Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[katherine the great]

A good example is the Neanderthals. The small differences in humans(we're smaller and lighter) allowed us to run faster and further in the changing European environments(more open areas and less dense woods). It allowed humans to be able to out run and therefore out hunt the Neanderthals. Slowly we just outlived and out reproduced them. Evolution works.

Plus, they were ugly. When they saw how beautiful our species was, they gave up...

[semlogo]

A good example is the Neanderthals. The small differences in humans(we're smaller and lighter) allowed us to run faster and further in the changing European environments(more open areas and less dense woods). It allowed humans to be able to out run and therefore out hunt the Neanderthals. Slowly we just outlived and out reproduced them. Evolution works.

Yes. Also, we require much fewer calories per day than they did. Big advantage.

[katherine the great]

Yes. Also, we require much fewer calories per day than they did. Big advantage.

I must confess that the only animal I really have an interest in seeing cloned someday is the Neanderthal. (immoral and unethical, I know...)

[semlogo]

I must confess that the only animal I really have an interest in seeing cloned someday is the Neanderthal. (immoral and unethical, I know...)

There's another ball of wax. Although I'm not sure why cloning would be inherently unethical, as long as the person cloned is not treated as an organ bank or science project, but rather as a person. I wonder how intelligent a Neanderthal would be if raised among modern humans.

[J.S. Mill]

If I recall correctly, Neanderthals actually had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans do. They apparently didn't have the gift of language we do, though (and this is an important element of our own intelligence) so it's hard to tell exactly how they'd fare.

[katherine the great]

If I recall correctly, Neanderthals actually had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans do. They apparently didn't have the gift of language we do, though (and this is an important element of our own intelligence) so it's hard to tell exactly how they'd fare.

We really aren't sure what type of language they had but it is now known that they did have a hyoid bone so there's no reason they couldn't have spoken.

[J.S. Mill]

You're right-- interesting.

Here's another discovery I wasn't aware of: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/....html?ref=world

[Bee Eff]

If I recall correctly, Neanderthals actually had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans do. They apparently didn't have the gift of language we do, though (and this is an important element of our own intelligence) so it's hard to tell exactly how they'd fare.

The determining factor in intelligence is density and not size though. And the brain to body mass ratio would have had an impact as well, although I don't know the measurements to be able to conclude anything. If anyone has the measurements, here is the formula:

Em(brain) = 0.12m(body)^(2/3)

[katherine the great]

The determining factor in intelligence is density and not size though. And the brain to body mass ratio would have had an impact as well, although I don't know the measurements to be able to conclude anything. If anyone has the measurements, here is the formula:

Em(brain) = 0.12m(body)^(2/3)

I don't think it is that simple at all. I think that different parts of the brain are responsible for different cognitive functions. Our large and well developed frontal lobe almost certainly gave us advantages that the Neanderthal didn't have. I think that explains why the Neanderthal lived basically the same lifestyle and used the same tools for over a hundred thousand years while modern humans were constantly moving, creating and adapting to new situations. This is my opinion anyway...

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know of any conclusive proof that they spoke, but culturally it is a good supposition. If they did they did in a very high woman's voice.

[semlogo]

I don't know of any conclusive proof that they spoke, but culturally it is a good supposition. If they did they did in a very high woman's voice.

Hmm, there go all my grunting caveman stereotypes. Apparently they all sounded like Emo Philips?

[Bee Eff]

I don't think it is that simple at all. I think that different parts of the brain are responsible for different cognitive functions. Our large and well developed frontal lobe almost certainly gave us advantages that the Neanderthal didn't have. I think that explains why the Neanderthal lived basically the same lifestyle and used the same tools for over a hundred thousand years while modern humans were constantly moving, creating and adapting to new situations. This is my opinion anyway...

A step towards determining the truth of your hypothesis is the equation I provided. However, I believe you are incorrect, here is a citation to argue against the frontal lobe argument you present:

Semendeferi, K., Lu, A., Schenker, N. and Damasio, H. Humans and great apes share a large frontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5:272-276, 2002.

[katherine the great]

Hmm, there go all my grunting caveman stereotypes. Apparently they all sounded like Emo Philips?

Haha! It just seems wrong doesn't it? Another argument in favor of cloning to answer our questions.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

Probably.

[BCSpace]

But why would you take it to be metaphorical? Do you take the statements of the First Presidency on chastity or abortion to be metaphorical? If not, why do you treat the two differently, when both purport to be messages from you Creator, and to come from the same epistemological source?

Because of the lack of details. We know exactly what chastity means. We don't know what it means if God speaks and Adam comes into existence. Does he appear out of thin air? Does it suddenly rain on the ground and a man made of clay appears? Is it evolution?

[J.S. Mill]

The Genesis story says that God created Adam in one day. This clearly precludes evolution by natural selection, unless you want to take a non-literal view of "a day", which is no less ridiculous than taking a non-literal view of "sexual intercourse".

[Bee Eff]

The Genesis story says that God created Adam in one day. This clearly precludes evolution by natural selection, unless you want to take a non-literal view of "a day", which is no less ridiculous than taking a non-literal view of "sexual intercourse".

Yowm

Definition:

1. day, time, year
   
2. day (as opposed to night)
   
3. day (24 hour period)
   
4. a working day, a day's journey
   
5. days, lifetime (pl.)
   
6. time, period (general)
   
7. year
   
8. temporal references
   

Definition 6 is a literal definition of day as used in Genesis.

[J.S. Mill]

Genesis says that the sixth day (on which Adam was made) is composed of a morning and an evening. What literal definitions of "morning" and "evening" do you have to correspond to an old-Earth creation story?

[BCSpace]

The Genesis story says that God created Adam in one day. This clearly precludes evolution by natural selection, unless you want to take a non-literal view of "a day", which is no less ridiculous than taking a non-literal view of "sexual intercourse".

How so? We know what is meant by sexual intercourse. We don't know that day means a 24 hour period or an epoch of time.

[J.S. Mill]

Also, the creation story in Genesis is all out of order. Birds before land animals? Not so. Whales before the beasts of the earth? Laughably inconsistent with the fossil record.

How so? We know what is meant by sexual intercourse. We don't know that day means a 24 hour period or an epoch of time.

One evening and one morning = one 24 hour period, more or less. Is this correct?

[BCSpace]

Genesis says that the sixth day (on which Adam was made) is composed of a morning and an evening. What literal definitions of "morning" and "evening" do you have to correspond to an old-Earth creation story?

Given the lack of detail, I don't think we are obligated come up with any correspondence. However it may just be as simple as the beginning and the end of a day.

Considering also LDS doctrine on the subject; that it is wrong to attribute a specific age of the earth to LDS doctrine, it seems that the Church itself has come to a similar conclusion, that there is not enough information.

[J.S. Mill]

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I bet this wouldn't be so controversial if it didn't have unattractive implications for the consistency of your belief system.

[BCSpace]

How so? We know what is meant by sexual intercourse. We don't know that day means a 24 hour period or an epoch of time.

One evening and one morning = one 24 hour period, more or less. Is this correct?

Not if it simply delineates a beginning and an end.

[J.S. Mill]

Given the lack of detail, I don't think we are obligated come up with any correspondence. However it may just be as simple as the beginning and the end of a day.

Considering also LDS doctrine on the subject; that it is wrong to attribute a specific age of the earth to LDS doctrine, it seems that the Church itself has come to a similar conclusion, that there is not enough information.

So the Church itself thinks of Genesis 1 as metaphorical? That just sweeps things under the rug; it doesn't solve the problem you face.

[BCSpace]

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I bet this wouldn't be so controversial if it didn't have unattractive implications for the consistency of your belief system.

Not if you understand what the next verses could mean. Btw, what do you think it means to divide the waters from the waters? Are you familiar with what waters could mean? The division of the waters from the firmament? etc.