How Would Irrefutable Evidence Of Extraterrestrials Affect You.

[diglot]

Why is that?

If the aliens happened to evolve on a planet with an environment that was similar to that of Earth, then they should have a body form similar to ours.

It is extremely unlikely that life would evolve on another earth-like planet with a body form similar to ours.

[coolrok7]

I usually stick with what is also. Again you have not addressed the questions. . . .Again you have not addressed the questions. I wasn't asking about those you note are usually accepting of UFO's (though I might argue with your assertion). I was asking for non-LDS christians to comment on how it would affect their faith and beliefs and how it would affect the practice of their religion if irrefutable proof of alien contact were given.

Again, what ifs don't count in reference to what is. What is is the Biblical teaching on Satan counterfeiting even the miracles of the Holy Spirit. I don't see the evidence and what if's don't usually change faith once it takes place in a person's life experience. I don't see it happening and if it does it would be a counterfeit based on Biblical teaching.already quoted.

[mfbukowski]

Again, what ifs don't count in reference to what is. What is is the Biblical teaching on Satan counterfeiting even the miracles of the Holy Spirit. I don't see the evidence and what if's don't usually change faith once it takes place in a person's life experience. I don't see it happening and if it does it would be a counterfeit based on Biblical teaching.already quoted.

How do you know that the Bible is not "Satan counterfeiting even the miracles of the Holy Spirit"?

It seems that would create a bit of an epistemological quandary. One cannot trust anything if everything could always be a "counterfeit". Perhaps you are just a reptilian brain in a vat on planet Morg and everything else is a counterfeit of Satan.

Edited November 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mariner]

It is extremely unlikely that life would evolve on another earth-like planet with a body form similar to ours.

Why do you think this is the case?

If an "Earth-like environment" means that the alien planet went through the same general set of climactic and environmental changes over its history as this Earth has, then I guess I disagree. As you know there have been a number of mass extinctions on this planet. What resulted in terms of survival and evolution was increased brain power and the ability to manipulate and / or adapt to new environments or environmental niches.

Species which now exert the greatest control in their environment all have body designs analogous to ours (same basic skeletal structure, opposable thumbs, relatively large brains, etc.)

I find it hard to see why another "Earth" would not favor the evolution of the same general successful characteristics that have emerged on this Earth.

[diglot]

Why do you think this is the case?

If an "Earth-like environment" means that the alien planet went through the same general set of climactic and environmental changes over its history as this Earth has, then I guess I disagree. As you know there have been a number of mass extinctions on this planet. What resulted in terms of survival and evolution was increased brain power and the ability to manipulate and / or adapt to new environments or environmental niches.

Species which now exert the greatest control in their environment all have body designs analogous to ours (same basic skeletal structure, opposable thumbs, relatively large brains, etc.)

I find it hard to see why another "Earth" would not favor the evolution of the same general successful characteristics that have emerged on this Earth.

Because the evolution of the human species on earth is the result of random genetic mutations being selected by a non-random process (i.e. natural selection).

What this means is that for a human-like type of life to evolve on a planet similar to earth, this would require, inter alia, the same innumerable random genetic mutations to occur on the life of that planet that occurred in the history of life on our planet. However, having the same type of planet in no way means that the same random mutations would occur, as genetic mutations are random and thus independent of such factors.

Edited November 10, 2011 by diglot

[altersteve]

Because the evolution of the human species on earth is the result of random genetic mutations being selected by a non-random process (i.e. natural selection).

One could say that God guided these "random genetic mutations," so it wasn't random at all. That "non-random process," in other words, was the hand of God.

Edited November 10, 2011 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Because the evolution of the human species on earth is the result of random genetic mutations being selected by a non-random process (i.e. natural selection).

What this means is that for a human-like type of life to evolve on a planet similar to earth, this would require, inter alia, the same innumerable random genetic mutations to occur on the life of that planet that occurred in the history of life on our planet. However, having the same type of planet in no way means that the same random mutations would occur, as genetic mutations are random and thus independent of such factors.

If this is your premise and reasoning, then I strongly disagree with your conclusion, as would most evolutionary biologists, I imagine.

Look at the various environments found on Earth. In aquatic environments, we see similar body architectures in the vertebrates, regardless of whether these vertebrates are fish, elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), or mammals. To claim that they all came about by the same series of random mutations is, well, not the best hypothesis to say the least.

Same with flying animals, whether they are birds or mammals, flying vertebrates have similar designs. Among terrestrial mammals, herbivores (grazers and browsers) have similar designs. Carnivores have similar designs that are different from those of herbivores. Terrestrial omnivores also have many design features in common that are different from those of animals generally classed as herbivores or carnivores.

Each of these body designs came about by random mutation (and differences in gene expression), and the ones that were useful survived. Thus, these designs are determined to a large extent by the environment in which the organism has been successful. The best hypothesis here is that, over time, similar environments will yield similar organisms at most points along the phylogenetic scale.

[diglot]

If this is your premise and reasoning, then I strongly disagree with your conclusion, as would most evolutionary biologists, I imagine.

Look at the various environments found on Earth. In aquatic environments, we see similar body architectures in the vertebrates, regardless of whether these vertebrates are fish, elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), or mammals. To claim that they all came about by the same series of random mutations is, well, not the best hypothesis to say the least.

That is not what I am saying.

Each of these body designs came about by random mutation (and differences in gene expression), and the ones that were useful survived. Thus, these designs are determined to a large extent by the environment in which the organism has been successful.

That is the same as what I said. Evolution occurs by the accumulation of random genetic mutations that are non-randomly passed on by the means of natural selection. The environment of the planet doesn't play a part in causing mutations to actually happen; that is entirely random. The only part the planets environment plays is determining in which mutations will get passed on to the next generation (i.e. is the genetic mutation beneficial to the organism so that it is more likely to be able to reproduce).

The best hypothesis here is that, over time, similar environments will yield similar organisms at most points along the phylogenetic scale.

The mutations that occur are random. Whether the mutations are passed on to the offspring is where natural selection comes into play. To say human-like species would arise on other earth-like planets necessitates many extremely unlikely things occurring, one of them being that the same innumerable mutations happen in the evolutionary chain of life on that planet as happened on our planet. While its been a while since I have read literature on the subject, everything I remember reading on exobiology concedes the point that there is no reason at all to believe life on other planets would be human-like.

Edited November 11, 2011 by diglot

[coolrok7]

How do you know that the Bible is not "Satan counterfeiting even the miracles of the Holy Spirit"?

It seems that would create a bit of an epistemological quandary. One cannot trust anything if everything could always be a "counterfeit". Perhaps you are just a reptilian brain in a vat on planet Morg and everything else is a counterfeit of Satan.

Definitely not "perhaps". I have the utmost confidence in God and His word (fulfilled prophecy) as the Holy Spirit gives witness (from the Biblical writing) in history, didn't happen in a corner.

The counterfeit witness of Mormonism (some almost 2000 years late on the scene) is also in part a way of knowing. Counterfeit movements which on the surface appears to be walking the Christian walk/talk using this as a stepping stone for the furtherance of false teaching as warned in the Bible:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. . . .For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-15)

This is not talking about Joseph Smith, it is the Second Coming of Jesus, not et's or any other phenomena:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:19-21.)

I believe that the following is an example of how LDS apostles/apologists have distorted the idea of the “restitution of all things” which is interpreted as the calling of Joseph Smith, “to inaugurate this present era.” For example, under the heading of “Prophets” in “AN APOSTLE’S TESTIMONY” pamphlet:

We also believe in prophets. God has always taught His children. . .through prophets. . . . Likewise we believe that Joseph Smith was called by God as the prophet to inaugurate this present era, known as “the dispensation of the fullness of times” (see Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 112:30; 121:31; 124:41; 128:18, 20; 138:48). . . .Previous dispensations include those identified with Adam,. . .Noah. . .Moses, and with Jesus and His Apostles in the meridian of time.” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, pp.5-6)

Paul identifies the “fullness of the time” with when Jesus was born, not with Joseph’s “meridian of time” in “Mormon” scripture:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

[coolrok7]

between double/triple post (forgot to wait)

Edited November 11, 2011 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

double post

Edited November 11, 2011 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

triple post

Edited November 11, 2011 by coolrok7

[Mariner]

The mutations that occur are random. Whether the mutations are passed on to the offspring is where natural selection comes into play. To say human-like species would arise on other earth-like planets necessitates many extremely unlikely things occurring, one of them being that the same innumerable mutations happen in the evolutionary chain of life on that planet as happened on our planet. While its been a while since I have read literature on the subject, everything I remember reading on exobiology concedes the point that there is no reason at all to believe life on other planets would be human-like.

This summary of your response appears to be a re-statement of your earlier position. You seem to be high centered on the concept of random mutations without really understanding or appreciating how genetic mutations, as well as differences in gene expression and other epigenetic factors, operate to allow an organism to adapt to, and eventually manipulate, its environment.

While I agree that extraterrestrial life might well develop differently than it has on Earth, it seems obvious that whatever forms resulted would be determined to a great extent by the environment in which they evolved. If the environment was Earth-like, then species that evolved to best control that environment are likely to look a lot like us.

Nature has had billions of years to figure out the design for its top predator in Earth-like terrestrial environments, and to date, we are it. If humankind does ever evolve to the point that it is capable of interstellar travel (which is highly unlikely, by the way) the evidence is that we would still be recognizable as hominids (humanoids). It is unlikely, for example, that amphibians would pass us up in the quest for interstellar travel.

Exobiologists and others can imagine all kinds of life forms on different kinds of planets, or moons of planets. A extraterrestrial / extrasolar life form capable of getting to Earth under its own power would be a vanishingly small (and probably non-existent) subset of these.

In considering the question in the OP, it is important to remember that while extraterrestrial life is pretty much a mathematical certainty, extraterrestrial life capable of interstellar travel is another matter altogether.

[Nemesis]

double post

You really need to stop preaching. We don't allow LDS to do it so neither can you. I guess its time we start using long suspensions till you stop.

Nemesis

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Except that the earths' environment has not been constant. It has been variable, everything from an ice cube to a dry hot desert. Add in that we have had mass extinction events, probably one is happening right now, and evolution does become more random. Of course when we inject God into the process it's no longer is random, but guided.

Edited November 11, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

Mariner:

Except that the earths' environment has not been constant. It has been variable, everything from an ice cube to a dry hot desert. Add in that we have had mass extinction events, probably one is happening right now, and evolution does become more random. Of course when we inject God into the process it's no longer is random, but guided.

I noted in an earlier post that the history of life on Earth is closely linked to, and ultimately a result of, the changing environment and that the working definition of an Earth-like planet would be one that had a natural history similar to that of Earth.

With respect to "injecting" of the supernatural, there is no evidence related to the evolution of life on Earth that is not best explained by natural processes, and the more we learn the more clear it becomes that this is the case . Assumption of the supernatural in evolution is therefore superfluous.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

As Evolution does not address the issue of God. It is a nonissue to me. It is simply the method by which God did it.

[diglot]

This summary of your response appears to be a re-statement of your earlier position. You seem to be high centered on the concept of random mutations without really understanding or appreciating how genetic mutations, as well as differences in gene expression and other epigenetic factors, operate to allow an organism to adapt to, and eventually manipulate, its environment.

It was a restatement because you ignored what I said.

I am quite aware of how genetics interplays with the evolutionary process. I studied it at a bit at University, and evolutionary biology is my favorite topic of research outside of religious studies. (though I am not a proffessional evolutionary biologist by any means)

In considering the question in the OP, it is important to remember that while extraterrestrial life is pretty much a mathematical certainty, extraterrestrial life capable of interstellar travel is another matter altogether.

Extraterrestrial life is not a mathematical certainty. I'm not sure where you are getting that from, but if you are referring to the Drake equation, that thing is long obsolete.

Edited November 11, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

I am not much of a what if fan but this idea intrigues me. If the US government were to publically reveal either live aliens or the bodies of aliens.

How would it affect:

1) Your practice of your religion?

2) Your belief in and concept of God?

We (LDS) already have "irrefutable evidence that there are extraterrestrials;" because it is affirmed to us by revelation. For those who do not believe in that revelation, it may mean nothing; but to those who believe, it means everything.

Edited November 11, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I guess some would say that knowing what exactly "worlds without number" means isn't all that important, but it seems to be a theme in the scriptures. Is there an underlying point about how we as humans develop spiritually and are saved or exalted (or not)? I feel this is about a lot more than just the question is there life on other planets.

My question was more about the relationship between those words to points of LDS doctrine that aren't a matter of mere speculation or personal revelation. Or whether most Mormons see such a relationship (for example, in the topic of eternal progression). One of my own initial reactions to those words was to think that they help show the divine nature of the scriptures containing them. The existence of planets outside the solar system couldn't have been known in the early 1830s without the Holy Spirit. People have thought about extrasolar planets for a long time, but the first one was detected in the 1990s. But maybe those words about worlds and kingdoms have a particular theological significance and don't just serve to show consistency or inconsistency of reports of extraterrestrials and other hypothetical future findings with a scripture or faith.

Some people (Christians and also those not calling themselves Christian) do try to prove that a certain scripture is truth because it seems to agree with scientific ideas that weren't known in the past or view faiths in terms of being in conflict with new discoveries. However, the topic of life outside earth seems to have more significance than that for LDS Christians.

You appear to be a very perceptive individual, and your impressions are correct. For LDS, it does have deeper theological significance. We believe that Jesus Christ is not only the Savior and Redeemer of this world and its inhabitants, but of all the creations of God. He not only created the entire universe under the direction of the Father, but also became the Savior and Redeemer of all of God's creations, through whose Atonement all of their inhabitants are "begotten sons and daughters unto God" (D&C 76:24).