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

[John Larsen]

The use of the word "tool" does not contradict evolution. In fact it is atheists who would like us to think the word "tool" contradicts evolution. Evolution isn't simply about random mutation, but mutation to reflect an environment. There is nothing that states that process cannot be directed.

I think what is not being grasped here is that "some" evolutionists believe in the random. Other evolutionists concede that it is possible that acts which may follow the same path need not be random.

Wrong. What you describe is Lamarckism which idea has been thoroughly discredited. Organisms do not evolve in response to their environment.

There may be one or two lunatic Lamarckists out there (of people who know what they are talking about), but you would have a hard time finding them.

[ttribe]

I do know that? No, that isn't the case. Doctrine is whatever the current prophet speaks in official settings laid out for such purposes for the members. Prophets are not up on the pulpit wasting their or your time blathering on about non-essentials...or are they?

Counsel does not equal doctrine.

[Jeff K.]

My definition of humans is found in text books. It is yours that is dicey. It doesn't appear to be in either the bible or the text books. Maybe you could shed some light instead of this cat and mouse game. Take a couple of paragraphs and explain how to reconcile it.

I know of nothing that "defines" human. We have genus and species but I would be interested as to how you would define "human".

Somewhere in there I am sure. Care to be more precise. Or do I write to you while whistling "Lucy in the sky with diamonds"?

[Tchild2]

Counsel does not equal doctrine.

Not to you, but to the majority who take the time to attend conference it does. And more so when it corresponds to central and core doctrines that are the foundational support of the church. In this case, "the fall" and how it relates to man and his salvation. Or do you dispute that the fall is doctrinal exactly as the church currently teaches it?

[Jeff K.]

The environment is not an intelligent being. In any case, are you claiming that the environment directs mutation?

I don't think you grasp the role of the environment or understand how the mutations occur.

Mutations are random: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...C1aRandom.shtml

(but the algorithm, though natural, is not):

http://cogprints.org/283/

The environment is not an intelligent thing? Hmmm... So hot houses are acts of randomness? Or are they controlled environments?

And when you breed a larger horse, is it random or are you directing the mutation?

[ttribe]

Not to you, but to the majority who take the time to attend conference it does.

And how would you have any idea what the "majority" of people who attend conference think? BTW, I've watched every session of conference for the last 17 years...just in case you were questioning my devotion.

And more so when it corresponds to central and core doctrines that are the foundational support of the church. In this case, "the fall" and how it relates to man and his salvation. Or do you dispute that the fall is doctrinal exactly as the church currently teaches it?

No, I reject the literaltist dichotomies you are putting on both ends of an argument that is more likely about a spectrum of knowledge at this point. Frankly, I think we are very "young" in our understanding of the creation of our world (from both a religious and scientific standpoint).

[semlogo]

I see clearly. It is a letter dated 1957, and then 10 years later a prophet stands before the general assembly at General Conference and lays out doctrines relating to the fall that make the nuetrality of evolution an impossibility (no death in the world, Adam as first man in a garden of Eden, etc). Then another leader, an apostle continues on to expand on LDS beliefs in 1983 (cited by me on an earlier post).

Evolution directly relates to the church's doctrine of the fall, and the two cannot coexist. You cannot have no physical death, and physical death. You cannot have a first man placed here, and not a first man. Can you not see, or do you refuse to do so?

The conference talk mentioned evolution directly? No? Then respectfully, you're talking out of your hind end. If the scriptures can use symbolic language, why can't the prophets?

Evolution is a fact. All Christians must try to reconcile Genesis with known facts. The only way to do so is to acknowledge that Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of humans or of the earth.

Besides, McKay was the prophet, McConkie was only an apostle, and McConkie overstepped his bounds many times in his doctrinal proclamations.

[Tarski]

In my years I have noticed the moment when anonymous people began raising their degrees as flags of protection, and alluding to their many years of outstanding academia in which they changed the world, while simultaneously avoiding the discussion of very clear positions that the "whoosh" I hear is their credibility flying out the window.

Avoiding discussion?

Jeff,

Do a search in this forum with keyword "evolution" and filter by member name "Tarski". You will find pages of stuff and I don't think it goes back nearly as far as when I first started posting here.

You might also do the same search but filter with member name "The Dude" (his PhD is in a biological science)

[thesometimesaint]

ttribe:

I've watched conference for over 37 years, so I have you beat there.

But Tchild2 just wont accept that we know what we believe.

[Tchild2]

And how would you have any idea what the "majority" of people who attend conference think? BTW, I've watched every session of conference for the last 17 years...just in case you were questioning my devotion.

Then you ought to know better than to speak for anyone besides yourself. I am sure you are very devoted.

No, I reject the literaltist dichotomies you are putting on both ends of an argument that is more likely about a spectrum of knowledge at this point. Frankly, I think we are very "young" in our understanding of the creation of our world (from both a religious and scientific standpoint).

What you "reject" is exactly what the church has taught as literally true. The dichtomomy exists only now because the truths of science have crept into your belief system and you have no way to reconcile what was taught, what is doctrine of the church and what you know with your mind and reasoning that contradicts those past teachings.

I will ask again. Are the teachings of "the fall", doctrinal as has been taught? ttribe, it is a very easy yes or no answer. If you cannot answer, then you know the source of conflict; yourself.

[Tarski]

The environment is not an intelligent thing? Hmmm... So hot houses are acts of randomness? Or are they controlled environments?

And when you breed a larger horse, is it random or are you directing the mutation?

That's artificial selection. Evolution is a theory of natural selection. If life were the result of breeding by intelligent beings then

a.) evolution as it is commonly understood would be false,

b.) the origin of biological complexity and intelligence would be left unexplained and we would be back to square one.

[ttribe]

ttribe:

I've watched conference for over 37 years, so I have you beat there.

Yeah...I wasn't quite as "devoted" in my pre-mission days...plus, I'm guessing birthdates have something to do with it....

But Tchild2 just wont accept that we know what we believe.

Honestly, it's the literalism that seems to trip people up.

[ttribe]

I will ask again. Are the teachings of "the fall", doctrinal as has been taught? ttribe, it is a very easy yes or no answer. If you cannot answer, then you know the source of conflict; yourself.

I don't know what you're trying to pin me down on? What are you defining as literal? Are you saying 6-days, etc.? No, I don't believe that's correct. Are you saying that there was a type of death and mortality introduced by the fall in which the FIRST of the soul's (Adam) who was subject to the Plan in its entirety fell and became immortal, etc.? Yes; I believe that. The mechanism for how we got to that point, etc. is just not that important doctrinally.

The fact that you continue to try to ascribe dissonance issues to me that once bothered you is a rather significant impediment to the discussion.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I can not answer for what is commonly thought about Evolution, but evolution is simply change. http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution.

It can be directed, or undirected, beneficial or fatal. It is still just evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

ttribe:

I never served a mission for the Church. I was new to the Church and the Vietnam War kinda got in the way. When my wife retires, we plan on it however.

[Tchild2]

But Tchild2 just wont accept that we know what we believe.

But I am one of you, and I know what the church teaches, what is believed and what is taught. It is you that is having a hard time connecting the relationship between the doctrine of "the fall" with the incongruity of evolution. Do you not understand that it is irrelevant if the church takes no position on evolution, but does take a doctrinal position on "the fall"?

Do you understand the doctrine of "the fall"? Please tell me how "no death in the world" before the fall meshes with evolution. I am all ears.

[ttribe]

But I am one of you, and I know what the church teaches, what is believed and what is taught. It is you that is having a hard time connecting the relationship between the doctrine of "the fall" with the incongruity of evolution. Do you not understand that it is irrelevant if the church takes no position on evolution, but does take a doctrinal position on "the fall"?

Do you understand the doctrine of "the fall"? Please tell me how "no death in the world" before the fall meshes with evolution. I am all ears.

Who and what were subject to the "no death" clause? Please show me where someone of authority has said that a squirrel couldn't die before the fall? Furthermore, who's to say that the evolutionary process wasn't used to achieve a perfected state (albeit temporarily) to prepare a place for Adam to be placed into being (his spirit united with a body)? It's just not a necessity that it be "either/or".

[Tarski]

Tarski:

I can not answer for what is commonly thought about Evolution, but evolution is simply change. http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution.

It can be directed, or undirected, beneficial or fatal. It is still just evolution.

I thought we were talking about the scientific theory known as Evolution by Natural Selection. Let's not equivocate on the word "evolution". When someone says that they accept evolution as a fact they are not simply saying that they accept that there is change in the world.

Note: From now on, unless otherwise stated, when I say "the theory of evolution" I am referring to "the modern neodarwinian theory of biological evolution by natural selection espoused by almost all biological scientists in the world and taught at every major university".

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

I have no responsibility for what others believe, including members of the Church, beyond teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves.

Was Adam in The Garden or in the lone and dreary world when he fell?

[Tarski]

Who and what were subject to the "no death" clause? Please show me where someone of authority has said that a squirrel couldn't die before the fall? Furthermore, who's to say that the evolutionary process wasn't used to achieve a perfected state (albeit temporarily) to prepare a place for Adam to be placed into being (his spirit united with a body)? It's just not a necessity that it be "either/or".

Were squirrels in the world at the time? I hope you don't attempt to shape shift the meanings of the words "in the world" and "no death" and "before Adam" in the unsuccessful style of BCSpace.

[ttribe]

Were squirrels in the world at the time? I hope you don't attempt to shape shift the meanings of the words "in the world" and "no death" and "before Adam" in the unsuccessful style of BCSpace.

Look, you can conduct yourself with condescension all you want to Tarski, but don't expect me to take the bait. You are dogmatically opposed to the very existence of a god at this point, and your arguments reflect that. All I am saying is that a literalist view on the creation and the fall is not, in my opinion, appropriate.

[Hoops22]

God had to do a number of things beside the lineage. Did you pray about each single item, or were you simply cherry picking?

Have you generated an approved list upon which I should pray?

And if so, then why should God bless you with such an incessant and oftimes inane questions

Questions are often more than a plea for information. They often communicate something else entirely.

rather than the key point "Is He the savior".

While this is true, there are subterranean caverns beneath this seemingly flat ground upon which you trod. And it's doctrinally unsound to boot.

You would make a paltry disciple of God

One of your more finer points so far.

if you use that type of reasnoning in your search for salvation.

Fortunately, I don't search for it. It has been given to me.

[Tarski]

Look, you can conduct yourself with condescension all you want to Tarski, but don't expect me to take the bait. You are dogmatically opposed to the very existence of a god at this point, and your arguments reflect that. All I am saying is that a literalist view on the creation and the fall is not, in my opinion, appropriate.

Then we agree! It's not literally true. Good. Many teaching it the church deserve the same judgement but authoritative men like Bruce R. McConkie just won't let it go that way.

[ttribe]

Then we agree! It's not literally true. Good. Many teaching it the church deserve the same judgement but authoritative men like Bruce R. McConkie just won't let it go that way.

What do you mean by "not literally true"? I'm talking mechanism, not meaning.

[Tarski]

Have you generated an approved list upon which I should pray?

Questions are often more than a plea for information. They often communicate something else entirely.

While this is true, there are subterranean caverns beneath this seemingly flat ground upon which you trod. And it's doctrinally unsound to boot.

One of your more finer points so far.

Fortunately, I don't search for it. It has been given to me.

You see! Here is the problem with the whole pray-and-feel-the-spirit method of discovering what is true.

Science is imperfect but at least it safeguards against the sprawling plurality and arbitrariness of beliefs generated by the personal revelation method.