Bored at work so I figured I would post my interesting site of the day regarding evolution

[lostindc]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I think there are some very well structured facts within this person's site for those that are even considering theories regarding human evolution.

I figured after reading the recent poll regarding those who have lost a testimony in God, due to apologetics or whatever cause, could use some uplifting thoughts and facts.

[Notquitewetyet]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I think there are some very well structured facts within this person's site for those that are even considering theories regarding human evolution.

I figured after reading the recent poll regarding those who have lost a testimony in God, due to apologetics or whatever cause, could use some uplifting thoughts and facts.

Ever heard of convergent, divergent, and parallel evolution? Apparently that author hasn't. In my opinions, evolution poses no threat to the Gospel. Not acknowledging Adam's celestial origin and dispensation does. Plus, animals don't evolve. Populations do. When looking at evolution, you can't look at individuals. You must look at it in terms of populations.

[Thama]

That should really read "By a non-scientist", rather than "for non-scientists". It's a healthy (or unhealthy?) mixture of conspiracy theory and ignorance of numerous biological concepts (inbreeding genetics, the definition of a species, and selection to name a few).

[The Dude]

In my opinions, evolution poses no threat to the Gospel.

If it did pose a threat, then I hope the biology department at BYU would come up with some better arguments than those on the linked webpage. As it is, all those LDS biologists believe in evolution and teach it to their students.

[J.S. Mill]

Why doesn't the Mormon Church just come out and endorse evolution? It's already putting money towards the idea in its biology department.

[katherine the great]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I think there are some very well structured facts within this person's site for those that are even considering theories regarding human evolution.

I figured after reading the recent poll regarding those who have lost a testimony in God, due to apologetics or whatever cause, could use some uplifting thoughts and facts.

This is garbage. Sorry to be so blunt.

[ttribe]

Why doesn't the Mormon Church just come out and endorse evolution? It's already putting money towards the idea in its biology department.

Because it's not an important (or even relevant) doctrinal issue. I should think you would have enough common sense to answer that question yourself.

[HiJolly]

Why doesn't the Mormon Church just come out and endorse evolution? It's already putting money towards the idea in its biology department.

I think it's because of the tendency to toss out the baby with the bathwater, amongst intellectuals. Take Dawkins, for example. His book The God Delusion is a good case in point. I thought Sam Harris or even Chris Hitchens did a better job than he did (yes, I read their books).

I believe in evolution and the Church. I think they are compatible, but it does require accepting the scriptures and religious themes as non-literal in many cases. A lot of LDS are uncomfortable with that.

HiJolly

[J.S. Mill]

Because it's not an important (or even relevant) doctrinal issue. I should think you would have enough common sense to answer that question yourself.

Fair enough. Still, it would be nice. Allowing millions of Mormons to wallow in scientific ignorance seems pretty needless to me.

[J.S. Mill]

I think it's because of the tendency to toss out the baby with the bathwater, amongst intellectuals. Take Dawkins, for example. His book The God Delusion is a good case in point. I thought Sam Harris or even Chris Hitchens did a better job than he did (yes, I read their books).

How is this related to my question? I guess I don't understand what you're saying.

I believe in evolution and the Church. I think they are compatible, but it does require accepting the scriptures and religious themes as non-literal in many cases. A lot of LDS are uncomfortable with that.

HiJolly

So? A lot of LDS were uncomfortable with plural marriage. A lot of LDS were uncomfortable with the 1978 revelation. The rationale you put forth here is indistinguishable from political correctness. That's pretty lame, in my opinion.

[annewandering]

Thanks for your faith in our intelligence. I have never seen one single Mormon wallow. If it were a hot summer day it might be tempting though.

[ttribe]

Fair enough. Still, it would be nice. Allowing millions of Mormons to wallow in scientific ignorance seems pretty needless to me.

How do you know that "millions" of Mormons are wallowing in scientific ignorance? Answer: you don't...you assumed it. Furthermore, schools are for secular learning (which, as has been noted, BYU does a fine job at). Finally, were the Church provide such guidance you can bet the critics (including yourself) would be crying about the unnecessary level of control the Church was exerting over its membership.

[Luigi]

Because it's not an important (or even relevant) doctrinal issue. I should think you would have enough common sense to answer that question yourself.

Creation isn't a relevant doctrinal issue? The source of human emotion and happiness in particular isn't a relevant doctrinal issue?

[ttribe]

Creation isn't a relevant doctrinal issue? The source of human emotion and happiness in particular isn't a relevant doctrinal issue?

You're generalizing away from the science...which is what I was referring to.

[Jeff K.]

Not to derail, but I thought this an interesting tidbit. Some studies may bring into question the speed of evolution. In some cases as fast as a lifetime.

In 1990, Douglas Chadwick wrote in National Geographic magazine how trophy hunting â?? the practice of selecting only the largest beasts to kill â??"has caused a decline in the average size of Kodiak Bears [in Alaska] over the years."

By harvesting vast numbers and targeting large, reproductively mature individuals, human predation is quickly reshaping wild populations, leaving smaller individuals to reproduce at ever-earlier ages, Darimont explained.

"The pace of changes we're seeing supersedes by a long shot what we've observed in natural systems, and even in systems that have been rapidly modified by humans in other ways," Darimont said.

The study found the changes outpace by 50 percent those brought on by pollution and human introduction of alien species.

One surprise: The capacity of creatures to change.

"These changes occur well within our lifetimes," Darimont said. "Commercial hunting and fishing has awoken the latent ability of organisms to change rapidly."

Changes occur in two ways. One is sheer genetics: Evolution can favor smaller fish able to pass through the mesh of gill nets and survive to reproduce, thereby passing on genes for smaller offspring.

Another change process is called plasticity. Shifts to earlier reproduction, for example, can occur because there is a lot of food and fewer fish to dine on it. The fish eat more and reach maturity sooner.

"Whatever the underlying process, shifts to earlier breeding spell trouble for populations," Darimont said. "Earlier breeders often produce far fewer offspring. If we take so much and reduce their ability to reproduce successfully, we reduce their resilience and ability to recover."

'Super-Predator' Humans Force Evolution in Animals

One wonders how fast we can evolve and the impact of such speed in anyone's blelief system.

[Luigi]

You're generalizing away from the science...

How so? The science says that human beings and all lifeforms arose by the dynamic interplay of natural selection and random mutation occuring over millions of years. Church doctrine insists that all life forms were created by God and all sciptural accounts of this creation, if interpreted literally, suggest a 24 hour period of time for various parts of the creation and scriptures and other Church leader statements suggest no death was on the earth before the Fall of the first man Adam. These are considered by many members to be in conflict with one another and many members(and theists in general) have questioned their religious beliefs because of it. It would seem a Church which boasts modern revelation in order to clarify disputations over the scriptures and to face modern spiritual conflicts would be at the forefront of resolving such issues.

[ttribe]

How so? The science says that human beings and all lifeforms arose by the dynamic interplay of natural selection and random mutation occuring over millions of years. Church doctrine insists that all life forms were created by God and all sciptural accounts of this creation, if interpreted literally, suggest a 24 hour period of time for various parts of the creation and scriptures and other Church leader statements suggest no death was on the earth before the Fall of the first man Adam. These are considered by many members to be in conflict with one another and many members(and theists in general) have questioned their religious beliefs because of it. It would seem a Church which boasts modern revelation in order to clarify disputations over the scriptures and to face modern spiritual conflicts would be at the forefront of resolving such issues.

Here we go again...does it really matter HOW God created the Earth or humankind? Not to me.

[BCSpace]

I figured after reading the recent poll regarding those who have lost a testimony in God, due to apologetics or whatever cause, could use some uplifting thoughts and facts.

I don't see why any christian, especially an LDS Christian, should lose their testimony over evolution. It doesn't go against any scripture because of the various ways it can be interpreted. For LDS, 2 Nephi 2:22 absolutely separates out the creative period from the state of no death Adam was placed into AFTER being created. On top of that, LDS accept and are encouraged to pursue scientific explainations.

[The Dude]

Because it's not an important (or even relevant) doctrinal issue. I should think you would have enough common sense to answer that question yourself.

One of the greatest things about Mormonism is it's stated educational values. One of the worst things about Mormons is how many of them only pay lip service to those values.

[John Larsen]

Because it's not an important (or even relevant) doctrinal issue. I should think you would have enough common sense to answer that question yourself.

How so? Isn't the eternal fate of Homo Habilis important? Isn't it important which ones of our ancestors were created in the image of God and which ones weren't? Isn't it important the millions of people lived and died for 100s of 1000s of years before Adam became the father of all and introduced death into the world? In what possible way is this not important.

In reality, evolutionary theory and religion deal with the exact same question, the cause of humanity. Evolution gives a consistent and provable answer that leaves no need for God, priesthood, or religion. That you don't find relevant? Strange.

[ttribe]

One of the greatest things about Mormonism is it's stated educational values. One of the worst things about Mormons is how many of them only pay lip service to those values.

Oh please. Are you now questioning my commitment to education? You would be wise not to.

Perhaps, then, oh fount of wisdom, you could explain to me how the Church's endorsement of evolution would somehow enhance my knowledge of the principles of salvation?

[The Dude]

Oh please. Are you now questioning my commitment to education? You would be wise not to.

Then why does it evaporate whenever it is convenient? Give me something besides that canned answer and then I will have a reason to believe you.

Perhaps, then, oh fount of wisdom, you could explain to me how the Church's endorsement of evolution would somehow enhance my knowledge of the principles of salvation?

You, ttribe, might not be confused about the relationship between evolution and the gospel. It might not enhance your understanding at all, the fount of wisdom that you are. But lots of members are very confused about the relationship and even think evolution opposes the gospel. Those are the ones who would be helped by an endorsement from the Church. It would open the door to greater understanding of the world and how the gospel might work. If you are committed to education then you should like to see stumbling blocks removed from your brother's path.

[John Larsen]

Oh please. Are you now questioning my commitment to education? You would be wise not to.

Perhaps, then, oh fount of wisdom, you could explain to me how the Church's endorsement of evolution would somehow enhance my knowledge of the principles of salvation?

Either evolution is false or it can be reconciled with the gospel. Either answer would be meaningful in the lives of billions of people today.

[ttribe]

Then why does it evaporate whenever it is convenient? Give me something besides that canned answer and then I will have a reason to believe you.

What evaporation? What "canned answer"? Why should I care whether you believe I am committed to education? It was you who jumped to the conclusion that I wasn't.

You, ttribe, might not be confused about the relationship between evolution and the gospel. It might not enhance your understanding at all, the fount of wisdom that you are. But lots of members are very confused about the relationship and even think evolution opposes the gospel. Those are the ones who would be helped by an endorsement from the Church. It would open the door to greater understanding of the world and how the gospel might work. If you are committed to education then you should like to see stumbling blocks removed from your brother's path.

And if the Church did do this, what then? What would it really do to enhance people's faith in God or the saving ordinances? Nothing. If individuals have issues with this, there is a mechanism for dealing with those concerns. But there is no specific necessity for the Church to endorse a scientific theory of any kind. It isn't a moral issue; it isn't even a scriptural issue (as has been shown a myriad of times). It's a matter of intellectual curiosity as far as the Gospel is concerned.

[lostindc]

Not to derail, but I thought this an interesting tidbit. Some studies may bring into question the speed of evolution. In some cases as fast as a lifetime.

'Super-Predator' Humans Force Evolution in Animals

One wonders how fast we can evolve and the impact of such speed in anyone's blelief system.

The bear is still a bear and the fish is still a fish