Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Ipso Facto]

Now you are going off at talking about random vs directed mechanisms instead of addressing the evidence before you, which I say proves that humans and apes share a common ancestor. No matter whether it was random or directed, it proves common origin! First admit this, then we can talk about mechanism, and in that discussion I will probably be more forgiving.I already realize you believe this. You know, a lot of the more sophisticated ID-believers readily admit that humans and apes share common ancestry, and are even convinced of common descent for all life on earth, because of the kind of evidence I am showing you. (I'm not saying you should believe because they do. I am saying that skeptics of Darwinism can still be impressed by the abundant evidence for common descent.) They just want to reserve a place for intelligent direction. It seems to me that you aren't there yet. Instead of arguing for ID within the framework of common descent, you are arguing for ID plus special creation, and SC can only be maintained through a mixture of scientific confusion and religious stubborness. So, lets first finish with the evidence for common descent and then we can talk about where you are trying to push the argument in terms of mechanism and intelligent direction. Yes?

I do not believe that your conclusions about the apparent random mutation of a single chromosome (or, if you will, the combination of two into one â?? which is nevertheless a mutation) is persuasive evidence of common descent.

Common descent must be manifest by more than this explanation of the data you observe. On the most basic and tangible level, I submit that common descent must be evidenced by intermediate forms in the fossil record, or by presently-existing intermediate forms, not simply inferred by something that some scientists have seized upon as "incontrovertible evidence".

I imagine there are innumerable means by which someone with the necessary power and appropriate mechanisms can manipulate the firmware of life in order to effect His designs. Iâ??ve recently learned of how inventive hackers figured out how to extract the encoding of the firmware in Canon digital cameras by optically tracking the pulses of the LED indicator on the camera body. After extracting the encoding for different internal operations, they then formulated alternate ways of manipulating that firmware in order to enhance the functionality of the camera, thereby increasing its low-light sensitivity, its depth-of-field capture, etc. Itâ??s quite fascinating, and, given what geneticists are now doing in many fields, quite instructive of the way something like DNA can be manipulated, in a relatively rapid fashion, over the course of just a few generations, to alter the properties of the organism in question.

I donâ??t consider random mutation over the course of eons of time to be a logical mechanism for either the creation or adaptation of life on earth. I am personally acquainted with at least three geneticists in three different fields of expertise who feel just as I do. In fact, their views have greatly influenced my own. They see a collaboration of natural processes and intelligent manipulation as the common factors in the development of all life.

I take it you donâ??t see it that way. That is your choice, but I donâ??t believe your stance is well-supported by the evidence at hand.

So, from the evidence I have shown you, you would have to say the template (genome) for humans and apes was created by manipulating a common pre-existing template.

Why not?

[semlogo]

My personal opinion is that your personal opinion is spectacularly deficient in explanatory power.

That's because I just presented it to you. Eventually, without any further contributions from me, it grow and evolve to be chock-full of explaining power.

[The Dude]

So, from the evidence I have shown you, you would have to say the template (genome) for humans and apes was created by manipulating a common pre-existing template.

Why not?

Because then you would be admitting there was common descent after all!

Don't you see there are two different arguments going on?

#1. Common descent vs. independent creation. The chromosome 2 data is one tiny piece of the ever growing heap of evidence of common descent. There is no evidence for independent creation. It is only believed as a piece of childish religious dogma.

#2. Darwinian natural selection vs. intelligent design. I'm trying to steer us away from this because it is insoluble without first agreeing on #1.

If you say the cosmic creators manipulated a genome to give apes on one hand and humans on the other, then I'm saying you just gave up independent creation and admitted common descent.

[Ipso Facto]

Why not?

Because then you would be admitting there was common descent after all!

Don't you see there are two different arguments going on?

#1. Common descent vs. independent creation. The chromosome 2 data is one tiny piece of the ever growing heap of evidence of common descent. There is no evidence for independent creation. It is only believed as a piece of childish religious dogma.

#2. Darwinian natural selection vs. intelligent design. I'm trying to steer us away from this because it is insoluble without first agreeing on #1.

If you say the cosmic creators manipulated a genome to give apes on one hand and humans on the other, then I'm saying you just gave up independent creation and admitted common descent.

I've never argued for what you are wont to call "independent creation." That is just another of your incorrect assumptions. As I have stated repeatedly, I believe that all life (at least as it is evidenced in this largely carbon-based creation) is rooted in basic templates that are manipulated to produce the variety we see. And, as I have also argued, I assume that there is undoubtedly life, intelligent and otherwise, based on other templates about which we presently have no knowledge. (In other words, I am disinclined to believe that "superior cosmic beings" -- regardless of their outward form -- are comprised of a heart, lungs, kidneys, appendix, etc., of carbon-based flesh.)

Gotta go and pursue other interests now. But I'm sure I'll return at some point in the future ...

[The Dude]

I finally set the bar so low that you could just step over it with intact belief in cosmic creators... and you gotta run.

[Ipso Facto]

I finally set the bar so low that you could just step over it with intact belief in cosmic creators... and you gotta run.

That is your sole reply to my comments? Some meaningless arrogant outburst about setting the "bar so low"?

And you're accusing me of "running away"?

You are content to debate these issues on what you consider your own terms, and to gleefully knock down the strawman that the "ID" crowd represents to you. But I'm not advocating for what is popularly called "intelligent design." I know little or nothing about it. I don't read their literature. I am only vaguely aware of what they preach. So don't tip over ID strawmen and act as though you've deflated my arguments. What I know and believe about "creation" has come from entirely different sources.

[thesometimesaint]

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...Videos/06296_00

[Tchild2]

That is your sole reply to my comments? Some meaningless arrogant outburst about setting the "bar so low"?

And you're accusing me of "running away"?

You are content to debate these issues on what you consider your own terms, and to gleefully knock down the strawman that the "ID" crowd represents to you. But I'm not advocating for what is popularly called "intelligent design." I know little or nothing about it. I don't read their literature. I am only vaguely aware of what they preach. So don't tip over ID strawmen and act as though you've deflated my arguments. What I know and believe about "creation" has come from entirely different sources.

According to ID, why do species go extinct?

[J.S. Mill]

According to ID, why do species go extinct?

Because they let boys kiss each other, duh! Haven't you been keeping up with the Prop 8 threads?

[thesometimesaint]

Here all along I thought it was smoking that did them in. : )

[Stargazer]

That is your sole reply to my comments? Some meaningless arrogant outburst about setting the "bar so low"?

And you're accusing me of "running away"?

You are content to debate these issues on what you consider your own terms, and to gleefully knock down the strawman that the "ID" crowd represents to you. But I'm not advocating for what is popularly called "intelligent design." I know little or nothing about it. I don't read their literature. I am only vaguely aware of what they preach. So don't tip over ID strawmen and act as though you've deflated my arguments. What I know and believe about "creation" has come from entirely different sources.

Earlier in this thread I was trying to defend the notion that the biochemical leaps from, for example, a bacterium without a flagellum to one with a flaggellum was sufficiently mathematically improbable that you'd need a designer to get over the hump, and found myself being required to defend Intelligent Design's pseudoscientific ramblings as if they were my own. It was useless to protest -- nobody wanted to hear my thoughts. And then I didn't have any more time to devote to the discussion. So I know what you're saying.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

...found myself being required to defend Intelligent Design's pseudoscientific ramblings as if they were my own.

Come now mate!

...you were attempting to defend the idea of 'Irreducible Complexity'. If ever there was a 'concept' that ID rightfully claims as it's own, that would be it. You can't get more ID-ish than that...!

...no-one was asking you to defend it - you chose to...

Regardless of whether you succeeded in defending it (and we're just too stubborn or stupid to accept it), or whether you didn't - I mean - well, that's what happened. Right?

IC is a 'method' by which ID-ists claim to 'prove' that things like the flagellum could not have developed .via small, incremental steps.

If you want to defend the notion that the flagellum simply could not have developed .via small, incremental changes, but you don't want to rely on IC to do that, then - well - I guess you'll need to come up with your own evidence...

Your own 'method of proof'.

[Stargazer]

Come now mate!

Well, hello again!

...you were attempting to defend the idea of 'Irreducible Complexity'. If ever there was a 'concept' that ID rightfully claims as it's own, that would be it. You can't get more ID-ish than that...!

As I indicated, I haven't read much ID. Behe's book was about it, quite some time ago, and the 'concept' of irreducible complexity, not some 'strawman' of IC, was what I was trying to "defend".

...no-one was asking you to defend it - you chose to...

Regardless of whether you succeeded in defending it (and we're just too stubborn or stupid to accept it), or whether you didn't - I mean - well, that's what happened. Right?

Sorry, I was defending the idea of stepwise (i.e. incremental) changes producing complete systems over a period of time. And I dropped out of the discussion (in case you didn't notice it) because I had no time to stay in the game. I still don't -- my wife is just about to spirit me away to the bus so I can go to work. But the thing I was annoyed about was that what was being thrown into my face, as if I had to defend it, was someone else's interpretation of IC.

IC is a 'method' by which ID-ists claim to 'prove' that things like the flagellum could not have developed .via small, incremental steps.

If you want to defend the notion that the flagellum simply could not have developed .via small, incremental changes, but you don't want to rely on IC to do that, then - well - I guess you'll need to come up with your own evidence...

Your own 'method of proof'.

Yeah, and the guy in the video argued that merely by adding an entire subsystem in one fell swoop (the majority of the missing components of the flaggellum if I recall correctly) to an organelle that actually didn't exist on the type of bacteria that got the flagellum, was his "argument" against IC. I didn't buy it. It wasn't incremental. Not by a long shot. And Darwin was the one who claimed that if the stepwise method could not work then his entire theory fell down flat on its face.

But if you want to declare victory over it, be my guest.

[semlogo]

You can't get more LDS than incremental changes and evolution. Line upon line, precept upon precept. We all go through a process of evolving into gods, which are quite different from humans. Evolution is an elegant principle that echoes many of the spiritual principles we believe in.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hey Stargazer,

Well, I hope you have a bit more time to waste around h... I mean - ehem - to 'set the world to rights' here

But anyway - I'm not going to go any further with the actual evolution debate at this point. (Or at least not too much further...)

All I want to do is recap on what was said in this thread earlier, and hopefully try and dis-tangle a couple of things . (Maybe even to your agreement - who knows...)

As far as I understand it, the initial point of this discussion was to determine whether Kenneth Miller -in the video referenced - was only attacking a 'straw-man' of IC.

Now - am I now understanding you right that what Miller should have been tackling is 'your notion of IC'...?

...as in "You don't necessarily give a flying flagellum what Behe's notions, ideas or definitions of IC are - Miller didn't tackle what you see as the 'essentials' of IC'.

Is that right?

If so - then fair enough. And I can see the reason for annoyance.

...but let's clarify one thing here...

...can we really accuse Miller of 'attacking a straw-man of IC here'? How was he supposed to deal with your notions of IC? Your notions of IC weren't presented at the trial. Behe is a leading figure in the ID movement - they were the ones trying to push the teaching of ID into school science textbooks - therefore that's the concept of 'IC' that Miller was required to deal with.

So - I will agree that Miller may well not have handled whatever notion of (what you call) 'IC' you are putting forward. Or at the very least, we can further discuss that.

...would you also agree - though - that Miller can't exactly have been expected to handle your specific objections if you weren't there to give them..?!

That's what half that entire discussion was about. I just couldn't understand what you meant by 'Miller has atttacked a straw-man of IC'. The only version of IC ever officially put forward has come from the Discovery Institute - by the likes of Behe and co.

Yeah, and the guy in the video argued that merely by adding an entire subsystem in one fell swoop (the majority of the missing components of the flagellum if I recall correctly) to an organelle that actually didn't exist on the type of bacteria that got the flagellum, was his "argument" against IC.

First - he wasn't claiming that that's 'how it would have happened' in terms of evolution. He wasn't trying to describe the exact pathway as whole sections of functionality building up in huge chunks.

He was simply showing that it means the definition of IC as proposed falls down as a proof. He was simply showing that IC as proposed by the Discovery Institute doesn't work as a 'counter-proof' against the evolutionary explanation.

In terms of the trial, that's all he had to do.

Second - of course the 'original' function of a single 'part' isn't found in organisms that have the flagellum. The whole point is that parts that performed one function in earlier generations can perform other functions in later generations - or indeed can no longer perform any useful function and become 'vestigial' parts or organs...

But if you want to declare victory over it, be my guest.

Well - if I saw discussing evolution as a 'game' - maybe I'd be tempted to try that...

[Stargazer]

Hey Stargazer,

Well, I hope you have a bit more time to waste around h... I mean - ehem - to 'set the world to rights' here

But anyway - I'm not going to go any further with the actual evolution debate at this point. (Or at least not too much further...)

All I want to do is recap on what was said in this thread earlier, and hopefully try and dis-tangle a couple of things . (Maybe even to your agreement - who knows...)

As far as I understand it, the initial point of this discussion was to determine whether Kenneth Miller -in the video referenced - was only attacking a 'straw-man' of IC.

IC has been declared pseudoscience. I'm cool with that declaration, for the simple reason that to the best of my knowledge it (along with ID overall) that it cannot be falsified. I will say that what we may term here and now to be pseudoscience may in the future at some point turn out to be science, and vice-versa, in the grand tradition of things like Phlogiston, Continental Drift, and Piltdown Man.

NEVERTHELESS, the notion of irreducible complexity has its charms, at least to me. And using our favorite organelle, the flagellum, as the example, I will explain why.

First of all, whatever flaws Miller's argument relating to the Type III secretory system (TTSS) might have notwithstanding (chiefly being that organisms having a TTSS are not related at all to those which have flagella), nevertheless the TTSS structure is structurally similar to the base of the flagellum, in that if you subtract the forty proteins from the flagellum that make it work you are left with something that is similar to the basal body of the TTSS. This is interesting. As Miller is trying to point out, based on this it looks like you could get there (flagellum) from here (TTSS) by the simple addition of those missing 40 proteins. He emphasizes this point in the video on youtube.

The reason I say I spy a problem in this, is that after my initial nodding in agreement over the 40 proteins I suddenly realized that that was one huge saltation. And just because the TTSS and the flagellum share similar basal structures, does not mean in fact that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. The TTSS is a secretory injection system used by its bearers (pathogens) to dispense toxins to eukaryotes that they are trying to kill and eat. If there were in fact a mondo large saltation that suddenly changed a TTSS on a pathogen to a flagellum, you would be left with a parasitic/predatory organism that could surely move a lot faster (using the flagellum) but would starve to death before it could pass along its genetic inheritance (the flagellum). Unless one wants to posit the flagellum as a tool to kill its prey (a real stretch). And to posit a partial flagellum, which would only require, say, 20 proteins, then the question comes to the fore: would the organism now be able to neither move quickly nor inject toxins (because the shaft of the flagellum occupies the space the that TTSS injector formerly occupied), and would therefore die even quicker? I am saying that the idea behind "small steps", which is something Darwin posited, not me and and not Behe either, means that a small, incremental change in the TTSS must produce an organism that is at least capable of surviving to pass on its genes. And 40 proteins does not qualify as a small, incremental change.

This is why I was saying that Miller's supposed "disproof" of the flagellum argument of IC is a straw man. He cannot demonstrate that it happened that way, and the evidence that a TTSS evolved into a flagellum does not exist except as a proposal, which, in the end, cannot hold water. At least IMHO.

I'm not trying to be cute here. I am saying that coming up with a biochemical pathway from a TTSS to a flagellum is highly problematic. The evolutionists may say, "maybe it's problematic, and maybe it didn't happen exactly that way, but it did happen, and we will eventually figure it out and let everyone know." To which I would reply, "I'm looking forward to it, bring it on."

In the end, the only thing I am trying to say is that I do not believe that the process of evolution came about through self-organizing systems of mindless chemical reactions. The idea of what I perceive as IC is that the flagellum could not, without some form of intervention, have evolved from nothing (positing an organism without one), but that the organizing came about through definite saltations by the intervention / guidance of an intelligent designer, whom I identify as God. And I freely and happily admit that all this is totally not falsiable and is therefore not scientific.

I know what it sounds like. But I am happy with it. Just as happy as the evolutionists who marvel that the system just happens all by itself!

I identify the universe as a wondrous construct of Almighty God. Others choose to regard it as an accidental conglomeration due to chance. Regardless, it is still just as beautiful, no matter who describes it.

Now - am I now understanding you right that what Miller should have been tackling is 'your notion of IC'...?

...as in "You don't necessarily give a flying flagellum what Behe's notions, ideas or definitions of IC are - Miller didn't tackle what you see as the 'essentials' of IC'.

Is that right?

Yes. Miller did not take us from TTSS to flagellum. He merely indicated a similarity in the basal structure of the two organelles. And this proves nothing, although it looks good at first glance. I explained this above.

If so - then fair enough. And I can see the reason for annoyance.

...but let's clarify one thing here...

...can we really accuse Miller of 'attacking a straw-man of IC here'? How was he supposed to deal with your notions of IC? Your notions of IC weren't presented at the trial. Behe is a leading figure in the ID movement - they were the ones trying to push the teaching of ID into school science textbooks - therefore that's the concept of 'IC' that Miller was required to deal with.

So - I will agree that Miller may well not have handled whatever notion of (what you call) 'IC' you are putting forward. Or at the very least, we can further discuss that.

...would you also agree - though - that Miller can't exactly have been expected to handle your specific objections if you weren't there to give them..?!

Oh, I see what you're saying. No, he was beating Behe with a club. Since I was not there he couldn't very well do it to me. Good point.

My annoyance is kind of at a large remove, then, and perhaps I should just chuckle at the sight and move on.

First - he wasn't claiming that that's 'how it would have happened' in terms of evolution. He wasn't trying to describe the exact pathway as whole sections of functionality building up in huge chunks.

He was simply showing that it means the definition of IC as proposed falls down as a proof. He was simply showing that IC as proposed by the Discovery Institute doesn't work as a 'counter-proof' against the evolutionary explanation.

In terms of the trial, that's all he had to do.

Yes, but he was driving an awfully large truck through the hole he had in his logic. 40 proteins ...

But it may be that the DI isn't doing its own work well enough to make it stand on its own. Just because a guy is convicted of a crime doesn't necessary mean he did it -- it could also be that his lawyer couldn't tell a marriage license from a gun permit.

Second - of course the 'original' function of a single 'part' isn't found in organisms that have the flagellum. The whole point is that parts that performed one function in earlier generations can perform other functions in later generations - or indeed can no longer perform any useful function and become 'vestigial' parts or organs...

Oh, of course. At least when it comes to organs like our appendix -- rabbits have large ones with a function (I suppose), we don't. But I still think losing your TTSS and having a flagellum in its place might be very stylish and "in" this year, but it will play merry hob with bringing home the bacon.

I don't know where I found the hour to write all this. I think my wife is getting very annoyed with me.

Catch you later, Ren!

Edited to clarify a point.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hey Star,

Well - first of all - just wanna clarify one main thing.

What I 'think' you are saying is that - as far as you're concerned - Miller was proposing that the TTSS 'became' the flagellum pretty much in one step. Literally one generation...?!

...is that what you think Miller was proposing?

And 40 proteins does not qualify as a small, incremental change.

Exactly. Miller wasn't proposing this is 'what happened'. He was tackling the 'IC argument' as put forward by Behe and co..

You may find this 'annoying' of me to say (again), but I really do think you are getting the original point of 'IC' (i.e. why the idea was constructed in the first place) a little backwards.

Saying that a particular structure could not have arisen through nothing but small, incremental changes with nothing but natural forces as 'guidance' is:

1. Just a claim. It's not a proof of anything in and of itself.

2. A claim that has been around ever since the ToE has been around.

i.e. this claim isn't an 'IC' claim - in the sense that it was around long before the term 'IC' was used or invented.

What IC was originally meant to be (i.e. not whatever you think of it as, but why the term came into existence in the first place) is a 'proof' of this claim. IC isn't the claim itself - it is a proposed 'method of proof' for this claim.

Let's see what you think of what I've just said above before moving on too much further I guess...

Oh - OK - just one more thing too...

First of all, whatever flaws Miller's argument relating to the Type III secretory system (TTSS) might have notwithstanding (chiefly being that organisms having a TTSS are not related at all to those which have flagella)

...why do you say this? What evidence do you have that organisms having a TTSS 'are not related at all to those which have flagella'?

The idea of what I perceive as IC is that the flagellum could not, without some form of intervention, have evolved from nothing (positing an organism without one), but that the organizing came about through definite saltations by the intervention / guidance of an intelligent designer, whom I identify as God. And I freely and happily admit that all this is totally not falsiable and is therefore not scientific.

Well, regardless of our different positions on this particular issue - I think you have a perfectly healthy view on the scientific process...

Kudos.

don't know where I found the hour to write all this. I think my wife is getting very annoyed with me.

Maybe she has this idea that conversations like these on internet boards aren't really that important... Or something...

A fairly bizarre notion....!

[littlechild]

The only thing indisputable about evolution is that the Math indisputably shows that the mechanisms proposed to bring about change in an organism ie. natural selection and mutation, are so inadequate as to make it IMPOSSIBLE. Few will argue that a finch beak can be found in several forms depending on the environment.Most will agree that the genetic information to make such forms was already in the DNA of the finch. Showing how new genetic information can be accumulated so that a dinosaur can eventually change to a bird is a task beyond the realm of chance and must lead one to consider a "mind" behind it all. The Cambrian Explosion of life forms in what is a snap of time geologically also forces one to consider other theories(emphasis on "theo" ) besides evolution.

HEAR HEAR!!! Loud clapping..

Evolutionary theory is just a plausible rumor until you do the math.

[littlechild]

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...Videos/06296_00

National Geographic!! HA HA HA HA !!!

...falling off chair laughing..

One interesting quote near the end......"little things seem to have remained constant through the course of time." WOW - what a HUGE insight. ooh... I'm breathless...

"it's unclear to Darwin,, why a Creator would have designed such unusual creatures".

WELL If its UNCLEAR to DARWIN - then how could it possibly be clear to anyone else????? HMMMMM????

[MichaelM]

The foundation of racism is embedded in with much on this topic. Pyere stated that the American Indian was a co-adamite, not descended from Adam and Eve. Hitler's aryan superiority followed from the pre-adamite theories. 21st century white supremacy includes this subject.

Any LDS today who would think that the indigenous peoples of America were not from Adam, but since the BoM times, have probably mixed with those who were, should examine their knowledge of racism.

There is a reason why I tend to prefer Richard Leaky's "Origins" over this subject.

[BCSpace]

The foundation of racism is embedded in with much on this topic. Pyere stated that the American Indian was a co-adamite, not descended from Adam and Eve. Hitler's aryan superiority followed from the pre-adamite theories. 21st century white supremacy includes this subject.

Any LDS today who would think that the indigenous peoples of America were not from Adam, but since the BoM times, have probably mixed with those who were, should examine their knowledge of racism.

There is a reason why I tend to prefer Richard Leaky's "Origins" over this subject.

Accepting of evolution and "TBM" as I am, I can see at least two possibilities here:

Given: God used evolution to create homo sapiens, who have been around for hundreds of thousands of years before God decided all was ready and placed His literal spirit children in Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden into a state of no death (2 Nephi 2:22). Prior to that, the spirits within the bodies of homo sapiens were not the literal spirit children of God. Definitely less intelligent as evidenced by the sudden and late rise of civilization.

1. The remaining homo spiens, not having spirit children of God within and being less intelligent, couldn't compete and died out. All humans on the earth descend from Adam and Eve literally in the physical sense.

2. After the Fall, literal spirit children of God were born to the already existing homo sapiens as well as to Adam and Eve. No more "lesser" spirits born into the species homo sapiens. Here, we are all part of the family of Adam and Eve in the spirit sense though not literally descended from them in the physical sense. But having the same evolved bodies and the same spirit Father and Mother, there can be no possibility of ethnic superiority, just genetic differences that beautify and give variety to the earth.

[Tarski]

National Geographic!! HA HA HA HA !!!

...falling off chair laughing..

Right! Almost as funny as Scientific American or Nature magazine.

When will people learn to just read the Bible--it's all there.

Oh the wisdom of the "little child".

/end sarcasm

[MichaelM]

Accepting of evolution and "TBM" as I am, I can see at least two possibilities here:

Given: God used evolution to create homo sapiens, who have been around for hundreds of thousands of years before God decided all was ready and placed His literal spirit children in Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden into a state of no death (2 Nephi 2:22). Prior to that, the spirits within the bodies of homo sapiens were not the literal spirit children of God. Definitely less intelligent as evidenced by the sudden and late rise of civilization.

1. The remaining homo spiens, not having spirit children of God within and being less intelligent, couldn't compete and died out. All humans on the earth descend from Adam and Eve literally in the physical sense.

2. After the Fall, literal spirit children of God were born to the already existing homo sapiens as well as to Adam and Eve. No more "lesser" spirits born into the species homo sapiens. Here, we are all part of the family of Adam and Eve in the spirit sense though not literally descended from them in the physical sense. But having the same evolved bodies and the same spirit Father and Mother, there can be no possibility of ethnic superiority, just genetic differences that beautify and give variety to the earth.

The words "couldn't compete and died out" were tried on the American Indian, but they are still here. It is a racist concept that one group is superior to the others. "No more lesser spirits born into the species" implies a miracle which counters the science/theological approach of biological mating.

Less intelligent as evidenced by the rise of civilization is arguable, and implies a racist concept of intelligence.

One possiblility you did not address is that of Adam and Eve being only a religious myth of one group of people, the Hebrew's, which has been imposed on the world through Christianity. Julius the Apostate argued this idea centuries ago.

My point is that when ideas are toyed with to merge science and religion, a seventeenth century concept of pre/co-adamites returns, which is racist. The nineteenth century writings set the foundation of racism. Why would anyone want to play with this?

Also, with the idea that not all are descended from Adam and Eve establishes one group over another. I guess those who are not, such as the indigenous ones in the Americas, should consider that their temple work is simplified by only having to go to Adam, not the "animal" ancestors?

I am not trying to attack, and I hope no one is offended, but knowing creation myths of other people, this attempt to bring science and religion together with Adam and Eve actually destroys my faith, because it no longer allows that all humans are from divine creation of one set of parents, it allows racial divisions to be argued, and leaves the possibility that other creation legends might be just as valid.

The one-word change to the Book of Mormon introduction provides for the possibility that humans lived in the Americas 50,000 years ago, that the flood was not universal, and poses more difficulites than it resolves. Was Eden in Missouri? Then why didn't the flood destroy "primitive" humans in the Americas? And why aren't Ice Age paintings of extinct mammals considered worthy of being portrayed in LDS temple world room murals? Who decides which two legged are human and which are not?

[thesometimesaint]

MichaelM:

With the case of the American Indians you have a largely Stone Age culture trying to compete against a much more advanced one. It has nothing to do with the evolution of the species, which was established some 200,000 years ago.

I see no need to represent any mortal except Adam and Eve in the Temple art.

[BCSpace]

The words "couldn't compete and died out" were tried on the American Indian, but they are still here.

But this doesn't apply to my hypothesis because those that died out did not have intelligent spirits within them.

It is a racist concept that one group is superior to the others.

The "preAdamites" in homo sapiens bodies and "postAdamites" in homo sapiens bodies are as different as people and chimps or dolphins. Racism isn't possible here.

"No more lesser spirits born into the species" implies a miracle which counters the science/theological approach of biological mating.

That only applies to physical bodies. Science does not have (nor probably ever will have in this dispensation) an explaination for the spirit, whence it came, or how it came about.

Less intelligent as evidenced by the rise of civilization is arguable, and implies a racist concept of intelligence.

Not unless the spirits involved are total different, the one being animal, the other a spirit child of God. With the spiritual eye, it's a completely different species. Plus, it's a species we don't come in contact with. Again, racism is impossible here.

One possiblility you did not address is that of Adam and Eve being only a religious myth of one group of people, the Hebrew's, which has been imposed on the world through Christianity. Julius the Apostate argued this idea centuries ago.

I can handle the possibility. But I believe in at least some degree of truth to the historical claims of scripture. If there weren't at least a kernal of truth, then they are not scripture and God (at least this God) does not exist.

My point is that when ideas are toyed with to merge science and religion, a seventeenth century concept of pre/co-adamites returns, which is racist. The nineteenth century writings set the foundation of racism. Why would anyone want to play with this?

It looks like my hypothesis has avoided (unintentionally) any possibility of racism. In it, all ethnic back grounds are created physically in the image of God via evolution and each is a literal spirit son or daughter of God. The animal intelligences that inhabited homo sapiens before the fall are simply that, animals. Where is the racism in that?

Also, with the idea that not all are descended from Adam and Eve establishes one group over another.

How so? Can you tell who was and was not? It's only one possibility that, btw, does not conflict here either.

I guess those who are not, such as the indigenous ones in the Americas, should consider that their temple work is simplified by only having to go to Adam, not the "animal" ancestors?

Being part of the same spirit family of Adam, being born to HF and HM, just as Adam was seesms to prevent any notion of racism here too.

I am not trying to attack, and I hope no one is offended, but knowing creation myths of other people, this attempt to bring science and religion together with Adam and Eve actually destroys my faith, because it no longer allows that all humans are from divine creation of one set of parents, it allows racial divisions to be argued, and leaves the possibility that other creation legends might be just as valid.

I am not offended. But I do think you are far too worried about political correctness and are hyper-sensitive to so-called "racism".

The one-word change to the Book of Mormon introduction provides for the possibility that humans lived in the Americas 50,000 years ago, that the flood was not universal, and poses more difficulites than it resolves. Was Eden in Missouri? Then why didn't the flood destroy "primitive" humans in the Americas? And why aren't Ice Age paintings of extinct mammals considered worthy of being portrayed in LDS temple world room murals? Who decides which two legged are human and which are not?

I don't think the wording needed to be changed as "principle" can mean "most important" or "most influential". But I don't think it presents any problems beyond the fact that it was felt that it needed to be changed.