Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[katherine the great]

No, I think that's a good point. There is no proof more proofier of intelligent design than the Cadbury egg. Only the hand of a Supreme Being could have enabled simple humans to create such heavenly bliss.

Blech! It makes my tooth hurt to think of it!

[The Dude]

I have yet to be persuaded by Darwinism or its more recent transmogrifcation, neo-Darwinism.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of "evolution" from lower, ancient forms to higher, modern forms.

....

I believe in a superior class of cosmic beings who exist in time and space in human form. I believe a group of them collaborated to organize and populate this planet. I think they are often amused at how a large segment of their creation has come to believe "He made me not."

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of "a superior class of cosmic beings".

If I did meet such cosmic beings, however, I would ask them to explain the fusion of DNA that produced human chromosome #2 (which I mentioned a few days ago [here] and never got an response). It really seems to be evidence that humans and apes came from a common ancestor. If the cosmic beings claimed to be our special creators, I would ask them to explain this to me, along with a lot of other things that I take as strong evidence of some form of evolution from "lower" life forms.

[Jeff K.]

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of "a superior class of cosmic beings".

So said the last isolated Neandertals.

If I did meet such cosmic beings, however, I would ask them to explain the fusion of DNA that produced human chromosome #2 (which I mentioned a few days ago [here] and never got an response). It really seems to be evidence that humans and apes came from a common ancestor. If the cosmic beings claimed to be our special creators, I would ask them to explain this to me, along with a lot of other things that I take as strong evidence of some form of evolution from "lower" life forms.

And if he said. "Figure it out yourself". Would that make him less superior? Or simply less willing to answer your questions? Or do you believe superiority is measured by his ability to respond to an inferior beings beck and call?

[The Dude]

And if he said. "Figure it out yourself".

Heh, you miss my point Jeff. We have figured it out; it is evidence for common descent with apes.

[Jeff K.]

Heh, you miss my point Jeff. We have figured it out; it is evidence for common descent with apes.

No actually you miss the point. He doesn't have to answer the question and he can leave you to your speculation. It is not a measure of his position to respond to your questions any the subjects you have decided are important to you alone.

[The Dude]

No actually you miss the point.

I missed the point of my own question and my own linked post? I don't think so.

(Let me guess, the "K" means Know-it-all)

[Ipso Facto]

Heh, you miss my point Jeff. We have figured it out; it is evidence for common descent with apes.

In other words, "He made me not."

It's a growing chorus. I only wish they could all sing on key.

But The Dude does support part of my argument, albeit unintentionally.

The evidence to which he points is inferential, at best. In his judgment, it seems to point to something, but that something continues to lack direct evidence of its reality. Where are the transitional forms predicted by the original precepts of common descent? What? They're not to be found? Well then, let's modify our theory to accommodate that minor inconvenience.

Meanwhile their date with the Maker grows ever closer ...

[Jeff K.]

I missed the point of my own question and my own linked post? I don't think so.

(Let me guess, the "K" means Know-it-all)

Sadly the literalist rarely understands implications.

[Ipso Facto]

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of "a superior class of cosmic beings".

The more I think about it, the more amazing to me this quote becomes.

Just for the record, I have, over the course of my ever-lengthening years, seen many pieces of convincing evidence of a "superior class of cosmic beings."

And even if I hadn't, I would still be convinced that there was such a thing out there in the endless cosmos.

[The Dude]

But The Dude does support part of my argument, albeit unintentionally.

The evidence to which he points is inferential, at best. In his judgment, it seems to point to something, but that something continues to lack direct evidence of its reality. Where are the transitional forms predicted by the original precepts of common descent? What? They're not to be found? Well then, let's modify our theory to accommodate that minor inconvenience.

You can't dismiss the evidence by calling it "inferential". Evolution and common descent can explain what I am talking about; let's see you explain it with your cosmic creationist framework. Here is a copy of the post I linked you to, since I can't tell if you even read it from the response you just gave:

Humans are genetically most similar to the great apes. Since DNA is the physical code that directs the construction and maintenance of bodies, it makes sense that humans and apes have both genetic and physiological similarities. Since DNA is also the medium for both inheritance and genetic mutation, it is perfectly logical to apply Darwin's evolutionary reasoning and look for signs that DNA has changed in accordance with so-called evolutionary trees. One clear example can be seen in this short video where Ken Miller presents evidence on human chromosome 2:

Ken Miller on Human Evolution

The data says that humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to the 24 pairs carried by all other great apes. If evolution is true and humans and apes shared a common ancestor, then there must be a way to reconcile the different numbers of chromosomes: either the humans lost a chromosome by head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, or else apes gained a chromosome by splitting of one chromosome in two. As Miller shows in that video, human chromosome #2 retains molecular landmarks proving it was made of two ape chromosomes that fused together.

Despite this evidence, creationists like [ipso Facto] wish to argue that common descent cannot be proved and is only believed by credulous fools who have been "taken in" because nobody has seen an ape giving birth to a human. This is a shockingly ignorant argument to people who understand evolution, who know that we shouldn't see apes giving birth to humans because many other individual mutations (besides the chromosomal fusion) would have to appear and survive in order for recognizable species differences to arise. This takes a very long time, probably longer than humans have been recording observations about plants and animals.

Meanwhile there are real mutations spreading through the human population in our lifetimes -- for example the spread of advantageous "lactose tolerance" mutations in humans since we started keeping animals for milk. When creationists are shown these mutations they generally concede something they call "microevolution", but won't budge on something else they call "macroevolution". (Terms in quotes are not used by scientists except to address the confused creationists who use them.) This argument, which creationists like [ipso Facto] are quite familiar with, stubbornly affirms that small changes over long periods of time cannot lead to species differences. There is no argument for this, only a stubborn affirmation.

Richard Dawkins uses a metaphor called "Mount Improbably" which helps to explain what creationists are missing about evolution. If the challenge for evolution is to transform organisms from one state (species) to another, that is like getting from the valley floor to a high mountaintop which has sheer cliff faces. The creationists look at the mountain and the cliffs and affirm that the leap, or species transformation, is impossible. But evolution doesn't say there are leaps across mountaintops and valleys. Evolution suggests there are stepwise paths between mountains and valleys, or mutation paths between species with discreet and retraceable steps such as the chromosome fusion described above. Creationists stubbornly affirm that there are only cliffs around Mount Improbable, and only evidence of a great leap will meet their demands. Under these circumstances we quickly run out of useful discussion.

Creationists like [ipso Facto] will make facile attempts to trivialize DNA similarities across species (which largely track proposed evolutionary relationships) as merely a reflection of DNA's function in constructing different body types. Since humans and apes have similar body type, they have similar DNA. Mice are more different and so there are more DNA differences. And so on. In this view, the appearance of evolutionary relationships in DNA is secondary to the function of DNA in the species -- and so the "evolutionary" pattern is just an illusion. This conveniently assumes that it's no matter that DNA doesn't just build bodies but is also the means of passing on genetic information to every further generation, exactly what evolution demands. This facile explanation turns a blind eye to patterns of genetic similarity that do not make sense without the light of evolutionary thinking. Whale evolution is a fine example of what I'm referring to:

The hypothesis that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals predicts that living whales and closely related living terrestrial mammals should show similarities in their molecular biology roughly in proportion to the recency of their common ancestor. That is, whales should be more similar in their molecular biology to groups of animals with which they share a more recent common ancestor than to other animals that exhibit convergent similarities in morphology, ecology, or behavior.

Whales are genetically most similar to archyodactyls (like pigs and camels), not to other aquatic mammals like otters, seals and manatees. In the view of creationists like [ipso Facto], why should this DNA similarity exist? They will say DNA similarities reflect only similar gene functions and not evidence of common descent, but if that is true, then aquatic mammals ought to have more gene similarities to each other rather than to particular land mammals that evolution designates as terrestrial relatives.

How do you explain this by reference to cosmic beings? Especially cosmic beings shaped like humans!

[J.S. Mill]

Does God have nipples and an appendix? Is God's eye inefficiently designed, like the human eye is? If so, why? What about the symbiotic bacteria in human guts that has become as essential to our well-being as our intestines themselves -- are there colonies of that bacteria on Kolob?

[semlogo]

I am extremely skeptical of radiometric dating methodologies. I believe they assume constants that may not be.

Creationist "quick decay" theories, if true, would mean that the earth would have been nuked by all the radiation decaying off of things.

[Tarski]

Does God have nipples and an appendix? Is God's eye inefficiently designed, like the human eye is? If so, why? What about the symbiotic bacteria in human guts that has become as essential to our well-being as our intestines themselves -- are there colonies of that bacteria on Kolob?

Does God have tiny hairs on his body that stand up when he gets goose bumps? (a residual effect that used make our furry ancestors look bigger when they faced scary situations like a potential rival or predator)

Why does the Almighty need toenails? Evolution tells a story here, but if Gods have always had this mammal form then it is a little puzzling.

[Jeff K.]

Does God like oatmeal? Just about as relevant.

[Tchild2]

Does God like oatmeal? Just about as relevant.

Very relevelant. If humans are made in God's image, why does the image we are made in have so many characteristics that are not needed for a God, but that exist for humans evolving in symbiosis with the natural world around us; gut bacteria, tiny hairs, toenails, etc etc.

It should only take a rational person half of a second to realize that it isn't us that are made in God's image, but rather God, made in ours.

[Ipso Facto]

I take it youâ??re in earnest, and so I will respond in kind:

You take a single datum (the observed apparent combining of the chromosome) and you infer a broad conclusion that is consistent with your a priori assumptions.

Because you are committed to the notion â??He made me not,â? you must argue that the only conceivable mechanism that can explain the data is random mutations over the course of eons of time. Itâ??s the only possible answer once you get to the point of being convinced that â??He made me not.â?

I get that. Many of us â??get it.â? We simply arenâ??t persuaded by it, because we consider the evidence woefully deficient.

DNA is the firmware of life. But it doesnâ??t program itself. When programmed by one who understands its workings, it can produce an astounding variety of forms and functions.

It's quite a brilliant design. I wonder who thought it up?

[Jeff K.]

Very relevelant. If humans are made in God's image, why does the image we are made in have so many characteristics that are not needed for a God, but that exist for humans evolving in symbiosis with the natural world around us; gut bacteria, tiny hairs, toenails, etc etc.

Define the limits of image? Does that mean all characteristics must correlate? How much and to what level? Otherwise, enjoy your oatmeal.

It should only take a rational persona half of a second to realize that it isn't us that are made in God's image, but rather God, made in ours.

A half a second's thought makes even a rational person sound dumb.

[Tarski]

Does God like oatmeal? Just about as relevant.

I guess I am not suprised that you don't catch the point. There is an "ah ha" moment waiting to happen.

start with this old post (slightly modified):

There used to be a puzzle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

One answer used to be "neither! There has always been chickens and eggs"

This seems deep at first until you put before your minds eye this eternal succession of ...egg, chicken, egg, chicken, egg, .... That is a very definite pattern there, one is led to ask why that pattern? Why that particular (and peculiar) pattern?

Now that we understand evolution the problem disappears. A fairly detail story can be told about how the egg system came about.

The chicken egg thing reminds me of an anectdote told by Steven Hawking:

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History Of Time starts with the anecdote.

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a

public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the

sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection

of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at

the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish.

The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant

tortoise."

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is

the tortoise standing on?"

"You're very clever, young man, very clever,"

said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."

Now to me the idea of God having human form because his eternal father before him had that form etc. etc. is like the chicken egg thing (mentioned on another thread by Zak). It is also a kind of "turtling all the way down". Perhaps we can say "primate-ing all the way back". Stand back and look at this human form repeating itself since forever back in time. One sees a definite unexplained pattern. Why that pattern? Why the human form. Were there thumbs and toenail, eyebrows, and hair since forever? Why?

This puzzle is also solved by neatly evolutionary biology but we have to abandon the doctrine. Toenails and hair and so on are not eternal patterns. They are contingent of bio-historical accidents.

Evolution is indeed incompatible with this doctrine about God's alledged physical shape.

The human form is temporary. It took time to appear and it will change and then probably disappear like most forms produced by evolution.

[Jeff K.]

Generally those who are inflexible in their dogma make all kinds of claims regarding the "a ha" moment. We will all wait for yours kid.

So far you boys are less than convincing.

[The Dude]

You take a single datum (the observed apparent combining of the chromosome) and you infer a broad conclusion that is consistent with your a priori assumptions.

Now lets see you make it consistent with your assumptions. How come humans and apes have this similarity (yet a difference too)?

Still waiting.

The thing is, it's not just a single datum. There are thousands of evidences like this that evolution and common descent can explain, but special creation cannot. It means something IP.

Still waiting for you to make it consistent with your assumptions. Give it a try. Be "creative".

[The Dude]

So far you boys are less than convincing.

I take it JeffK still isn't up for a serious effort. No surprise there. But maybe Ipso Facto is willing to engage these issues.

[Jeff K.]

I am amazed at how immature and empty that last post you made was.

If you want to convince me or anyone of anything of substance, I suggest you learn to articulate your position. You make the declarative statement, and then run away with some intellectually lame parting shot. LIttle more than a hit and run.

[The Dude]

I am amazed at how immature and empty that last post you made was.

If you want to convince me or anyone of anything of substance, I suggest you learn to articulate your position. You make the declarative statement, and then run away with some intellectually lame parting shot. LIttle more than a hit and run.

I know. But I forgot to mention oatmeal.

[Jeff K.]

Mine was a question of relevance. A question raised that still has not been answered.

Only an idiot wouldn't see that, so I can't understand why...., oh wait, I almost forgot who was posting... My bad.

[Hoops22]

Oh, yeah, there it is. I see now.

sorry. I'm flying without my Bible right now. I'll dredge up the reference at some point.

Perhaps there are those that could help me? Even if I am non-lds?

But there is a Ps that speaks to the raising of the mountains and the lowering of the valleys after the GLOBAL flood.