169 replies to this topic

[Cobalt-70]

Flyonthewall, on 05 April 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

I don't see the fossil record as a problem, or the need of 100% extinction as a problem either.
I figure that God simply used the previous fauna as a pattern for what we have now.  That is how some animals seem to not have changed and some have been modified for the present state of the earth.

A God who would allow a 3.5 billion year evolutionary process to continue up until 6000 years ago, only to kill off all the life and then recreate that life exactly as it existed before he killed it, would be a very capricious and inefficient god.

[zerinus]

Log, on 08 April 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

What are you talking about?  Are you even reading the posts you respond to?

Did I misunderstand? My apologies if I did!

[Log]

Cobalt-70, on 08 April 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

A God who would allow a 3.5 billion year evolutionary process to continue up until 6000 years ago, only to kill off all the life and then recreate that life exactly as it existed before he killed it, would be a very capricious and inefficient god.

Oh, a God who allows a 3.5 billion year evolutionary process at all would be inefficient (at the least).  The rest is detail.

Edited by Log, 08 April 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Convergent evolution

Definition
noun
A kind of evolution wherein organisms evolve structures that have similar (analogous) structures or functions in spite of their evolutionary ancestors being very dissimilar or unrelated.

Supplement
Examples are:

• the wings of bats, birds, and insects evolved independently from each other but all are used to perform the function of flying
  
• the complex eyes of vertebrates, cephalopods (squid and octopus), cubozoan jellyfish, and arthropods (insects, spiders, crustaceans) evolved separately, but all perform the function of vision
  
• the smelling organs of the terrestrial coconut crab are similar to those of insects
  
• the very similar shells of brachiopods and bivalve molluscs
  
• prickles, thorns and spines have evolved independently to prevent or limit herbivory
  
• plant hormones such as gibberellin and abscisic acid of plants and fungi

Not sure how that answers the problem of finding a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 08 April 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Log]

thesometimesaint, on 08 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Log:

Convergent evolution

Definition
noun
A kind of evolution wherein organisms evolve structures that have similar (analogous) structures or functions in spite of their evolutionary ancestors being very dissimilar or unrelated.

Supplement
Examples are:

• the wings of bats, birds, and insects evolved independently from each other but all are used to perform the function of flying
  
• the complex eyes of vertebrates, cephalopods (squid and octopus), cubozoan jellyfish, and arthropods (insects, spiders, crustaceans) evolved separately, but all perform the function of vision
  
• the smelling organs of the terrestrial coconut crab are similar to those of insects
  
• the very similar shells of brachiopods and bivalve molluscs
  
• prickles, thorns and spines have evolved independently to prevent or limit herbivory
  
• plant hormones such as gibberellin and abscisic acid of plants and fungi

Not sure how that answers the problem of finding a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt.

Read the definition again, and again, until it sinks in.  To help you further, consider the examples listed differ only from your own proposal in the matter of degree.

Edited by Log, 08 April 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[Cobalt-70]

Stargazer, on 05 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them.  I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE).  If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna.  We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words.  Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover.  As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

Neanderthals died out long before Adam and Eve would have lived. The genome of two species cannot gradually become partially identical merely because the two species eat the same food. It requires interbreeding. And the present genetic diversity of humans is incompatible with a single ancestor couple living 6000 years ago. 6000 years simply isn't long enough for us to have evolved so many genotypes.

Quote

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded?  No accounting for it, I guess.

I'll definitely agree with you there.

[Log]

Cobalt-70, on 08 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

The genome of two species ...becom[ing] partially identical ... requires interbreeding.

CFR.  I want to see the logical demonstration of the necessity of this requirement.

Edited by Log, 08 April 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[Bikeemikey]

I personally hope that Jesus holds off coming until humanity has awesome space ships and can do things like warp drive.

Here is my argument as to why God didn't make the world in 7 days.

1) God created our world (by this we include the Sun, Stars and Planets currently in our universe).
2) God is still creating the universe we live in - including Stars and Planets that are springing into existence.
3) We can watch the creation of these new stars and planets through new observation equipment.
4) We can check back in 7 days time and they are not finished.
5) We have no reason to think God would use a fundamentally different process in creating our world, Sun, Stars than he would the Worlds, Suns, Stars that he is creating today (he is after all unchangeable :-)
6) God does not currently make stuff like worlds in 7 days.
7) We should have no reason to think God made our world in 7 days.

We could repeat this process for the 7000 year argument if we had enough observational data of sufficient quality - we currently do not have that data.

We can currently see the processes by which God creates by watching him create. If we believe God is the creator of the universe then the science of the birth and death of Stars and planets is reporting on the process God uses to create. While we do not currently have historical data to confound the 7000 year argument as clearly as we can the 7 day one, we do know the general process that is used in the birth of stars and planets. We know enough to clearly state that a planet does not spring into existence in 7 days or even 7000 years.

To world is old. The universe is older.

Given that we know we had a pre-earth life and could have been kicking it with Jesus in the heavens for billions of years before coming to earth this argument has no bearing at all on validity of our theology. Remember - we can currently watch God create worlds. If we believe that God creates all worlds, Suns, Stars, then there is no way we can argue for a 7 day creation cosmology with out also stating that either God is not creating the new worlds appearing in the universe, or that he has got much slower at it (perhaps a sign of his age or disinclination?).

[Cobalt-70]

Log, on 08 April 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

I'm not seeing the chain of logic.  Can you please expound upon how it necessarily follows that there would be no species on one side of the boundary in common with or related to species on the other side of the boundary?

Because if even one species survived, the earth didn't really "die."

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Nice ad hominin. But it doesn't make any sense to use ANY fossil above the level of the bacteria when dealing with the Pre-Cambrian Era.

[Cobalt-70]

Log, on 08 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

CFR.  I want to see the logical demonstration of the necessity of this requirement.

It is a statistical argument. There are four different genetic bases. The probability that even 100 similarities between humans and Neanderthals occurred by chance is roughly 1 in 4 to the power of 100, which is an astronomical number. Other than mere chance or common descent (or gene therapy, which early humans and Neanderthals did not practice), the only way they two species can get the same genes is through interbreeding.

[Cobalt-70]

Let me just present my theory. In D&C 77, Smith was just commenting on the meaning of the symbolism used by John. John's division of history into seven "seals" is highly symbolic and numerological anyway, and should not be taken literally. If you read Revelation as a history, you have sadly missed the point.

[Log]

thesometimesaint, on 08 April 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Log:

Nice ad hominin. But it doesn't make any sense to use ANY fossil above the level of the bacteria when dealing with the Pre-Cambrian Era.

It's not ad hominem.  Nice try.

[Log]

Cobalt-70, on 08 April 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

It is a statistical argument. There are four different genetic bases. The probability that even 100 similarities between humans and Neanderthals occurred by chance is roughly 1 in 4 to the power of 100, which is an astronomical number.

Astronomical numbers are supposedly rendered less astronomical given sufficient time and the application of natural selection.  Have you not read Dawkins?  Even getting a single self-replicating RNA strand produces numbers in this range, for the same reason, yet people swallow that hypothesis all the time.

Be consistent.  If that statistical argument worked, you could potentially falsify evolutionary theory with it.  (Indeed, that is precisely how it has been falsified.)

FYI - the logical necessity that partial identity in genomes require interbreeding cannot be demonstrated because it's an assumption.

Cobalt-70, on 08 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Because if even one species survived, the earth didn't really "die."

That wasn't part of the question asked; you've made an assumption.  I agree that self-contradictory propositions contradict themselves.

Edited by Log, 08 April 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[Stargazer]

Cobalt-70, on 08 April 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

A God who would allow a 3.5 billion year evolutionary process to continue up until 6000 years ago, only to kill off all the life and then recreate that life exactly as it existed before he killed it, would be a very capricious and inefficient god.

God must be "efficient"?  Who says?  An entire Universe to play with, and He has to be "efficient"?  I don't even know what that means in this context!

That being said, however, I should like to suggest that 6000 years ago (or whatever), He introduced Adam and Eve into the Garden.  They needn't have descended from anything here previously, but I do believe God could make it look like they came from here.  This isn't scientific, or natural.  It's artificial.  And so what?

I don't insist on this scenario, though.  I simply trust that God did what He did in a brilliant way.

[zerinus]

Stargazer, on 08 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

God must be "efficient"?  Who says?  An entire Universe to play with, and He has to be "efficient"?  I don't even know what that means in this context!

That being said, however, I should like to suggest that 6000 years ago (or whatever), He introduced Adam and Eve into the Garden.  They needn't have descended from anything here previously, but I do believe God could make it look like they came from here.  This isn't scientific, or natural.  It's artificial.  And so what?

I don't insist on this scenario, though.  I simply trust that God did what He did in a brilliant way.

So why not take the biblical account literally, which says that He fashioned them "out of the dust of the ground" (meaning from the elements of this world)? If Jesus was able to perform such extraordinary acts as giving sight to one born blind, or bringing back to life someone who had died, or making someone walk who had never walked, etc.; and His disciples and prophets were empowered to do similar type of acts such as the miracles of Moses in Egypt and in Sinai, the Brother of Jared commanding mountains to move, Elijah calling down fire from heaven on his enemies etc.; why should it appear so incredible that God should create man in one piece out of the elements of this world? As it says in Genesis 18:14, "Is any thing too hard for the Lord?"

Edited by zerinus, 08 April 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[cinepro]

Log, on 08 April 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Oh, a God who allows a 3.5 billion year evolutionary process at all would be inefficient (at the least).  The rest is detail.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  This is one of my biggest problems with the idea that God used evolution in the creation process:

The whole idea behind evolution is that you don’t know how it’s going to end up. It’s gradual change over time, with improvements being made bit by bit (or with punctuated big bits).

But supposedly God knew all along exactly what the end product was supposed to look like (namely: like Him). He knew the form and function of all the organs, and the total anatomy from head to toe.  This idea is most explicitly outlined in the LDS doctrine of “Spiritual Creation“, in which things are actually created in spirit form before their physical creation.  But how can that be possible with evolution?

This theory would suggest that God using evolution was a process with a goal; it had to come out just right so it would look just like Him. It couldn’t result in humans with three arms, or one eye. That’s not what evolution is.

So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends? It would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package.  Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie.  You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error.   Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”?

If you were given a kitchen full of ingredients and had no idea what a cookie was, and you started mixing things together and over the course of several years gradually figured out how to develop something cookie-like, you could say that you evolved a "cookie".  But if you start out with the image of a round, brown, cookie-like cookie with chocolate chips and are then trying different methods to reach that goal, then that is not evolution.

The other problem is the ongoing nature of evolution.  The story of the creation gives the idea of a creative “period”, and then the state where things are “created”.  2 Nephi 2:22 certainly frames the creation in such a way.  But evolution doesn’t have an end.  How could it?  How could God be evolving thousands of different species, each moving slowly towards their intended finished design, and then find that one moment in time where a species is “created”, and then have it keep evolving?  And what happens when some speices are fully evolved/created after 20 million years, but other species need 80 million years, or 100 million years?  Do some animals get their spirits first?  Are there animals even today who are not yet “created”, and are spiritless lifeforms waiting to evolve into their final “spiritual” form?

And what happens if a species evolves away from its spiritually created form?  Does it become “uncreated”?

Sure, God could use evolution (a time consuming and wasteful process) to “create” life to the exact specification he had alreay prepared, but why would He?  Other than the fact that some LDS need to reconcile the evidence for evolution with a belief in God-centric creation, why would anyone believe that?

Edited by cinepro, 09 April 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Log]

cinepro, on 08 April 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Sure, God could use evolution (a time consuming and wasteful process) to “create” life to the exact specification he had alreay prepared, but why would He?  Other than the fact that some LDS need to reconcile the evidence for evolution with a belief in God-centric creation, why would anyone believe that?

I snickered at the bolded portion.  But your point no doubt carries with full strength for its intended targets.

[KevinG]

God does use volunteers.  Given how long it takes to organize a good ward activity 3.5 Billion years doesn't seem too out of line for a world.

[Stargazer]

zerinus, on 08 April 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

So why not take the biblical account literally, which says that He fashioned them "out of the dust of the ground" (meaning from the elements of this world)? If Jesus was able to perform such extraordinary acts as giving sight to one born blind, or bringing back to life someone who had died, or making someone walk who had never walked, etc.; and His disciples and prophets were empowered to do similar type of acts such as the miracles of Moses in Egypt and in Sinai, the Brother of Jared commanding mountains to move, Elijah calling down fire from heaven on his enemies etc.; why should it appear so incredible that God should create man in one piece out of the elements of this world? As it says in Genesis 18:14, "Is any thing too hard for the Lord?"

Why not take it figuratively?  It doesn't matter, in the long run.