into something entirely new.
You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a
fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared
abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.
Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths?
Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
*Sigh*…
If you DON’T accept “macroevolution”, than you must believe that the vast majority
of the scientific community are participating in the grandest conspiracy of all time; that
ordinary people, like you and me, from every field of science, and from every country in
the world, have, over two centuries, somehow conjured and maintained a perfect conspiracy…
because… because!
Either this, or you’ve got all of your information from a creationist website, and thus have
a strawman conception of evolution, and probably science in as a whole.
Look, if you REALLY care about what’s true, then please consider stepping outside of your
cult and digesting actual scientific literature… when I want proof of god, I don’t go to
atheists, I go to theists.
If you want proof of evolution, don’t go to creationists, go to evolutionary biologists.
Anyhow, before concluding, I want share a wonderful segment of one of Lloyd Cedars’
/ Evan’s videos (who, once upon a time, was a Jehovah’s Witness himself): “All
things considered, you might be wondering why anyone would become a Jehovah's Witness
- you might even be thinking that you have to be stupid to get involved with the group,
but it really isn't that simple.
Many Witnesses are indoctrinated from when they are small children, and those who join
as adults often do so because they're emotionally vulnerable, and need the sense of community
and absolute certainty that Witness beliefs offer.
Bottom line - if you happen to know a Jehovah's Witness, please be kind to them and don't
assume you can snap them out of their beliefs easily.
Witnesses tend to be extremely emotionally invested in what they believe, and easing
them towards the exit requires an abundance of kindness, patience and understanding.”
I’ll leave a link to Lloyd’s full video on screen in a just a second, and so if you
like what you’ve just seen, please go checkout his channel, and while you’re there, say
a little hello from me.
Anyhow, I’m Stephen Woodford, and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra
special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve donated via PayPal.
Until next time my fellow apes, until next time!