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

[lostindc]

But evolution IS a doctrinal issue, because it relates directly and materially to the Mormon cosmological foundation which indeed and in fact is doctrinal; namely that Adam was the the first man that lived in a paradisicial glory before death existed in the world. You can't have the latter narrative, without evolution gunking up your myth.

Adam introduced death, both physical (here is the direct conflict with evolution) and spiritual into the world which necessitated a savior to redeem man from both. That is the core, the foundation and backdrop of Christianity and Mormonism.

How does evolution work into and mesh with the genesis myth which has been interpreted literally by LDS leaders?

http://www.skousen2000.com/other%20books/earth.htm

Pick this book up, it has the insights you are asking for and how it fits into Mormonism. Careful scrutiny of the scriptures and this book is required and I think you will find your answers.

[Luigi]

The problem is, there IS no natural explanation that has been scientifically demonstrated according to the normal scientific method.

It does not allow for the same degree of experimentation, certainly, but there are certain scientific conclusions which can be drawn from repeated observations and logical inferences from those observations.

There is not only great room for doubt that Darwinism is THE answer, there are contradictions within Darwinism that Darwinists don't and won't discuss, and won't allow others to discuss.

I have heard some of the arguments brought up for intelligent design and I've never heard them bring up blaring contradictions within Darwinism.

There is substantial scientific reason to discredit Darwinism and it isn't being heard. Darwinists figure that if they stomp their feet and hold their breath, (and the breath of others, by the way) then all the dissension will go away.

I have listened to various debates on this issue and read some of the arguments for intelligent design. The frustration and feet stomping of Darwinists comes not from hearing argument they know to be convincing against them but hearing the same nonsense of intelligent design being advertised as something earth-shattering to the scientific community when the argument can always be reduced to the illogical application of anthromorphism. I am happy to accept evidence which would unravel evolution because personally I don't really care that much if evolution is true or not. Disproving evolution doesn't prove the existence of God anymore than disproving lightning as a discharge of electricity would prove that lightning comes from Zeus. I have nothing to lose by discovering evolution to be wrong but I am sick of wasting my time on the fallacious creator-of-the-gaps and anthromorphism proposed by ID.

By the way, unseen beings can refer to the authors of books who are long dead. This doesn't deny their existence it merely places them in the unseen category.

Yes, but I observe humans producing books and have only seen books produced by that means and therefore can make the logical inference that humans produced books whose production cannot be verified with observations. There is, on the other hand, no reliable evidence to suggest the existence of a superbeing or to suggest that a human-like being or beings created the first life forms since humans at this stage are incapable of producing a life form and there is no evidence to suggest the presence of human-like beings at the time life appeared on our planet.

[Jeff K.]

But evolution IS a doctrinal issue, because it relates directly and materially to the Mormon cosmological foundation which indeed and in fact is doctrinal; namely that Adam was the the first man that lived in a paradisicial glory before death existed in the world. You can't have the latter narrative, without evolution gunking up your myth.

Adam introduced death, both physical (here is the direct conflict with evolution) and spiritual into the world which necessitated a savior to redeem man from both. That is the core, the foundation and backdrop of Christianity and Mormonism.

How does evolution work into and mesh with the genesis myth which has been interpreted literally by LDS leaders?

No, evolution isn't doctrinal in the sense that it affects salvation, it does not affect salvation. You haven't shown how it does. It is neither core nor foundation. No more than the destination is more important than the route.

[Hoops22]

As a side note... Why was it important for you to know the lineage of Adam was unbroken?

God had to preserve the lineage from Adam to Jesus as the messianic line.

[Jeff K.]

God had to do a number of things beside the lineage. Did you pray about each single item, or were you simply cherry picking? And if so, then why should God bless you with such an incessant and oftimes inane questions rather than the key point "Is He the savior". You would make a paltry disciple of God if you use that type of reasnoning in your search for salvation.

[semlogo]

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.

Evolution and religion don't have to be enemies. Evolution is so well established that no serious person can deny it. You can quibble about the details, but evolution is a fact. Excessively literal interpretations of Genesis are unnecessary and push the religious person away from reality.

[lostindc]

Evolution and religion don't have to be enemies. Evolution is so well established that no serious person can deny it. You can quibble about the details, but evolution is a fact. Excessively literal interpretations of Genesis are unnecessary and push the religious person away from reality.

Therefore, what is your opinion regarding if Man came from primitive man or even ape?

[Hoops22]

Evolution and religion don't have to be enemies.

Maybe so. But evolution and Biblical Christianity are at complete odds. One is true and the other is not.

Evolution is so well established that no serious person can deny it.

I know lots of people, all of whom much smarter than me, who deny it. And not only deny it, regard it as silliness.

You can quibble about the details, but evolution is a fact.

In the way I think you are using the term, no, it is not.

Excessively literal interpretations of Genesis are unnecessary

Unnecessary to what? lds? Maybe - I'm not lds. But Biblical Christianity demands a literal Gen.

and push the religious person away from reality.

Evolution pushes the religious person away from reality.

[semlogo]

Therefore, what is your opinion regarding if Man came from primitive man or even ape?

Humans evolved from lower forms - from animals - without question.

[semlogo]

Maybe so. But evolution and Biblical Christianity are at complete odds. One is true and the other is not.

I know lots of people, all of whom much smarter than me, who deny it. And not only deny it, regard it as silliness.

In the way I think you are using the term, no, it is not.

Unnecessary to what? lds? Maybe - I'm not lds. But Biblical Christianity demands a literal Gen.

You can be smart and deny evolution. But smart isn't the same thing as informed. Smart and ignorant aren't antonyms.

What is Biblical Christianity? I know of no such sect. IIRC, even the Jews don't take Genesis literally.

[Jeff K.]

Therefore, what is your opinion regarding if Man came from primitive man or even ape?

The question is irrelevant to salvation.

[Jeff K.]

Maybe so. But evolution and Biblical Christianity are at complete odds. One is true and the other is not.

I know lots of people, all of whom much smarter than me, who deny it. And not only deny it, regard it as silliness.

In the way I think you are using the term, no, it is not.

Unnecessary to what? lds? Maybe - I'm not lds. But Biblical Christianity demands a literal Gen.

Evolution pushes the religious person away from reality.

Evolution and Biblical Christianity are not at complete odds. Individuals may choose to place them at odds. But that is the choice of the individual, not necessarily the true position.

Intelligence is the ability to use what you know, not necessarily the ability to know what is not known. In the same manner wisdom is distinct from intelligence. Many are "smarter" but smarter doesn't mean more knowledge, or wisdom, or more intelligence.

Also I know of no place in the Bible which states that every word must be taken literally. The entire Old Testament is itself symbolic of the life of Christ and a prophecy. For such to be true, by its nature it must be open to symbolism.

Evolution and religion can both be used as dogmatic hammers used to push people in any direction you desire. But allow me to stipulate that it is usually driven by the individual, and not by God.

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

No evolution is not a doctrinal issue. Creation is. So your premise is faulty.

I think your knowledge of church teachings are faulty and skewed by apologetic bluster. Evolution flatly contradicts that Adam was the first man and that physical death was introduced into the world by the fall of Adam (creationism is the model that fulfills these beliefs). Both are doctrines, beliefs and teachings of the church.

Take a second and try to think it through.

[lostindc]

Humans evolved from lower forms - from animals - without question.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/11/news/mn-11724

Test of Neanderthal DNA Finds No Link to Humans

By Robert Lee Hotz

July 11, 1997 in print edition A-1

The stocky big-game hunters known as Neanderthals who lived during the last Ice Age did not evolve into modern humans, nor did the two groups intermarry and have surviving childrenâ??even though they apparently roamed prehistoric Europe and Asia together for thousands of years, an international research team reported Thursday.

In a landmark study, researchers in the United States and Germany said they succeeded for the first time in extracting, reproducing and analyzing maternal DNA from a pulverized piece of 100,000-year-old Neanderthal bone.

By comparing those ancient genes with genetic material from hundreds of people around the world today, they discovered that Neanderthals did not contribute any maternal DNA to modern humanity. This strongly suggests that the species was an evolutionary dead end, edged outâ??or killed offâ??by the forebears of contemporary Homo sapiens.

Svante Paabo, the University of Munich genetics expert who led the six-year effort, said, â??This is the first genetic information we have from Neanderthals, and it gives no indication that any mixing between the two groups would have taken place.â?

The fate of these primitive peopleâ??who buried their dead with flowers and may have been the first to feel religious stirringsâ??is one of the most hotly disputed questions in the study of human beginnings. Each new fossil find triggers debate about their role in the evolution of modern humankind.

The finding that Neanderthals are a genetically distinct species also serves to buttress a controversial new picture of the time in which modern human beings evolved. It now seems that three separate human speciesâ??Neanderthals, anatomically modern humans and an older species called Homo erectusâ??apparently co-existed until as recently as 30,000 years ago in parts of Europe and Asia.

*

Although the place of Neanderthals in the human family tree has remained uncertain, their scientific image has evolved dramatically: from the bestial, stooped subhuman creatures envisioned by the 19th century scientists who first discovered their bones to the relatively sophisticated tool-users now recognized by modern anthropologists.

Evidence even indicates that Neanderthals traded tools and jewelry with Cro-Magnon people, who became modern humans. Many experts, however, believe that is as far as the relationship went and that Neanderthals became extinct 30,000 years ago. For many, this newest finding, published today in the journal Cell, appears to settle the matter.

For their study, the researchers extracted less than one-hundredth of an ounce from the upper arm bone of the first Neanderthal skeleton ever foundâ??a set of fossil remains discovered 140 years ago in the Neander Valley of Germany.

From that, they were able to isolate no more than 1,500 maternal DNA molecules from the energy-producing bodies inside the cells called mitochondria. The scientists then multiplied the molecules for analysis. The genes in the mitochondria are passed down the female line with only occasional changes.

The results showed that humans and Neanderthals last shared a common ancestorâ??most likely Homo erectusâ??about 600,000 years ago and offered strong support for the idea that modern humanity emerged from Africa about 100,000 years ago.

Several experts called the new research a tour de force investigation of ancient DNA.

â??The present recovery of Neanderthal DNA represents a landmark discovery, which is arguably the greatest achievement so far in the field of ancient DNA research,â? said Tomas Lindahl, a genetics expert at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in England who reviewed the research for Cell.

The evidence is â??compelling and convincing,â? he said.

Even those who dispute the studyâ??s conclusions about human ancestryâ??believing that Neanderthals, with their large brains and muscular frames, indeed evolved into modern human stockâ??still hailed the technical achievement involved in recovering the DNA from the fossil as â??astonishing.â?

C. Loring Brace, curator of biological anthropology at the University of Michiganâ??s Museum of Anthropology, has made a lifeâ??s study of the fossil Neanderthal remains. His meticulous examination of the bones and fossil teeth long ago convinced him that Neanderthals evolved into modern human stock.

The new DNA evidence, while impressive, is not enough to warrant any conclusions about the ancestral relationship between humans and Neanderthals, he said. Genetic tests of other Neanderthal remains are necessary, he said.

â??I think it is fascinating. It is quite different from anything living now. [but] it is only one specimen, and it is unrealistic to make any conclusion,â? he said. â??Our ability to make coherent biological sense of all this still is in its infancy.â?

*

Indeed, much research into ancient DNAâ??whether it involves genetic material purportedly from dinosaurs, prehistoric leaves or 100-million-year-old insects trapped in amberâ??has been riddled with false results and technical uncertainty.

Paabo and his colleagues acknowledged the enormous difficulties in analyzing ancient DNA without contaminating it with modern material and said they had taken extraordinary precautionsk. To ensure the integrity of their results, the entire experiment was reproduced independently by a laboratory at Pennsylvania State University.

â??We have performed all controls that we can possibly think of,â? Paabo said.

The precautions appear to have reassured many scientists. â??I have not encountered anyone in the scientific world who doubts that they have recovered Neanderthal DNA,â? said Chris Stringer, an expert in early humans at Londonâ??s Natural History Museum.

[Jeff K.]

It depends on what aspect of evolution is in place and whether or not Adam himself was part of the natural process or not. It is open for debate.

[Tchild2]

It depends on what aspect of evolution is in place and whether or not Adam himself was part of the natural process or not. It is open for debate.

Open to debate by whom? Not to past prophets and apostles. Joseph Fielding Smith. 10th President of the church.

Quotes from the GC talk:

"Adam came here to bring mortality upon the earth, and that resulted in the shutting out from the presence of the Eternal Father of both Adam and Eve and their posterity".

So Adam brought about mortality? What about evolutionary processes long in place before Adam. Life didn't live and die before Adam?

"One of these days, if I ever get to where I can speak to Mother Eve, I want to thank her for tempting Adam to partake of the fruit. He accepted the temptation, with the result that children came into this world. â?¦ If she hadnâ??t had that influence over Adam, and if Adam had done according to the commandment first given to him, they would still be in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here at all. We wouldnâ??t have come into this world. So the commentators made a great mistake when they put in the Bible â?¦ â??manâ??s shameful fall.â?"

So if Adam hadn't fallen and introduced physical death, we wouldn't be here at all? But what about evolutionary processes already in place?

"Brethren and sisters, letâ??s thank the Lord, when we pray, for Adam. If it hadnâ??t been for Adam, I wouldnâ??t be here; you wouldnâ??t be here; we would be waiting in the heavens as spirits pleading for somebody â?¦ to pass through a certain condition that brought upon us mortality."

Three times now, we are told officially by a prophet that Adam introduced death into the world and had he not "fallen" we would not be here. This teaching was given in 1967 as a General Conference address (both modern and very official).

Where is evolution? How can the account of the fall not directly conflict with evolution?

[semlogo]

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/11/news/mn-11724

Test of Neanderthal DNA Finds No Link to Humans

By Robert Lee Hotz

July 11, 1997 in print edition A-1

The stocky big-game hunters known as Neanderthals who lived during the last Ice Age did not evolve into modern humans, nor did the two groups intermarry and have surviving childrenâ??even though they apparently roamed prehistoric Europe and Asia together for thousands of years, an international research team reported Thursday.

In order for this information to be useful to you, you need to understand it. No, humans didn't evolve from neanderthals. Early homosapiens were competing with neanderthals - they existed at the same time. Both evolved from forms of homo heidelbergensis.

[semlogo]

Open to debate by whom? Not to past prophets and apostles. Joseph Fielding Smith. 10th President of the church.

Quotes from the GC talk: So Adam brought about mortality? What about evolutionary processes long in place before Adam. Life didn't live and die before Adam?

So if Adam hadn't fallen and introduced physical death, we wouldn't be here at all? But what about evolutionary processes already in place?

Three times now, we are told officially by a prophet that Adam introduced death into the world and had he not "fallen" we would not be here. This teaching was given in 1967 as a General Conference address (both modern and very official).

Where is evolution? How can the account of the fall not directly conflict with evolution?

Brigham Young was open to evolution. We'd all better hope that the doctrine of the fall can be reconciled with evolution, because evolution isn't going anywhere.

[Jeff K.]

Open to debate by whom? Not to past prophets and apostles. Joseph Fielding Smith. 10th President of the church.

Quotes: So Adam brought about mortality? What about evolutionary processes long in place before Adam. Life didn't live and die before Adam?

So if Adam hadn't fallen and introduced physical death, we wouldn't be here at all? But what about evolutionary processes already in place?

Three times now, we are told officially by a prophet that Adam introduced death into the world and had he not "fallen" we woul not be here.

Where is evolution? How can the account of the fall not directly conflict with evolution?

Regarding Joseph Fielding Smith. The information was not put before the membership as doctrine. And therefore should be reviewed from that standpoint.

Adam did bring about mortality upon the earth. The question I have is whether or not that mortality was for man exclusively for for the entire earth? I would also wonder at the need of a place "where Adam dwelt" if the entire earth were paradise and "ahem" not mortal.

Three times now, we are told officially by a prophet that Adam introduced death into the world and had he not "fallen" we woul not be here.

Three times wer are told by an official that the prophet Adam introduced death. Whether to man or the world is still not entirely clear in a doctrinal sense.

So no, I don't see how the account of the fall need contradict evolution.

Perhaps the most telling point I can make is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints makes no official declaration in regard to evolution beyond man being in the express image of God.

[Jason]

Humans evolved from lower forms - from animals - without question.

A rather dogmatic stance, especially since it depends on the wisdom of men.

[Jeff K.]

Dogmatism is the antithesis of science.

"The earth is flat I tell you!!"

[John Larsen]

It depends on what aspect of evolution is in place and whether or not Adam himself was part of the natural process or not. It is open for debate.

So before Adam was placed in the garden, there were human beings being born, living, mating and dying? There were animals killing and eating one another? This continued all around the garden? There were people who were born before Adam went into the garden? When women were created out of the rib of Adam, there were already women?

Did these people have souls? Will the go to the Celestial Kingdom? In what way can Adam possibly be considered the first man?

[Tchild2]

Regarding Joseph Fielding Smith. The information was not put before the membership as doctrine. And therefore should be reviewed from that standpoint.

Hmmm, the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith speaking at General conference vs Jeff K as an anonymous internet poster? I wonder who has more authority to state the church's doctrinal positions? If you don't think it qualifies as doctrine, you had better take it up with the leadership. Unless and until we hear from the leadership directly that it is not doctrine, then we will assume it is until that time.

Bruce R. McConkie believed the facts about the creation to be both "doctrine" and "essential to salvation", and I quote his 1983 talk, with the underlined emphasis mine: "The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creationâ??the creation of the earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours." Bruce R McConkie talk

edited, Bruce R. McConkie as the speaker and not Boyd K Packer as stated earlier.

[ttribe]

Hmmm, the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith speaking at General conference vs Jeff K as an anonymous internet poster? If you don't think it qualifies as doctrine, you had better take it up with the leadership. Unless and until we hear from the leadership directly that it is not doctrine, then we will assume it is until that time.

Bruce R. McConkie believed the facts about the creation to be both "doctrine" and "essential to salvation", and I quote his 1983 talk, with the underlined emphasis mine: "The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creation—the creation of the earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours." Bruce R McConkie talk

edited, Bruce R. McConkie as the speaker and not Boyd K Packer as stated earlier.

So, it's not enough that I believe that God is behind the creation? That He intended for me to be in His image? That He is responsible for all the beauty of nature? I think those elements put me into compliance with what Elder McConkie is saying. I see nothing there that states I have to believe in a particular method.

[Jeff K.]

So before Adam was placed in the garden, there were human beings being born, living, mating and dying? There were animals killing and eating one another? This continued all around the garden? There were people who were born before Adam went into the garden? When women were created out of the rib of Adam, there were already women?

Did these people have souls? Will the go to the Celestial Kingdom? In what way can Adam possibly be considered the first man?

I didn't say that. You would have to define human.

Also among Mormons, all things have spirits.