Evolution

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Anijen said:

This only took 9 months

It's easy when it is coded for it.

[nuclearfuels]

22 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Wow.  That is quite a rant. Now you aren’t even talking about evolution. You are delving into abiogenesis-no one really has a clue about this. 

And wow to you, my friend. 

You have avoided addressing that scary topic of math and probability of some theories you espouse.

Excellent debate tactic.

Reminds me of Berlinski's claim that Darwinists claim ID is false  by incredulity.

March on.

In Solidarity

[nuclearfuels]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't this only relevant if it was purely by chance - i.e. if there weren't other physical factors at work that makes that first order approximation incorrect?

That's the problem with all these sorts of calculations. It assumes that the world is what our limited knowledge lets us say. An appeal to the God of the gaps then gets made. However that gap simply could also hold other physical structures leading to the outcome we know happened. There's no intrinsic reason to say God is why our calculations seem wrong. Every place a Creationist appeals to God a scientist could merely say there's unknown chemical structures that lead to the outcome.

The three people I quoted and those who published with them are addressing the leading ideas that attempt to bridge one of the many failures of Darwinism.

For them to address the philosophical argument of Darwinism, they'd just have to point to Nazi Germany.

[blueglass]

One theory is that Homo heidelbergensis is the father of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homosapiens.  Do you think we will have another divergence in the future ?  Branches of transhumanism?  Is this similar to the plan of salvation with 3-way divergence in the heaven's glory? 

Edited December 18, 2018 by blueglass

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

The three people I quoted and those who published with them are addressing the leading ideas that attempt to bridge one of the many failures of Darwinism.

For them to address the philosophical argument of Darwinism, they'd just have to point to Nazi Germany.

Honestly have no clue what you're arguing here. Sorry. 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Here is the article and methods - yes, it was peer reviewed and published in a prominent journal:

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/44/E4736.full.pdf

Here is the article about the article with comments from the authors:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141021135020.htm

Thanks for the link. That makes the discussion much easier. I made the point about professional just because a lot of stuff gets pushed that isn't. Getting specific helps a ton. It certainly did in this case.

However aren't they in that article just making exactly the argument I was making? They looked at the paths empirically and then developed statistical methods to calculate those paths. This suggests that the probabilities of those paths are high and predictable. 

You were originally critiquing this by saying how improbable it was whereas their papers is arguing exactly the opposite. Quoting from the block quote in their paper. Emphasis mine.

• Unless there are strong constraints, the probability of complex organs originating multiple times through similar trajectories should be vanishingly small. Here, we report that similar light- producing organs (photophores) evolved separately in two squid species, yet each organ expresses similar genes at comparable levels. Gene expression is so similar that overall expression levels alone can predict organ identity, even in separately evolved traits of squid species separated by tens of millions of years. The striking similarity of expression of hundreds of genes in distinct photophores indicates complex trait evolution may sometimes be more constrained and predictable than expected, either because of internal factors, like a limited array of suitable genetic building blocks, or external factors, like natural selection favoring an optimum.

That's nearly identical to what I was arguing above.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

No, that is not all you need for your argument. You don’t think these scientists and statisticians took that into account?   This was published in a peer reviewed journal and you think that is all that is needed to discredit these specialists?  That seems presumptuous. Or, perhaps you are only responding to my arguments, but either way you seem to distrust their conclusions without really understanding their methods.

I was responding to your arguments. It's not presumptive to say what I said. Indeed it was so reasonable that it ended up being what the people you were referencing were saying.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

To say that some mutations are “more likely” than others does not demonstrate that these specific mutations that we see in all of these examples of convergent evolution are more likely than others.  

I think you got their paper completely backwards. Their whole point is that these mutations are much more likely to the point of being predictable. They hypothesize that the reason for this is due to the limited number of building blocks (i.e. local probability curves) or selection. But the whole point is that this is very probable not improbable like you were claiming. The whole thing they're saying is that if we assume a flat probability curve this shouldn't happen but there isn't a flat probability curve - particularly when you look at the evolutionary paths.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

You argument is based on the presumption that these parallel mutations are likely with no evidence or reason whatsoever.  All of the scientists publishing these results seem to be surprised...but I guess that is all just hype. 

Not at all. I'm saying that assuming a flat probability curve is wrong. It's demonstrably wrong because we can look at measurements and it's not flat in those cases. Therefore the presumption should be it's not flat in other cases we haven't examined. Therefore the only way to know the probabilities is to measure empirically the paths and their probabilities. I said this several times. You then linked to the paper which was in fact doing precisely the calculation which I said needed to be done and their conclusion was it was probable. i.e. the paper completely undermines the point you were trying to make with it.

Your argument was that we should calculate the probability ignoring paths and using flat probabilities (you didn't put it in those words, but that's what the argument required) and that given that this coevolution was extremely improbable. The paper you referenced though looks at paths and argues it's extremely probable. Now you may disagree with why they think it probable (selection or limits on building blocks) but it seems pretty clear they think the paths are probable not improbable.  

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

One theory is that Homo heidelbergensis is the father of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homosapiens.  Do you think we will have another divergence in the future ?  Branches of transhumanism?  Is this similar to the plan of salvation with 3-way divergence in the heaven's glory? 

Did you see that recent discovery of tool use from 700,000 years ago? Far earlier than any human-like ancestor. (sorry if someone posted that earlier)

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/stone-tools-rhinoceros-luzon-philippines-ancient-hominins-science/

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[FunOnlineMan]

 

Quote

Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race? 

Hi. I do. It did. It also became octopus, fruit flies, whales, naked mole rats, vultures, Australopithecus, chameleons, elephants, deinonychus, etc.

This has been shown and verified through multiple methods. You can study it yourself, free of charge. You don’t have to, but you can. Try delving into phylogeneny for a while. To me, it’s as enjoyable as it is informative.

[katherine the great]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

The three people I quoted and those who published with them are addressing the leading ideas that attempt to bridge one of the many failures of Darwinism.

For them to address the philosophical argument of Darwinism, they'd just have to point to Nazi Germany.

Not sure what the Nazis have to do with Darwin. Maybe you're mixing up the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Darwin was not a proponent of eugenics--that was his cousin.

[snowflake]

8 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

 

Hi. I do. It did. It also became octopus, fruit flies, whales, naked mole rats, vultures, Australopithecus, chameleons, elephants, deinonychus, etc.

This has been shown and verified through multiple methods. You can study it yourself, free of charge. You don’t have to, but you can. Try delving into phylogeneny for a while. To me, it’s as enjoyable as it is informative.

Ok, i was a believer in your religion as well for quite some time. What's your take on the abiogenesis problem?

[pogi]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Thanks for the link. That makes the discussion much easier. I made the point about professional just because a lot of stuff gets pushed that isn't. Getting specific helps a ton. It certainly did in this case.

However aren't they in that article just making exactly the argument I was making? They looked at the paths empirically and then developed statistical methods to calculate those paths. This suggests that the probabilities of those paths are high and predictable. 

Perhaps I am not communicating my point well, because I did already addressed the articles conclusions that the convergence is so identical that it may be predictable.  I even went so far as to link to other articles that came to the similar conclusion, stating that genes seem to be "predisposed for a given novel function". But I also think you have misunderstood the article a little.  The researchers have no clue why this is happening.  They simply listed several possible explanations and suggestions for further research.  So you can't say that they have concluded that anything is probable.  It is only probable if their possible explanations prove to be correct. In which case, not only is it probable, but the gene expression was so identical that it would be considered highly predictable!

That is the point I was trying to make, either way you look at it, it seems to suggest a divine blueprint and intervention, because either 1) the probabilities are vanishingly small or 2) these genes are predisposed towards a given novel function.  I understand the first option to be the understanding of scientists up to this point - genetic divergence was the general prediction (convergence was considered highly unlikely) - which is why they were all shocked at these unexpected discoveries.

Now, if we adopt explanation #2, then that is something so radically different from the theory of evolution as previously understood, that it can hardly be considered the theory of evolution anymore.  To say that genes are "predisposed" or "biased" (those are words that other articles have used) towards a given novel function suggests an underlying blueprint - as if they are predestined for this particular purpose - which aligns with Latter-day Saint understanding. 

Think about it, how could a gene be predisposed towards a beneficial biological function that has never existed on earth before?  How does it know to do that before environmental pressures guide it towards that end?  Especially considering that most mutations are damaging and even deadly to cells!  But somehow a blind bat just happens to be endowed with a gene that is predisposed towards echolocation?  You see, we are no longer talking about natural selection and environmental pressures, we are talking about genes that seem to be pre-programmed to fulfill the need of a blind bat.  This is so radically different from the theory of evolution as historically understood that it can hardly be called the theory of evolution any more.

So, my point is that either way you look at it, it points to the same potential evidence of divine intervention.  That is what we believe isn't it?

Edited December 18, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps I am not communicating my point well, because I did already addressed the articles conclusions that the convergence is so identical that it may be predictable.  I even went so far as to link to other articles that came to the similar conclusion, stating that Now, if we adopt explanation #2, then that is something so radically different from the theory of evolution as previously understood, that it can hardly be considered the theory of evolution anymore.  To say that genes are "predisposed" or "biased" (those are words that other articles have used) towards a given novel function suggests an underlying blueprint - as if they are predestined for this particular purpose - which aligns with Latter-day Saint understanding. 

Again my point was this depends upon what's going on underneath. Those path probabilities. You're again just dismissing selection and other explanations out of hand.

It's fine to point out that we don't know everything. As you note the authors fully admit to that - although I think you dismiss their explanations far too quickly. However this is again just a "god of the gaps" type appeal, which was my original point. To quote from one of my older comments:

Quote

The question is the burden of proof. Creationists typically appeal to a "God of the gaps" argument. That is if there's something we don't fully understand then what we don't fully understand is obviously God guiding things. The problem is that they can't provide an actual argument for it. It's just a place where because of ignorance they can fantasize a bit. However a scientist can just say there's merely unknown structures at work. And the scientist has the stronger argument because every gap of the last century has proved to just hold unknown structures that become known. So it seems pretty likely that where there's a gap it'll turn out to be like the other gaps science has investigated.

I also said

Quote

As soon as it's not random in the sense of a flat probability curve then your entire argument falls apart. Whether or not it is likely we can only determine by going out and measuring what happens. If experiment shows it's more likely than a theory of probabilities suggests, then clearly that theory of probabilities has been falsified. 

More or less your argument reduces to it should be a flat low probability curve but it isn't therefore God. However since we already know these underlying processes aren't all equally probable, that argument fails.

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Ok, i was a believer in your religion as well for quite some time. What's your take on the abiogenesis problem?

Why consider it a problem? Put an other way, why is this more of a problem for the Church than the problem of quantum gravity in Planck sizes or time frames?

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[snowflake]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why consider it a problem? Put an other way, why is this more of a problem for the Church than the problem of quantum gravity in Planck sizes or time frames?

Evolution is incompatible with the scriptures, no death before the fall would be one specific. 

[clarkgoble]

Just now, snowflake said:

Evolution is incompatible with the scriptures, no death before the fall would be one specific. 

No death before the fall is non-scriptural. Usually 2 Nephi 2 is appealed to but as I noted earlier in this thread it never says nothing died prior to the fall. The narrative is about Adam and Eve being cast out of a place with no death into the lone and dreary wilderness where there was death. It doesn't describe Eden becoming the lone and dreary wilderness, which is how No Death Before the Fall proponents read it. Indeed the entrance to the still existing Eden is guarded by an angel to prevent Adam and Eve from returning and living forever in their sins. Eden is paradise, which is where the righteous spirits go to await the resurrection.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again my point was this depends upon what's going on underneath. Those path probabilities. You're again just dismissing selection and other explanations out of hand.

It's fine to point out that we don't know everything. As you note the authors fully admit to that - although I think you dismiss their explanations far too quickly. However this is again just a "god of the gaps" type appeal, which was my original point. To quote from one of my older comments:

I also said

More or less your argument reduces to it should be a flat low probability curve but it isn't therefore God. However since we already know these underlying processes aren't all equally probable, that argument fails

I think my argument is being misunderstood - that's probably my fault.  I am not saying that it is one way or the other.  We simply don't know.  I have been arguing from the position of how the theory of evolution has been understood by scientists before these discoveries.  Genetic divergence was the prediction - the further apart species become, the more divergent the genetic makeup was supposed to be.  Genetic convergence was considered highly unlikely (whether it was entirely random or not) - hence the shock, etc..  That was the prediction of the theory of evolution.  This new hypothesis is something else entirely and has nothing to do with natural selection, but is more about predisposed/programmed genes built for a specific biological function.  I don't know what you call that, but it is not evolution based on mutations and natural selection.   

My argument is that whatever the reality is, either way it points to the same evidence of a master plan.  In fact, predisopsed and biased genes seems to be even stronger evidence of it. 

To your point about "god of the gaps".  I would argue that God has to be in the gaps, or else God has no role or function in the observable universe.

Edited December 18, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

This new hypothesis is something else entirely and has nothing to do with natural selection, but is more about predisposed/programmed genes built for a specific biological function.  I don't know what you call that, but it is not evolution based on mutations and natural selection.   

I don't quite see why you say that though given that the article explicitly bases it on mutations and natural selection.

Certainly our understanding of evolution has changed since the ability to sequence DNA cheaply. But as I suggested, this is not a new thing. And mutations, even ignoring this case, have been known not to be equally probable for quite some time.

The reason I think people are misunderstanding your argument is because you seem to be arguing this is a new theory of evolution whereas that's exactly what I just don't see. Certainly this paper you linked to isn't making that argument.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

To your point about "god of the gaps".  I would argue that God has to be in the gaps, or else God has no role or function in the observable universe.

The gaps is the gaps in the theory. But of course that's not the only place God could act. He could modify the environment for instance which would do everything we need. That's not a god of the gaps argument.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't quite see why you say that though given that the article explicitly bases it on mutations and natural selection.

Certainly our understanding of evolution has changed since the ability to sequence DNA cheaply. But as I suggested, this is not a new thing. And mutations, even ignoring this case, have been known not to be equally probable for quite some time.

The reason I think people are misunderstanding your argument is because you seem to be arguing this is a new theory of evolution whereas that's exactly what I just don't see. Certainly this paper you linked to isn't making that argument.

The difference is our understanding of mutations.  They were so unpredictable that they were called "random" previously, even if they were not entirely random.  

If you would have tried to convince ANY scientist before these discoveries that evolution is based on the "predisposition of a gene for a given novel function and is highly predictable", they would have mocked you and said, "you don't understand the theory of evolution and are describing predestination."

I think you are avoiding my main point that it all points to the same thing. 

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difference is our understanding of mutations.  They were so unpredictable that they were called "random" previously, even if they were not entirely random.  

If you would have tried to convince ANY scientist before these discoveries that evolution is based on the "predisposition of a gene for a given novel function and is highly predictable", they would have mocked you and said, "you don't understand the theory of evolution and are describing predestination."

I suspect part of the debate is when "these discoveries" came. I'm arguing it's since sequencing which was a long time ago in relative terms. Second I'd argue how much this effects evolution as evolution. Certainly the degree to which some in a given genus are highly probable is somewhat surprising. I think you exaggerate a bit how surprising but I'll agree that it was unexpected if you're talking about how people viewed evolution in say the mid 20th century.

It's more the implications you draw from that which I disagree with.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are avoiding my main point that it all points to the same thing. 

I see you claiming that. I just don't see a good argument for it. After all I think you'd concede that there are other explanations in terms of selection and the role of a particular gene in context within a life form that matter.

Edited December 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The gaps is the gaps in the theory. But of course that's not the only place God could act. He could modify the environment for instance which would do everything we need. That's not a god of the gaps argument.

When every cause is examined and understood holistically, God will be discovered in the gaps of present scientific theory.  Any modification of environment is a cause.  He is the cause of all observable things in nature. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by pogi

[SouthernMo]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

He is the cause of all observable things in nature.

Man’s agency does not affect nature?  Is man part of nature in your definition? God is the cause of everything (observable) that happens in nature???

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

When every cause is examined and understood holistically, God will be discovered in the gaps of present scientific theory.  Any modification of environment is a cause.  He is the cause of all observable things in nature. 

I confess I'm not entirely sure what that means...

It sounds like you're connecting or even equating God with Being itself. That to me is characteristic of the Catholic and Protestant conceptions of God but makes no sense in a Mormon conception where God is one being among many who is all powerful only in the sense of having all the possible power. In that case to have God controlling causality itself seems deeply problematic. I think that traditional Protestantism has many problems with the two natures of Christ (and thereby God). Usually the move is much more towards God as Being itself because the anthropomorphic aspects of God are so pesky. Mormonism typically eliminates this problem by simply making Being separate from God and outside of God's control. I find it interesting you're going completely the opposite direction.

I can understand why an Evangelical might wish to do this, given their conception of God. God isn't an engineer in their model and creation is far more than just forming. It's just at all clear why a Mormon would want to do this given our ontological view of freedom, existence and God as more of an engineer.

Edited December 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Man’s agency does not affect nature?  Is man part of nature in your definition? God is the cause of everything (observable) that happens in nature???

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm not entirely sure what that means...

It sounds like you're connecting or even equating God with Being itself. That to me is characteristic of the Catholic and Protestant conceptions of God but makes no sense in a Mormon conception where God is one being among many who is all powerful only in the sense of having all the possible power. In that case to have God controlling causality itself seems deeply problematic. I think that traditional Protestantism has many problems with the two natures of Christ (and thereby God). Usually the move is much more towards God as Being itself because the anthropomorphic aspects of God are so pesky. Mormonism typically eliminates this problem by simply making Being separate from God and outside of God's control. I find it interesting you're going completely the opposite direction.

I can understand why an Evangelical might wish to do this, given their conception of God. God isn't an engineer in their model and creation is far more than just forming. It's just at all clear why a Mormon would want to do this given our ontological view of freedom, existence and God as more of an engineer.

By "the cause" I mean "the creator" and giver of life, and the organizer and governor of everything that exists.  Without him, nothing would exist in the physical world as it is.  All nature functions and is upheld by his power via the light of Christ.  Without him, there is no existence as we know it.  

Quote

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

D&C 88

Quote

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

D&C 93

See also Abraham 4.

The observable universe is ordered by God.  He is the ultimate cause.  It works on the principle of obedience.

Quote

 18 And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.

In the equation of everything, God is the factor that holds it all together - this factor is in the gaps of scientific theory as presently constituted. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by pogi

[snowflake]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No death before the fall is non-scriptural. Usually 2 Nephi 2 is appealed to but as I noted earlier in this thread it never says nothing died prior to the fall. The narrative is about Adam and Eve being cast out of a place with no death into the lone and dreary wilderness where there was death. It doesn't describe Eden becoming the lone and dreary wilderness, which is how No Death Before the Fall proponents read it. Indeed the entrance to the still existing Eden is guarded by an angel to prevent Adam and Eve from returning and living forever in their sins. Eden is paradise, which is where the righteous spirits go to await the resurrection.

I would disagree with you on no death before the fall...you are correct that Genesis does not say anything died prior to the fall. However, the first death in the bible is after then fall when in Genesis 3:21 God skins animals to clothe Adam and Eve (and their sin).  But lets look at genesis 1 and compare that with Darwinian evolution.  God creates all the plants on day 3, birds and fish day 5, beasts of the earth, creeping things and man on day 6.  All created differently and distinct, male and female. Morning and evening clearly mentioned each day.  This simply does not jive with Darwinian evolution.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I would disagree with you on no death before the fall...you are correct that Genesis does not say anything died prior to the fall. However, the first death in the bible is after then fall when in Genesis 3:21 God skins animals to clothe Adam and Eve (and their sin). 

But if there was always already a mortal lone and dreary wilderness with deer that Adam and Eve were cast out to then that explains that. So that really establishes nothing. That might be the first death narratively mentioned but that doesn't make it the first death.

22 minutes ago, snowflake said:

But lets look at genesis 1 and compare that with Darwinian evolution.  God creates all the plants on day 3, birds and fish day 5, beasts of the earth, creeping things and man on day 6.  All created differently and distinct, male and female. Morning and evening clearly mentioned each day.  This simply does not jive with Darwinian evolution.

Because Genesis 1 is a spiritual creation. Look at the JST. 

• And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

So Genesis 1 is completely irrelevant, according to Joseph, to natural creation. Now one can still interpret this stuff in different ways. Some interpret it as a planning session. Others see it as creation of our spirits. But I don't know why we'd see it as relevant to our telestial world's history.

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

In the equation of everything, God is the factor that holds it all together - this factor is in the gaps of scientific theory as presently constituted. 

But what that means is open to many interpretations without equating God with Being like our Protestant friends do. Certainly one can interpret it platonically where God is being. I've long noted the rhetorical similarities of D&C 88 & 93 with neoplatonism as have various scholars. Pushing that too far though runs into certain obvious problems though not the least of which is how can God hold beings together if the beings exist independent of him? At some point I think one's forced to see at least some of the comments as allegorical or else throw out the Mormon conception of pre-existence.

Now a few have attempted to reconcile it starting with Orson Pratt. Pratt ends up with a more stoic conception of the Trinity. There you have the aether as a spiritual fluid that permeates all things. It's not God the person but is God as a kind of abstract ousia underneath God. Brigham Young, for fairly obvious reasons, condemned this as Orson pushing a worshiping of the attributes of God rather than God himself. (Because this spiritual interpenetrating fluid is what is the divine attributes and God the person is God only because he unifies himself with this fluid) The biggest problem for Orson though was that he tried to reconcile this material reconception of D&C 88 & 93 with Joseph's Nauvoo teachings of each individual intelligent being something uncreated. This led him to adopt Priestly's atoms only with each atom a soul. (More or less Leibniz' monads as material atoms)

The problem with this move, as I think you'll find with your own approach to 88 & 93, is that (1) there's a huge divide between God and this fluid that does all the work (2) the atoms really aren't held together by God and (3) it only really affects naturalism to the degree that Pratt's atoms follow laws God tells them to intelligently obey. 

Now of course you don't have to follow Pratt. But I suspect you'll find if you work through this that you'll retrace many of his steps and likely run into the same problems.

Edited December 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[snowflake]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Because Genesis 1 is a spiritual creation. Look at the JST. 

• And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

So Genesis 1 is completely irrelevant, according to Joseph, to natural creation. Now one can still interpret this stuff in different ways. Some interpret it as a planning session. Others see it as creation of our spirits. But I don't know why we'd see it as relevant to our telestial world's history.

There is zero textual support for the JST, not a single manuscript of the tens of thousands that exist, support the JST.  So God gave us his creation story, and you find it irrelevant....

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, snowflake said:

There is zero textual support for the JST, not a single manuscript of the tens of thousands that exist, support the JST.  So God gave us his creation story, and you find it irrelevant....

Not sure of your background so I'm not clear how to answer this. I take from your reply though that you aren't Mormon?

In any case if you reject the JST there's still no reason to assume Genesis 1 is the physical creation of the earth given the differences from Genesis 2. The idea that it was a spiritual creation is attested to in ancient texts such as Philo. I'd assume you'd give even less consideration to Philo than Joseph so I'd just turn around and ask why you think your interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct given how much it contradicts what we know of the fossil record. That is, Genesis 1 is vague about how it is to be read, there's existing Jewish tradition of reading it as a spirit creation, and reading it as a physical creation contradicts science so why not read it as a spiritual creation where there's no conflict?

Edited December 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I would disagree with you on no death before the fall...you are correct that Genesis does not say anything died prior to the fall. However, the first death in the bible is after then fall when in Genesis 3:21 God skins animals to clothe Adam and Eve (and their sin).  But lets look at genesis 1 and compare that with Darwinian evolution.  God creates all the plants on day 3, birds and fish day 5, beasts of the earth, creeping things and man on day 6.  All created differently and distinct, male and female. Morning and evening clearly mentioned each day.  This simply does not jive with Darwinian evolution.

 It also doesn’t jive with the asexual reproductive creatures or the creatures that change sex throughout their life cycle.