Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Tarski]

I'm neither a molecular biologist, nor do I play one on TV, but doubts have been raised in my mind about evolution's ability to evolve such complex structures as the vertebrate eye, or such complex systems as the blood clotting mechanism. The one who is annoying you (lostindc?) was suggesting that the more that we know about how these things work the harder it can become to believe that they came about through blind chance.

But this just isn't true. The more we know the more we can see possible evolutionary pathways for these so called irreducibly complex things things. Please watch Kenneth Miller's presentation and also the fun but intelligent links that follow:

(long but good)

(short and fun)

(short and fun)

[Honorentheos]

Also, dude, did you just break Godwin's law and thereby get my entire atheism thread nuked??? You know the one that had several good philosophical posts about ethics - the one that took effort to write?

Was that what happened?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=boardrules

That's too bad. It was a good thread and the video was very interesting. Maybe it could be restarted in some manner that includes the video link from the OP?

[Honorentheos]

But this just isn't true. The more we know the more we can see possible evolutionary pathways for these so called irreducibly complex things things. Please watch Kenneth Miller's presentation and also the fun but intelligent links that follow:

(long but good)

(short and fun)

(short and fun)

To add, if inadequately, to what Tarski said, I think that when one looks at evolutionary processes as these large jumps from non-existence to existence of complex features they can seem fairly fantastic. But the more we find evidence for the incremental changes that fill in the gaps between the jumps, the more probable and also understandable evolution as a whole becomes.

The example of the eye seems to be one of the least likely candidates for refuting evolution-

PBS - Evolution of the eye video

[Stargazer]

But this just isn't true. The more we know the more we can see possible evolutionary pathways for these so called irreducibly complex things things. Please watch Kenneth Miller's presentation and also the fun but intelligent links that follow:

(long but good)

(short and fun)

(short and fun)

Ok, just a quick observation. I was shocked to discover that the first one was over an hour long! I thought YouTube limited the length on these things, but apparently not. I have not watched the whole thing; sorry, but it's still downloading as of this moment! I haven't watched enough of it so far to really give a good eval to it, but what I did notice is that Miller is busy debunking Intelligent Design, sort of pointing out the man behind the curtain, so to speak, as in "they say they're offering science, but what they're really offering is thinly veiled religion", and so on. Not interested in this, frankly, because I don't care if ID is trying to offer thinly veiled religion. It turns out that I rather like religion, and just because somebody believes God created everything doesn't give me the heebie-jeebies. I want a defense of the development of the human eye (for example) by random mutations and not an attack on ID and its nefarious promoters.

Miller finally gets down to some cogency about 35 minutes into it, and discusses the evolution of inner ear structures from a form (like ours) good for hearing in the air, to a form (like dolphins) that hear well under water. He says that intermediate inner ear structural forms were discovered in the fossils, demonstrating that changes were occurring over time; this is therefore evidence that evolution was occurring. I say that is really nice, BUT.

The "but" comes about because just because inner ear structure was changing to a form more comfortable with underwater hearing does not mean that speciation was taking place. But regardless of that, it most certainly does not mean that the ear was evolving from some form of proto-ear that could not pick up sounds very well at all, but was slightly better than being completely deaf. The structure existed; the structure changed due to natural selection, but it was still just as complex. This is still much like the Peppered Moth argument. But not the Salted Moth argument; that's completely different.

For the longest time, the textbooks contained the story of the peppered moth in Britain as an example of evolution in action. The most common color for this moth is primarily white with some darker spots peppering it. This provides good camouflage up against the moth's primary backdrop, when it rests on trees and rocks. But in parts of England there was a lot of industrial development, leading to trees, rocks and buildings acquiring a more general dark color. Because the peppery-marked moths could be seen more easily by predators, these were eaten up at a greater rate, and then the moths evolved to be almost black, which restored their camouflage. Hooray! Evolution in action! Unfortunately for this notion, the moths had not actually changed, for when a growing sense of environment caused the factories to produce less gunk in the air, the surfaces on which the moths lit turned back to their old colors, causing the now black moths to get eaten up. The moths then gradually went back to their previous peppery state. Turns out that both colorations were in the moths genes; no speciation occurred. Same kind of thing appears to be the case with high Andes Incas -- large-nosed, their nasal structures appear to have evolved to deal with the thinner air up there, but they are still homo sapiens, and this is not evolution, but an expression of what the genome already possesses for possibilities.

Now, blue whales and cows supposedly come from the same common ancestral stock. They cannot procreate together (but has anyone actually tried it, I wonder?), so they are definitely not of the same species. There is evolution in action, I'd say.

But the question still remains, and is not answered by Miller's explanation that dolphins evolved a water-adapted ear, is how did this new ear evolve? Evolutionists generally say it came about because of random mutations and natural selection; I say it came about by a Designer. Of course it cannot be proven; it is not falsifiable.

I'm listening to Miller while writing this and I note that he admits to being a theist. That's nice.

And here we go with the bacterial flagellum. The irreducible complexity argument is that if we take away important parts of the flagellum it is not functional. He demonstrates rather neatly that if we take away 40 of the 50 parts that make up the flagellum, what is left should be non-functional, BUT this is not true! What is left is the Type-III Secretory system! And it's functional! Thus the irreducible complexity argument falls flat on its stupid face. Evolutionists high-five each other with glee. Smack! Take that!

The problem with this little exercise is that, yeah sure, there's a function all right, but it is not the function of the flagellum. Generally, flagella are used for movement. Without one, the bacterium can surely excrete, but it's dead in the water. And shortly thereafter, just plain dead, after a passing amoeba engulfs it. Miller doesn't address this glaring problem. He claims that his restatement of irreducible complexity is the heart and soul of ID. That if you take away any part of an irreducibly complex system, and its still functional, it is not, QED, irreducibly complex! This is Miller's restatement of irreducible complexity that he has debunked; in other words, he set up a straw man and knocked it over.

See, Miller did not take away any part. He took away 40 parts; he lopped off an entire functional subsystem, leaving a subsystem that itself has a function, all right, but not the function of the original complete system. He has no explanation for how the flagellum evolved in the first place from the 10 parts of the type-3 secretory system. Because if you go from the type-3 secretory system, add just one more part to the type-3 thing so as to start building a flagellum, suddenly this new structure is neither a flagellum nor a secretion organ. It's blocked by the one part, and now can neither secrete nor help in motility. The only way to get to the flaggelum from here is to take those 40 parts and tack them on somehow. And can Miller or anyone else do this in one step? What kind of biochemical legedemain is required?

That was an interesting video -- too bad the irreducibility argument is still alive and kicking. Miller's shell game misdirection might suffice for some, but doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

Like I said, I believe in evolution, but I don't believe in random mutations as the driving force. My umpteenth GGfather is still Adam and umpteenth GGmother is still Eve.

I'll try to view the other videos, but my time is short and I may not get to it. Unfortunately, I cannot live here on MADb, as much as I would like.

Mike

[ryanelwood]

yep, keep holding onto the theory that is losing more and more steam, in the science realm since the cell has been heavily looked at, dna, scientists and medical doctors are starting to speak out, and the gaps keep getting wider. Your choice not mine. BTW, hopefully we can get some more textbooks in the hands of our kids with incorrect and fraudulently preserved drawings of things such as embryos in order to prove neo-evolution....

Make sure you tell all the biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and geologists at all the universities in America and Europe that evolution is losing steam. All these scientist in the field are entirely unaware that it is losing steam, in fact they believe it is constantly gaining more evidence. Kind makes you wonder where it is losing steam if not with those in the actual field. Oh yeah, among Bible thumping idiots that actually believe in these ancient desert scribblings instead of the evidence and those that wish to remain in a state of primitive thought rather than graduating to the 21st century.

[ryanelwood]

Why are you still on this board? You do not believe in Mormonism, nor do you believe in God, what purpose do you have here besides trying to steer people away from God?

I would say steering people from believing in ancient superstitions, imaginary friends, and childhood fantasies as a good thing.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hi Stargazer,

Not interested in this, frankly, because I don't care if ID is trying to offer thinly veiled religion. It turns out that I rather like religion, and just because somebody believes God created everything doesn't give me the heebie-jeebies.

I think it's fair enough if the question:

'Is ID scientific or not'

...isn't of particular of interest to you.

But Miller wasn't taking this idea apart to escape the 'heebie-jeebies' over God's possible involvement in what goes on in the universe. He was taking it apart because people were trying to get ID taught as science in schools.

He cares about what gets taught in science class. I do too - so good on him.

He wasn't attacking claims of ID as science for 'kicks'...

I want a defense of the development of the human eye (for example) by random mutations

The video Honorentheos linked to was pretty good:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...e/l_011_01.html

Turns out that both colorations were in the moths genes

To use a computer analogy, sounds like you are saying that the kind of software that runs in a modern PC was already 'in the programming' of the first valve computers.

...after all - even today it's still all 1's and 0's.

One of the more knowledgeable biologists around here can correct me if I'm wrong (on this point, or any other point!), but I'm pretty sure that if you go right back to the very first 'simple' single celled organisms - their DNA molecules were - and always have been - of the same basic structure as ours, and all other living creatures. In that sense the 'potential' for both colourations - yes - were 'present' in the 'moth genes', but only in the same sense that any type of creature is 'potentially' in the genes of any other creature!

Any imaginable piece of software is 'potentially' present in my PC - right now. (Noting the limitation of it's hardware - maybe we'll talk more about that if you reply )

All I have to do is choose the right sequence of 1's and 0's and then run the code.

To say both colourations were 'in the moths genes' - to me - seems no more meaningful than the statement above.

no speciation occurred

As described, no.

Was the example meant to be an example of speciation? Or was it just an example meant to demonstrate creatures changing to match their environment...?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4708459.stm

But the question still remains, and is not answered by Miller's explanation that dolphins evolved a water-adapted ear

Do you have a time reference for the point in the video you are talking about here...?

Evolutionists generally say it came about because of random mutations and natural selection; I say it came about by a Designer.

Fair enough. You've made a choice...

If it because the 'details' of how exactly this change are 'proposed' to have occurred don't seem logically sensible to you? Is it because you don't believe Natural Selection could make those kinds of changes - ermm - 'naturally'?

Or is it that you think it's possible, but that the evidence isn't 'strong' that it actually happened?

...if so, do you believe space-time is curved? If so - why? What is the 'evidence' for that...?

Because if you go from the type-3 secretory system, add just one more part to the type-3 thing so as to start building a flagellum, suddenly this new structure is neither a flagellum nor a secretion organ.

This is a very interesting statement. Why would adding one 'part' (Might need to make it clear what you mean by part') suddenly make the type-3 secretory system non-functional as a type-3 secretory system?. Why would it not be a 'secretion organ' with a 'small', extra function added...?

..or do you believe the jump from type-3 to flagellum would have to be made in one step? If so, why?

This kinda reminds me of people finding it very hard to believe that flight could simply develop .via 'blind' natural selection. Specifically, they are usually talking about birds.

...well, once you understand that:

* Feathers have benefits other than flight (check out emu's or ostritches)

* Having thinner bones (generally lower mass compared to size) has benefits other than flight

* Having a limited flying ability is better than having no flying ability at all. (Check out turkeys that fly into the low branches of trees, thereby avoiding many potential predators...)

etc. then - well, there isn't really an issue to solve. Especially when the fossil evidence is so clear.

It's almost like saying 'How could a man walk from New York to San Fransisco if he can only take one step at a time...?'

That was an interesting video -- too bad the irreducibility argument is still alive and kicking. Miller's shell game misdirection might suffice for some, but doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

Kenneth Miller took apart the Irreducible Complexity argument according to it's exact wording.

And if Behe really meant what you think he meant, then - well - it just makes Millers defense irrelevant - because Behe would be attacking a straw-man version of evolution. Evolution doesn't claim that an evolved part has to perform the same exact 'task' in later generations. All that matters is that it was 'functional' in any way that benefited the survival of earlier generations.

Like I said, I believe in evolution, but I don't believe in random mutations as the driving force.

I don't believe random mutations were the 'driving force' either. 'Random' mutations are nothing more than building blocks...

Take a bag of balls with all kinds of different colours. Tip them on the floor. Then look for black balls and place them in a separate bag.

...who would claim that the 'driving force' that drove the result of the second bag being filled with only black balls was the 'randomness of the ball colours on the floor'...?!

[Lightbearer]

Oh, and KTG, I know you struggled with accepting evolution, but guess what, you dont have to accept it because man came from God no primordial ooze, and you will look back and say Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were right when they said man came from God and not from pre-Adamite.

You may as well save your breath, this board is not the place to attack evolution, it is a sacred cow here (or a golden calf). I usually just ignore these evolution threads now because you get all the "usual suspects" that come in and attack you for being an "arrogant science hating fool." There are those who try to harmonize the teachings of Darwin with the scriptures to justify two incompatible positions. Then there are others that are TBA's (true blue atheists) who have no pretense of trying to justify the revelations and basically love to call anyone who disagrees with their "rational enlightened" position a fool or just undermines their credibility by just saying that ignorant superstition is holding the people back from accepting the obvious "facts" that are unassailable.

As for me I reject evolution outright and stand with Elder McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith who said it was damnable heresy and that Adam and Eve were literally in the Garden of Eden and that there was no death before the fall. Mostly because believing in death before the fall denies the atonement of Christ. This is something I cannot do, and so Darwinists and myself will always be at odds at least until God gives us further light and knowledge on exactly how He created (organized) this world.

[Tarski]

But the question still remains, and is not answered by Miller's explanation that dolphins evolved a water-adapted ear, is how did this new ear evolve? Evolutionists generally say it came about because of random mutations and natural selection; I say it came about by a Designer. Of course it cannot be proven; it is not falsifiable.

I'm listening to Miller while writing this and I note that he admits to being a theist. That's nice.

And here we go with the bacterial flagellum. The irreducible complexity argument is that if we take away important parts of the flagellum it is not functional. He demonstrates rather neatly that if we take away 40 of the 50 parts that make up the flagellum, what is left should be non-functional, BUT this is not true! What is left is the Type-III Secretory system! And it's functional! Thus the irreducible complexity argument falls flat on its stupid face. Evolutionists high-five each other with glee. Smack! Take that!

The problem with this little exercise is that, yeah sure, there's a function all right, but it is not the function of the flagellum.

It doesn't matter. Look up the notion of exaption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation

And if you are waiting to a detailed story of how each and every single feature of every species evolved then you have set your sights to high.

Thats like saying you won't accept plate techtonics or the theory of erosion until a detailed explanation of the exact shape of Florida southern tip can be given.

BTW, I bet that there is a surprising amount of detail on how the ear evolved--it would just take hours to explain and be boringly technical.

It seems like you just don't want it to be true. You don't resist solar evolution or quantum mechanics or ask for minute details there --do you?

Every science has details to work out even when we really know in general what is happening.

[Honorentheos]

...

As for me I reject evolution outright and stand with Elder McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith who said it was damnable heresy and that Adam and Eve were literally in the Garden of Eden and that there was no death before the fall. Mostly because believing in death before the fall denies the atonement of Christ. This is something I cannot do, and so Darwinists and myself will always be at odds at least until God gives us further light and knowledge on exactly how He created (organized) this world.

I find this interesting. Perhaps it should be the subject of a new thread?

[Teancum]

I am LDS. I think it probable God used evolution in the creation process.

However, I am not sure when it comes to man.

It seems to me that there is much evidence that humans evolved from lower primates.

But if so this poses a major problem for a literal Adam and Eve.

And without Adam and Eve there was not a fall.

And if there was not a fall there is no need for a savior.

I think this causes major problems for LDS doctrine.

Indeed It causes many problems for Christianity as well.

[ryanelwood]

I am LDS. I think it probable God used evolution in the creation process.

However, I am not sure when it comes to man.

There is as much or more evidence concerning the evolution of man than any other species. Scientists have spent more time on the evolution of man than any other.

It seems to me that there is much evidence that humans evolved from lower primates.

Indeed there is.

But if so this poses a major problem for a literal Adam and Eve.

Indeed it does. We know man predates Adam and Eve by thousands of years. Many ancient cultures had their own origin myths, and none of them are compatible with modern science or the evidence.

And without Adam and Eve there was not a fall.

True, but of course we modern people also know that snakes can't talk and that fruit possess know magical powers to give knowledge of good and evil.

And if there was not a fall there is no need for a savior.

True, since we know that the magical talking snake never appeared and persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the magical fruit, therefore god didn't have to perform an ancient pagan superstition of human sacrifice to please god by "paying" for sins.

I think this causes major problems for LDS doctrine.

Indeed It causes many problems for Christianity as well.

Yes it does and it is never too late to graduate to the 21st century and abandon ancient fairytales.

[The Dude]

I am LDS. I think it probable God used evolution in the creation process.

However, I am not sure when it comes to man.

It seems to me that there is much evidence that humans evolved from lower primates.

But if so this poses a major problem for a literal Adam and Eve.

And without Adam and Eve there was not a fall.

And if there was not a fall there is no need for a savior.

I think this causes major problems for LDS doctrine.

Indeed It causes many problems for Christianity as well.

I hope people can find a way to believe in evolution if they feel they must remain LDS.

[Teancum]

I hope people can find a way to believe in evolution if they feel they must remain LDS.

I think for me I am becoming a Mormon that is liberal and not literal in my religion maybe like a liberal type protestant or even a Universalist deist.

[Bender]

The Dude Posted Today, 12:10 PM

I hope people can find a way to believe in evolution if they feel they must remain LDS.

I believe they can. What is equally interesting is the evolution of belief in religion including the LDS. While their are some who will hold fast to a very literal interpretation of scripture and quotes from Church leaders, more and more with each new generation are reinterpreting these same scriptures and quotes to try and make them fit more in line with what we understand from the scientific community. Apologetics helps to accelerate this process. Over time I think you will see very different beliefs coming out of many churchs including the LDS. I think this can be a positive process helping many who need a slower path to change. Some examples I think we may see is things like a non-literal Adam, BoM inspired fiction, etc. I think New Order Mormons is also a good place to look and see how the Church of the future may look a little more like in terms of beliefs.

[Teancum]

I believe they can. What is equally interesting is the evolution of belief in religion including the LDS. While their are some who will hold fast to a very literal interpretation of scripture and quotes from Church leaders, more and more with each new generation are reinterpreting these same scriptures and quotes to try and make them fit more in line with what we understand from the scientific community. Apologetics helps to accelerate this process. Over time I think you will see very different beliefs coming out of many churchs including the LDS. I think this can be a positive process helping many who need a slower path to change. Some examples I think we may see is things like a non-literal Adam, BoM inspired fiction, etc. I think New Order Mormons is also a good place to look and see how the Church of the future may look a little more like in terms of beliefs.

This is fine. I like NOM. But this certainly undermines the LDS Church position in divine revelation, one true church etc. I think the total refrain from declaring some obviously incorrect teachings as mistakes is clearly a sign that leaders realize back peddling undermines so much of what the Church claims. Can the LDS Church ever be one of many good and inspiring church's and not be the One and only True and living Church?

[BCSpace]

I am LDS and have no problem entertaining the notion that God created our physical bodies using the process of evolution. from one celled organisms, to slime, to fish, to reptiles, to mammals, to the common ancestor of man and ape, to man. There is no conflict whatsoever with evolution and LDS doctrine imho.

[Teancum]

I am LDS and have no problem entertaining the notion that God created our physical bodies using the process of evolution. from one celled organisms, to slime, to fish, to reptiles, to mammals, to the common ancestor of man and ape, to man. There is no conflict whatsoever with evolution and LDS doctrine imho.

How do you reconcile the evolution of man from primates with a literal adam and eve?

Also I am interested in non LDS Christians ideas on this apparent dilemma.

[Cold Steel]

I hope people can find a way to believe in evolution if they feel they must remain LDS.

Some facets of evolution are self evident. For example, the survival and perpetration of the fittest makes a great deal of sense. Whether or not that particular facet is enough to drive the evolution train is another matter entirely. If evolution, as presently taught, is proven to be true science, then it will have to be tied in with intelligent design. The question is, is intelligent design mutually exclusive with evolution as now taught? The problem is, many advocates of evolution say that evolution alone can explain the existence and intelligence of man.

One Internet blogger states:

Adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. This claim has not been accepted by the scientific community and intelligent design does not constitute a research program within the science of biology. Despite ID sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as "Intelligent Design Theory," it is not recognized as a scientific theory and has been categorized by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience.

There are too many things pointing to intelligent design, in my opinion. The size, placement and orbit of the moon is one. Without the moon, we would not have a stable equator and the Earth would wobble and cause inconsistent weather patterns over the entire face of the planet. The Earth's placement is very precise, too, and any orbit closer to the sun or further away from the sun would result in the water either freezing or boiling off. Further, the moon's size is exactly such that it just blocks out the sun when the two are brought into alignment with one another. Again, if the moon were any further away or any nearer, life on this planet would be far different and far less stable. Add to that that most scientists agree that the moon is not a natural body to our planet and may be a stranger to our solar system.

As far as man himself, we're the only inhabitant of this planet that is born without any natural means of defense. We have no fur to protect us from the weather, we have no claws to protect us from predators, infancy and childhood last for years and our physical strength is pathetic compared to other primates. Our feet, unlike the hooves and paws of other animals, are shredded unless we devise something for them. Our stomachs are not equipped with harsh gastric juices that kill bacteria and everything we eat or drink has to be relatively pure and/or cooked.

LDS who say they believe in evolution and God do well to so declare. And if the time ever comes where they must choose, I hope they choose well there, too. Evolution, without intelligent design, is just another false religion. Many have lost their faith over it and that's a shame. But that's the way many evolution proponents want it. You won't find many evolution proponents who want to have anything to do with God. It is, in fact, a religion in many ways.

[katherine the great]

And without Adam and Eve there was not a fall.

The mere process of taking a celestial spirit and putting it into a destructible body outside the presence of God is a fall.

[Bender]

Teancum Posted Today, 01:36 PM

This is fine. I like NOM. But this certainly undermines the LDS Church position in divine revelation, one true church etc. I think the total refrain from declaring some obviously incorrect teachings as mistakes is clearly a sign that leaders realize back peddling undermines so much of what the Church claims. Can the LDS Church ever be one of many good and inspiring church's and not be the One and only True and living Church?

Yes I think the NOM does undermine the idea of divine revelation and one true church, which I think a growing number of members are more receptive of this type of thinking. It helps as well that the church leadership tends to stay quiet on many of these issues. Most organizations don't want to be seen back peddling, especially if they are still wanting their members to believe they are divinely lead, better to say nothing and let the apologists find new interpretations to help some maintain faith. I think the church is already just one of the many good and inspiring(not in the divine sense) church's. I just see an evolution of beliefs as science continues on it's slow progression to gain knowledge and understanding of the universe we live in.

[Droopy]

The mere process of taking a celestial spirit and putting it into a destructible body outside the presence of God is a fall.

At least if one is a Manichean gnostic.

[Stargazer]

Hi Stargazer,

Hi back!

You think I would learn to not make long posts that require defending when I don't really have the time to do so. I found your responses interesting, and I would like to address them all, but alas I am takng time on the computer at this moment that I don't have. So, I am in time debt, if you will. Real quick like:

I think it's fair enough if the question:

'Is ID scientific or not'

...isn't of particular of interest to you.

But Miller wasn't taking this idea apart to escape the 'heebie-jeebies' over God's possible involvement in what goes on in the universe. He was taking it apart because people were trying to get ID taught as science in schools.

He cares about what gets taught in science class. I do too - so good on him.

"Heebie-jeebies" referred to evolutionists in general and not Millier in particular. He did say he was a theist. Dawkins is probably whom I was thinking of.

I understand that Miller and others think that teaching ID in schools will cause the collapse of western civilization or something that is very bad, but I don't think so. I also don't think they fear the teaching of it as science so much as they fear the teaching of it at all. I don't follow ID, and don't really think it ought to be taught in public schools, unless it was simply to be said that "there is a certain non-scientific speculation on the origin of life, called Intelligent Design, which posits the involvement of a all-powerful and all-knowing creative force -- which however cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method and is therefore out of the scope of our studies." But that would never happen, probably.

He wasn't attacking claims of ID as science for 'kicks'...

I didn't think that I was trying to convey that, particularly, but I did get the impression that he was enjoying himself kicking it around.

All I have time for rite now.

[spinner]

The problem is, many advocates of evolution say that evolution alone can explain the existence and intelligence of man.

I would happily place myself in that camp.

As far as man himself, we're the only inhabitant of this planet that is born without any natural means of defense. We have no fur to protect us from the weather, we have no claws to protect us from predators, infancy and childhood last for years and our physical strength is pathetic compared to other primates. Our feet, unlike the hooves and paws of other animals, are shredded unless we devise something for them. Our stomachs are not equipped with harsh gastric juices that kill bacteria and everything we eat or drink has to be relatively pure and/or cooked.

Actually this all makes perfect evolutionary sense. Why doesn't man have claws or huge muscles or some other defense mechanism that would serve us well if we were marooned in the jungle? Precisely because man has evolved as a social creature. Huge muscles extract an evolutionary toll, as they require lots of calories to maintain and make it tougher to stay alive in lean times. Man learned to live together in societies which themselves offer far better mutual protection from our natural enemies than sharp teeth or massive muscles ever could. Thus massive muscles became an hindrance, offering little additional protection to members of these societies while using up a huge proportion of our caloric intake. Thus the smaller guys, more clever guys burned less calories and survived the lean times, while the brutes faded away. Thus as humans evolved into a less fearsome looking creature, by virtue of their ability to form complex societies they paradoxically became far more fearsome.

A similar story could be told about our lack of fur--the cost of growing our own fur extracted a higher toll than us being able to produce clothing, so we lost our fur and began to steal it from other animals and later plants.

As we moved to the top of the food chain, the richest and most rewarding foods were the ones that in fact required the simplest stomachs. So our stomachs lost the ability to digest the prickly, fibrous foods at the bottom of the food chain as we indulged in the richly calorific foods higher up the food chain.

Our prehistoric ancestors would have looked fiercer to our eyes, but the seemingly weak and feeble creatures we have evolved into found a way to adapt that was different was ultimately far more successful than the niche established by our primate cousins.

[Tsuzuki]

At least if one is a Manichean gnostic.

Maybe they were on to something.