Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[The Dude]

OK, so Michael Behe believes in common ancestry despite the zero evidence for it.

No, there is substantial evidence for it, in the form of fossil and molecular evidence that provides for a strong inference of speciation. This is sufficient for many of your champions of ID theory to believe in it. You don't, and you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "hahahahahahahaha" no matter what is placed before you. Why? Because Darwinists are dogmatic??

What shall we do - rejoice that another soul has accepted a blind dogma ?

Isn't that what you usually do when someone accepts Jesus?

Again, DUDE, you have to fall back to the flimsiest of proofs of you beliefs: when confronted with the fact there are no directly observedmorphological changes ON THE PLANET, you fall back to greatly exaggerating the importance of minor changes in bacteria, changes that do NOT combine more than one evolutionary change at a time, changes that are NOT morphological, and changes that have nothing to do with the more grandiose claims of evolution, i.e. - that species are derived from other species.

Ahem... lest you forget, I brought up Lenski's change in bacteria to rebut your source (Seelke). I didn't fall back on it to prove speciation.

Evolutionary theory has NEVER proved that, it has NEVER proved that its even possible, but all Darwinists claim its a fact. It's bunk.

Anyone interested in "blind dogma"? All it takes is for littlechild to declare it bunk. He's like the King Midas of blind dogma.

So quit hiding behind all the words, and come out with a single proven example of any species being derived from any other. That's your burden, and the burden of all believers in evolution. either prove it, or confess that it's all in your imagination.

If Michael Behe and a lot of other top ID theorists believe in it, then it can't be all bunk or all my imagination. Most of them simply disagree that Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient, not that speciation doesn't happen or that common ancestry is even in question. I think you are blindly dogmatic to dismiss so many learned opinions, especially when they come from your very champions.

I notice that Scott put forth Lenski's work as proof of speciation - and now we see that it is nothing more than the usual bait and switch - typical of all previous and all future so-called "proofs of evolution".

Who is Scott? What are you talking about? Don't mind me, I'm just here kicking your butt.

And you are proving MY point, not the contrary. Firstly, Ralph Seelke is not a mathematician as was claimed earlier,

I didn't claim that; you misread me. Your first link had four blurbs: one was about Seelke and another was a mathematician.

Secondly, he showed that by far the vast majority of mutations were not beneficial.

Seelke hasn't shown anything. His research is unpublished and anecdotal. Do you know how science works, littlechild?

Thirdly, Lenski's work SUPPORTS this fact, it doesn't discredit Seelke's.

That depends how you interpret Seelke's anecdote. If you interpret it as proof that evolution is bunk, then Lenski's work absolutely discredits it, because Lenski shows that new traits can be acquired in an experimental setting. On the other hand if you interpret Seelke as proof that most mutations are not beneficial... well, that's a trivial fact that no biologist disputes.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a robot. You come to conclusions not based on the evidence, but based on your prejudices and preconceived notions.

Give it up then. You are wrong, btw, about the basis of my conclusions.

Not that I care what you think or believe, it just proves my point - Darwinists are dogmatic fundamentalists who deny being such.

You apparently don't care what anyone thinks when for one second they disagree with your preconceptions (everyone: notice littlechild's reaction to Behe when I pointed out that B is fine with common ancestry). So why do you even bother with this? Hopefully not to improve your image!

I don't think there is any doubt about who is being dogmatic in this thread. A careful review of my comments vs yours will show that I have asserted very little; I have limited myself to refuting your hyperbole, and as such it is difficult for me to appear dogmatic -- but very easy for you.

[Kyle]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a robot. You come to conclusions not based on the evidence, but based on your prejudices and preconceived notions.

Those d@$* racist computers are at it again!!

[spinner]

But I haven't moved the goalposts whatsoever - its evolutionists who do that sort of trick. First they claim they have thousands of evidences of speciation on the internet - then what they end up quoting as their primary piece is nothing more than a bacteria being taught to metabolize citrate - hahahahahah - just as I thought.

littlechild, it's too late to take back what you already said. In an attempt to appear open minded, you claimed:

If there were anything more substantial than mere assertions that species give rise to other species, that would catch my interest

Yet when some very easily obtainable evidence was placed in front of your eyes (did you even read it?), you then changed the rules, demanding not a single case but "hundreds of thousands"!!!

You moved the goalposts. I provided exactly what you requested, and when your bluff was called you brazenly changed your evidentiary requirement. And if I met your ludicrous new requirement and gave you 100,000 evidences, you would then undoubtedly change the evidentiary requirement again while laughing dismissively (hahahahahah) at the evidence you didn't even bother to consider. In fact I can already see you constructing the mental fortress to protect yourself from any future evidence when you say:

it is nothing more than the usual bait and switch - typical of all previous and all future so-called "proofs of evolution"

And you do this all while accusing people (including members of your faith and fellow ID'ers) who find evidence of speciation and other evolutionary theories convincing of being "dogmatic fundamentalists", prejudiced and robot-like.

[HiJolly]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a robot. You come to conclusions not based on the evidence, but based on your prejudices and preconceived notions.

That is a pretty sweet comment. I'm thinking "pot" "kettle" "black" and such....

I studied evolution from a pure Cleon Skousen-esque creation viewpoint (he was my cousin, after all). It took me about 8 years, but after seeing much evidence and discussing the issues with a group of LDS scientists, I reversed my opinon. I am convinced that organic evolution is the "real deal". That my DNA is 70% identical to a fruit fly, helped.

At the same time, I am ALSO convinced that the "fall" is an actual event, though I'd like more information from people who say the Garden of Eden was actually on the mortal earth. Is that an assumption, or do we have scripture to that effect?

HiJolly

[Teancum]

Yes. Doctrines of Salvation is not considered by the LDS Church to be a doctrinal work. Period. End of story. Statement addressed.

Now are your pontifications. And while DOS may not be considered a doctrinal work of the Church it is from an apostle. What is your ranking in the LDS Church?

However, I'm sure you would like me to address JFS's opinion directly......

I believe there was a garden. I believe there was an Adam and Eve placed in the garden. I believe there was a Fall. I believe Adam brought death into the world through the Fall. I believe God created man in his own image. I believe animals and humans reproduce after their own kind, etc. etc.

I believe I have demonstrated a scenario in which the full blown evolution of animals and man as understood by the scientific community in general can co-exist with all LDS doctrine and scripture. Of course I do not teach that scenario as doctrine or absolute truth.

JFS does not allow this for you in his comments. Not one whit. He would tell you your view refute Adam, the fall and the need for a savior. However, that said, from an LDS view of trying to make the doctrine of a literal Adam and Eve and the Fall work I do not find your position unreasonable. I just find it highly speculative. This I think is a rather large issue. Why do not prophets and apostles reveal the truth about this? Rather it seems members are left to formulate their own opinion and those opinions are crafted forcing religious dogma to work with science. Modifications are seemingly made as science seems to demonstrate that what scripture says may or may not be the case.

I am quite sure the Church does not teach for or against evolution or creationism. I do not believe that those who believe in creationism are hell bound, though truth be told, I tend to think of them as scientifically illiterate.

Nope. We are left all to our own devices on this one.

I also believe that many of those in the Church who don't accept evolution, including JFS and any apostle or prophet you care to name....

1. Don't understand what evolution is; that evolution also teaches that animals and humans reproduce after their own kind.

2. Have reacted instinctively against evolution without considering all the possibilites (such as 2 Nephi 2:22). This may be due to upbringing or association.

3. Have not received any revelation from the Lord refuting evolution.

Hmm

So is your position revelation? Why should I believe you more than JFS or BRM? They seem to be the only modern church leaders that take a position on this. The rest seem silent.

[Ahman]

There are two known evolutionary time periods.

From the Fall of Adam to the Flood of Noah.

And from the Flood of Noah to today.

There was no death before Adam Fell. Before Adam fell nothing evolved from the immortal perfect state that God created it in.

Outside of that understanding, have a field day.

[Tarski]

There are two known evolutionary time periods.

From the Fall of Adam to the Flood of Noah.

And from the Flood of Noah to today.

There was no death before Adam Fell. Before Adam fell nothing evolved from the immortal perfect state that God created it in.

Outside of that understanding, have a field day.

Utter nonsense. We already know for sure way way too much about timelines and evolutionary rates. Trying to jam the 100 story building of science into the three inch thimble of literalist religion just isn't going to work. It only creates humor for those who know the timescale and scope of evolution, its explanitory power and (contra littlechild's imagination and reading of fringies) the massive evidence supporting it.

1 tiidbit:

[BCSpace]

Yes. Doctrines of Salvation is not considered by the LDS Church to be a doctrinal work. Period. End of story. Statement addressed.

Now are your pontifications. And while DOS may not be considered a doctrinal work of the Church it is from an apostle. What is your ranking in the LDS Church?

Of no matter. If not doctrinal, then an Apostles words are only as good as anyone else.

However, I'm sure you would like me to address JFS's opinion directly......

I believe there was a garden. I believe there was an Adam and Eve placed in the garden. I believe there was a Fall. I believe Adam brought death into the world through the Fall. I believe God created man in his own image. I believe animals and humans reproduce after their own kind, etc. etc.

I believe I have demonstrated a scenario in which the full blown evolution of animals and man as understood by the scientific community in general can co-exist with all LDS doctrine and scripture. Of course I do not teach that scenario as doctrine or absolute truth.

JFS does not allow this for you in his comments. Not one whit.

So? He doesn't explain why in the section you quoted.

He would tell you your view refute Adam, the fall and the need for a savior.

And I would tell him it does not and show him how.

However, that said, from an LDS view of trying to make the doctrine of a literal Adam and Eve and the Fall work I do not find your position unreasonable. I just find it highly speculative.

There is only one small area of speculation, the distinguishing of the creative and the created period and where no death fits. Scripture only places the state of no death in the created period. Therefore, this state may or may not exist in the creative period.

This I think is a rather large issue. Why do not prophets and apostles reveal the truth about this?

Why doesn't God reveal all about everything anyway?

Rather it seems members are left to formulate their own opinion and those opinions are crafted forcing religious dogma to work with science.

What is wrong with that?

Modifications are seemingly made as science seems to demonstrate that what scripture says may or may not be the case.

It doesn't seem to me that the Church has established any doctrine at all on the matter. Hence no such modifications are being made. No doctrine and no scripture has been modifed. The modifications being made are how we fill in the gaps where there is no doctrine.

So is your position revelation?

I stated expressly what my position was.

Why should I believe you more than JFS or BRM?

The only thing I ask belief in is the fact that the Church has no doctrine, no preference on the question of evolution vs creationism.

They seem to be the only modern church leaders that take a position on this. The rest seem silent.

Their position doesn't matter if not sanctioned by the Church.

[Tchild2]

The only thing I ask belief in is the fact that the Church has no doctrine, no preference on the question of evolution vs creationism.

But it does BC. The church does have a foundational doctrinal belief in "the fall", despite your unnoticed (unnoticed by any of the LDS leaders who still believe it and profess it, both past and present) protests stating otherwise. And the specifics about those beliefs are creationism centered and conflict with evolution. As plain as day, the past prophets have taught it, the church endorses and continues teaching it, utilizing every medium that they control; General conference, the Ensign, sunday services, and even the gospel manual.

In fact BCspace. in a section called "Doctrines" right on the LDS.org website where the the church lays out and explains its doctrines, we read this concerning the fall; "In other words, they experienced spiritual death. They also became mortalâ??subject to physical death. This spiritual and physical death is called the Fall." Let me repeat it...physical death.

It is right there...just read it and let the profundity of what it means just sink in and shake you loose from the twisting pain of your mental gymnastics.

[BCSpace]

The only thing I ask belief in is the fact that the Church has no doctrine, no preference on the question of evolution vs creationism.

But it does BC. The church does have a foundational doctrinal belief in "the fall", despite your unnoticed (unnoticed by any of the LDS leaders who still believe it and profess it, both past and present) protests stating otherwise.

Here is the fatal flaw in your argument against me. I don't reject the Fall. I believe it happened with the effects exactly as you describe below....

In fact BCspace. in a section called "Doctrines" right on the LDS.org website where the the church lays out and explains its doctrines, we read this concerning the fall; "In other words, they experienced spiritual death. They also became mortalâ??subject to physical death. This spiritual and physical death is called the Fall." Let me repeat it...physical death.

I believe it wholeheartedly. Where is the problem? Do you understand my hypothesis well enough to argue against it?

It is right there...just read it and let the profundity of what it means just sink in and shake you loose from the twisting pain of your mental gymnastics.

My mind has been completely free of pain on this issue for many years now. But I am always looking for a challenge in case I might be wrong or need to modify how I fill in the doctrinal gaps.

[semlogo]

Any quotes by any past prophet or apostle that interprets "the fall" as something other than literal, or as described by Dr. Woodward, you are free and invited to post them to support a counter argument. Secondly, the Ensign is the church's official medium to disseminate its teachings and doctrines. Dr. Woodward, no matter how lowly his position, still had his ideas, scriptures, quotes and conclusions officially approved and sanctioned.

Like I said, if you got counter scriptures please cite them.

Maybe members ought to disregard the Ensign, and look to speculative arguments on certain internet boards to determine the church's position on its own doctrines, teachings and beliefs?

False dilemma. Evolution does not need to contradict the main points of the doctrine of the fall. It really just depends on how you look at it.

In Genesis Satan is represented by a snake. In the LDS Temple retelling of that story, he isn't really a snake, he's a man. One example of a non-literal take on the Genesis account. And again, if the scriptures are allowed to use allegorical language, so are the prophets - even if they themselves are unaware that it is allegorical. I can say that Adam was the first man and not be technically in error, even if I'm unaware that "first man" really means the first man who spoke with God.

[semlogo]

See also:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Death_before_the_Fall

[Lightbearer]

BYU is full of heretic professors? And David O McKay was a heretic now?

Sure why not. As for David O McKay I would be interested in seeing where he ever endorsed the theory of organic evolution and disallowed the fall of Adam? CFR

[semlogo]

Sure why not. As for David O McKay I would be interested in seeing where he ever endorsed the theory of organic evolution and disallowed the fall of Adam? CFR

I never said he did - he just wasn't willing to denounce it because there is no revelation stating that it's false, and he knew that there was no official doctrine against evolution. He admitted that evolution may in fact have occured.

Dear Brother Stokes

Your letter of February 11, 1957 has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book, â??Man, His Origin and Destinyâ? was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church.

The book contains expressions of the authorâ??s views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,

David O. McKay

(President).

Evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. [David O McKay]

It would do no violence to my faith to learn that God had formed man in one way or another. [David O McKay]

Whatever the subject may be, the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ may be elaborated on without fear of anyone's objecting, and the teacher can be free to express his honest conviction regarding it, whether that subject be in geology, the history of the world, the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world, [David O McKay]

Also:

Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies.

That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies. [Henry Eyring]

It is only fair to warn parents and teachers that a young person is going to face a very substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the earth's age as millions of years, and that a young person might "throw the baby out with the bath" unless allowed to seek the truth, from whatever source, without prejudice. [Henry Eyring]

If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process. [stephen L Richards]

The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture. Indeed, why should they be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read. [steven Jones]

Many sympathetic to science interpret certain statements in LDS scripture to mean that God used a version of evolution to prepare bodies and environmental surrounding suitable for the premortal spirits. [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God ... are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God. [Editorial in The Improvement Era]

[Tchild2]

False dilemma. Evolution does not need to contradict the main points of the doctrine of the fall. It really just depends on how you look at it.

The non-literal (and I agree that certain parts of Genesis are seen as symbolic in LDSism), teachings include, and this is very important; Adam as the first man...that is immortal (unable to die), "placed" wholly formed into the Garden, whose "fall" was necessary to introduce physical mortality into the world.

So, we can see that this is patently contradictory to the theories of evolution, of man, and of life and death. Man was a fully intergrated part of the evolutionary processes taking place in the world and was not "placed" here immortal by God, and a fall was not necessary for man or the animal kingdom to introduce mortality, because it was here long before then.

In Genesis Satan is represented by a snake. In the LDS Temple retelling of that story, he isn't really a snake, he's a man. One example of a non-literal take on the Genesis account. And again, if the scriptures are allowed to use allegorical language, so are the prophets - even if they themselves are unaware that it is allegorical. I can say that Adam was the first man and not be technically in error, even if I'm unaware that "first man" really means the first man who spoke with God.

I agree that Genesis utilizes symbolic and allegorical language and is rich with such. It was religious leaders themselves, who created a literal interpretation and then canonized that interpretion into scripture and doctrine, and teach it right up until this day as a literal truth.

I agree that such scripture works better symbolicly, allegorically or metaphorically, so why didn't the prophets supposedly speaking for God know this, and how did their error make it into the foundations of the LDS cosmology? My opinion, is that it did so because LDS leaders do not speak to an anthropomorphic God and they are merely myth making, and myth propogating.

Christianity or Mormonism might be true on some level, but it is not true literally as it claims it is, and the "fall" amongst other literal interpretations is probably the best evidence of that.

[semlogo]

I agree that such scripture works better symbolicly, allegorically or metaphorically, so why didn't the prophets supposedly speaking for God know this, and how did their error make it into the foundations of the LDS cosmology? My opinion, is that it did so because LDS leaders do not speak to an anthropomorphic God and they are merely myth making, and myth propogating.

Christianity or Mormonism might be true on some level, but it is not true literally as it claims it is, and the "fall" amongst other literal interpretations is probably the best evidence of that.

1Cr 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

[BCSpace]

In Genesis Satan is represented by a snake. In the LDS Temple retelling of that story, he isn't really a snake, he's a man. One example of a non-literal take on the Genesis account. And again, if the scriptures are allowed to use allegorical language, so are the prophets - even if they themselves are unaware that it is allegorical. I can say that Adam was the first man and not be technically in error, even if I'm unaware that "first man" really means the first man who spoke with God.

Good point. In my hypothesis, since I use the scriptures to distinguish between the period of creation and the period after which is the finished creation, first flesh and first man mean to me the first flesh to have finished the creative process and the first homo sapiens whose spirit is a spirit child of God respectively.

Thus, though evolutionary processes still proceed apace for all creatures, they will not affect man any more to the extent that we no longer look like God. We will not inhabit the earth in mortality long enough to naturally change that much. We are finished being created and were the first to reach that point.

Interesting note: So far, 48 LDS have voted and only 11 (23%) do not accept some form of evolution.

[littlechild]

You cited as your primary source the guy who couldn't get the bacteria to do anything. I cited the guy who got the experiment to work and then published it. The score is Creationists 0 - Evolutionists 1. It's your move, littlechild, if you've got anything better than "hahahahahahah".

This argument is going nowhere

If it pleases you to count it as gain to teach a bacteria to do something that it already CAN do then be my guest claim all the victory your side is capable of.

It certainly can't claim any greater victory than that unless you want to count fooling people into believing in something that has never been witnessed nor will be :

there is no proof that men and trees and halibuts all have a common ancestry, and in my view their never will be

and certainly anyone who believes such HAS to accept it on faith alone.

[Jeff K.]

Good point. In my hypothesis, since I use the scriptures to distinguish between the period of creation and the period after which is the finished creation, first flesh and first man mean to me the first flesh to have finished the creative process and the first homo sapiens whose spirit is a spirit child of God respectively.

Thus, though evolutionary processes still proceed apace for all creatures, they will not affect man any more to the extent that we no longer look like God. We will not inhabit the earth in mortality long enough to naturally change that much. We are finished being created and were the first to reach that point.

Interesting note: So far, 48 LDS have voted and only 11 (23%) do not accept some form of evolution.

I think its amazing how they seemed to follow the steps in the right patter. I mean why not create a lion first and have it sing into existence everything else? Why seperate light and darkness, planets, then water first prior to plants and fish and so on.... How is it that pattern was chosen?

[katherine the great]

I think its amazing how they seemed to follow the steps in the right patter. I mean why not create a lion first and have it sing into existence everything else? Why seperate light and darkness, planets, then water first prior to plants and fish and so on.... How is it that pattern was chosen?

Seriously, the Biblical writers were smart enough to know that fish couldn't be created before water and plants cannot thrive with no light (well, except maybe in the deep ocean...)

[The Dude]

This argument is going nowhere

If it pleases you to count it as gain to teach a bacteria to do something that it already CAN do then be my guest claim all the victory your side is capable of.

To be honest, I wasn't that excited about Lenski's result when I first heard about it. I am more interested in knowing what genetic changes conferred the new ability on the bacteria, and that has not been figured out yet (to my knowledge). So I am still waiting before I call it intellectually satisfying. But Seelke's result is nothing more than sham science. It's sad that his "no data" result is the best claim to victory your side is capable of.

It certainly can't claim any greater victory than that unless you want to count fooling people into believing in something that has never been witnessed nor will be :

And your theory is... <poof> creation happened. Is that right? Never witnessed nor will be, I expect.

there is no proof that men and trees and halibuts all have a common ancestry, and in my view their never will be

and certainly anyone who believes such HAS to accept it on faith alone.

I can only imagine what "proof" means to you. To me the most significant evidence for common descent is the molecular evidence that Darwin could not have imagined at the time when he devised his theory. The biochemical mechanism of inheritance wasn't known then, and now that we do know, not only do we see compatibility with Darwin's theory but billions of bits of confirmatory evidence that we share ancestry with every other species whose genome has been sequenced. The hypothesized relatedness between organisms is re-told in our genes. It cannot be honestly asserted that common ancestry is believed on faith alone. How do you deal with the molecular evidence?

[Jeff K.]

Seriously, the Biblical writers were smart enough to know that fish couldn't be created before water and plants cannot thrive with no light (well, except maybe in the deep ocean...)

Hunter gatherers wandered around for roughly 80,000 years before the idea of seeding and planting crops began to take hold.

[Rincewind]

I don't want to get into a huge discussion, but I did have a question.

If someone/something (God, space aliens, giant spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, intelligent quarks...whatever, I don't care and it's not important to me or the question I'm asking) did meddle with the earth early on - and we're talking the very beginnings of the rise of protein chains here, or earlier - thereby assisting either the creation of DNA or pushing DNA in a direction that led to the rise of life (as we know it), how would we be able to tell? That is, how would we distinguish it from pure 'natural' occurrence?

This is something that's been bugging me for a while. How could you tell if someone meddled with evolution, or even started it, if the action occurred at such a time that the results would be in pretty much every strand of DNA.

(This is not an argument FOR or AGAINST. It is a QUESTION. Thank you in advance.)

[Tarski]

I don't want to get into a huge discussion, but I did have a question.

If someone/something (God, space aliens, giant spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, intelligent quarks...whatever, I don't care and it's not important to me or the question I'm asking) did meddle with the earth early on - and we're talking the very beginnings of the rise of protein chains here, or earlier - thereby assisting either the creation of DNA or pushing DNA in a direction that led to the rise of life (as we know it), how would we be able to tell? That is, how would we distinguish it from pure 'natural' occurrence?

This is something that's been bugging me for a while. How could you tell if someone meddled with evolution, or even started it, if the action occurred at such a time that the results would be in pretty much every strand of DNA.

(This is not an argument FOR or AGAINST. It is a QUESTION. Thank you in advance.)

I guess you wouldn't. You pick the simplest theory that has good explanitory power and see where it takes you conceptually and evidentially.

If I look outside and see the leaves on the ground around my nearly bare tree, how do I know that they weren't carefully placed there in a natural looking pattern by angels or aliens?

Hmmm, I think I am going to slip over to my neighbor's house and pull one of the dry leaves off his tree and place it on the ground like it fell there naturally.

[BCSpace]

If someone/something (God, space aliens, giant spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, intelligent quarks...whatever, I don't care and it's not important to me or the question I'm asking) did meddle with the earth early on - and we're talking the very beginnings of the rise of protein chains here, or earlier - thereby assisting either the creation of DNA or pushing DNA in a direction that led to the rise of life (as we know it), how would we be able to tell? That is, how would we distinguish it from pure 'natural' occurrence?

If you're a Star Trek fan, watch The Chase for an interesting theme based on this.