Nondescendants Of Adam

[BCSpace]

If you were referencing my comment, you'll notice that I qualified my statement as referring to conventional LDS doctrine (i.e. that Doctrine which is taught by Church leaders, Church publications and Church curriculum, and their published interpretation of the scriptures).

Evolution can withstand and live well with "conventional" LDS doctrine.

[dtorge26]

In other words, I shouldn't want to be sealed to my parents merely because I have biological blood-ties to them; I want to be with them because they, as tabernacled Uncreated Intelligences themselves, are good people, and have sacrificed so much for me.

As Joseph Smith said: "Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers."

I completely agree with the importance of being united with the 'righteous' in the family of Christ.

But, I still ask you to posit how God might have decided when to start embedding his spirit children (or uncreated intelligence) into biologically human organisms? What might have influenced that decision? And what answer does He give to the 'first' generation who don't have any hope to be sealed to their biological parents? And what does He tell them when they ask why their parents weren't deserving of an immortal soul?

[BCSpace]

But, I still ask you to posit how God might have decided when to start embedding his spirit children (or uncreated intelligence) into biologically human organisms?

When all was ready is the only possible answer. The doctrine on D&C 77 (D&C Institute manual) states that "These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man" and I would assume that "man" is a homo sapiens body quickened by a literal spirit child of God.

What might have influenced that decision?

The evolutionary state of other things. The subsidence of a ice age. Waiting for the elements to obey (Abraham 4). Etc. Many possibilities.

And what answer does He give to the 'first' generation who don't have any hope to be sealed to their biological parents?

None. That would seem to apply to both creationism and evolutionary senarios. However, would we all be sealed to God the Father and his family?

And what does He tell them when they ask why their parents weren't deserving of an immortal soul?

In the case of pre Adamites, they weren't Adam and Eve's parents in a very real sense. Under my hypothesis, the pre Adamites don;t qualify as children of God.

I guess someone's got to be first. Think of Joseph who raised Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus going to be sealed to? What about those who remarry, say for time only and essentially raise the children who are going to be sealed to someone else? I'm guessing none of it will matter as we are all in the same family and have the same Father and Mother.

Speaking of Adam and Eve, have you seen the ending of the movie Knowing? Not saying any of it is reality or doctrine, but I did find it interesting, powerful, and moving (do not watch if you plan on seeing this movie sometime):

In this case, the "pre Adamites" are also children of God.

Edited April 11, 2012 by BCSpace

[Maidservant]

Moses 1:34 "And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many."

My emphases:

"which IS many"

"WHICH IS MANY"

"which is MANY"

"have I CALLED Adam"

~~

other verses in Moses 1 talk about innumerable worlds and their inhabitants.

~~

as far as the origins of the human body and its advent on this third rock from the sun: the Genesis account is not a text on origins. in my understanding, it is completely removed from that equation and was never presented as such, until the understanding of its true nature was lost in the ages. Again, to be clear on my meaning--not only that Genesis does not function as a "scientific" text (which I would actually tend to say that "science" can be gleaned from its endless pattern), it does not function as an origin story in any way, except for what it can teach the initiated about why we entered mortality to begin with (which is a point of origin other than the body--or is it?).

So without reference to Genesis, without reference to anthropology (before it arrived on the paradigm scene), without reference to those interpretations and revelations available through the Restored gospel (which in general I am not averse to, and haven't studied enough to either challenge or accept by piece)--if we subtract these three items from our knowledge on the origin of the human body, what do we have?

~other cultural 'creation' stories, which may or may not also function as origin stories, depending on how the culture took them (some of these also seem spiritual or initiatory, but I don't really have knowledge of that)

~the observation that human bodies are born from other human bodies (period. full stop.) (to ask for a human body to come by any other method is a big 'ask' to make, from this point of view)

For me, to determine on pre-Adamites, or non-Adamites, or human bodies that didn't have pre-mortal spirits coming to them . . . this does not seem like the right question . . . for me . . .we are people . . . we always have been, we always will be, any planet, any place, any time. The point at which Adam became a (single) person was when Joseph Smith said he was, because Genesis does not say that. To be a human being and to be a child of God is the exact same thing and cannot be separated.

[Maidservant]

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/CrypticSymbols.pdf

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That just maybe Archbishop Ussher was off on his dating of Creation.

Agreed.

[Tepui]

Evolution can withstand and live well with "conventional" LDS doctrine.

Yes. It's called Intelligent Design. Obey the commandments, enter into the necessary priesthood ordinances, and at the last day you'll be lifted up to inherit Eternal Life.

But it's hardly random, many there be who do not enter therein, and I've never read of Charles Darwin speaking of it. Maybe because he didn't like plans for happiness.

[Log]

Evolution can withstand and live well with "conventional" LDS doctrine.

Only by deliberate equivocation on what is meant by "evolution." When you use the word evolution, if it is, in fact, consistent with some variant of LDS doctrine, then it is not what is meant by evolution when it is used by biologists / philosophers of science / scientific naturalists / materialists / atheists.

What part of random mutation and natural selection is so hard to understand?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[Rivers]

I completely agree with the importance of being united with the 'righteous' in the family of Christ.

But, I still ask you to posit how God might have decided when to start embedding his spirit children (or uncreated intelligence) into biologically human organisms? What might have influenced that decision? And what answer does He give to the 'first' generation who don't have any hope to be sealed to their biological parents? And what does He tell them when they ask why their parents weren't deserving of an immortal soul?

Similarly we could ask what determines whether intelligences become humans or another type of animal.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Rivers

[thesometimesaint]

Random mutation isn't as random as you think.

[Log]

Random mutation isn't as random as you think.

Randomness, like pregnancy, is a binary proposition. You either are pregnant, or you aren't, and not both. Likewise, mutations are either random, or they aren't, and not both.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Not really. Randomness in biology is within certain limits or the organism doesn't survive, or is sterile. In humans between 1/4 and1/3 of pregnancies end prematurally without known explanation. Thus leaving 3/4 to 2/3 to survive birth. Though it would be a fair estimation that at least some if not most of those ended were because of some fatal fetal mutation. Further most mutations are neutral to the individual organism meaning it has no bearing on the survivability of that individual.

Edited April 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

Evolution can withstand and live well with "conventional" LDS doctrine.

Only by deliberate equivocation on what is meant by "evolution." When you use the word evolution, if it is, in fact, consistent with some variant of LDS doctrine, then it is not what is meant by evolution when it is used by biologists / philosophers of science / scientific naturalists / materialists / atheists.

Evolution as understood by science in general is completely compatible with LDS doctrine. No equivocation.

What part of random mutation and natural selection is so hard to understand?

Neither is very difficult at all. However, in order to make the case that God cannot have been involved in a process thought of as "random", you're going to have to account for the movement of every atom on the face of the earth for a very long time. Can't be done nor can it yet be conceived of. In addition to biological processes, there are also environmental factors which affect natural selection.

[Log]

Not really.

Yes, really: randomness is a binary proposition, and random mutations are either random, or they aren't, and not both. The rest of your post is beside the point.

[Log]

Evolution as understood by science in general is completely compatible with LDS doctrine. No equivocation.

Yes, there is equivocation, and, strangely, you begin the equivocation in the very next paragraph:

However, in order to make the case that God cannot have been involved in a process thought of as "random", you're going to have to account for the movement of every atom on the face of the earth for a very long time.

And that is perfectly fine. You are denying the orthodox doctrine of evolution by denying that solely random mutations and natural selection were involved in biological entities reaching their current state of complexity (without explicitly saying as much, granted).

Which brings me to my next question for you, which may result in you getting off of my ignore list if you respond on point:

if you don't believe that solely random mutation + natural selection caused the current state of biological complexity from whatever single-celled organism magically poofed into existence (those what, billions of years ago?), why do you use the word "evolution" to describe your position, when you mean something other than "evolution" as used by biologists / philosophers of science / scientific naturalists / materialists / atheists, and which is the meaning behind the word in colleges, academic discourse, scientific publications, and the like, and you know it?

In other words, explain why you purposefully equivocate on the word "evolution" in describing your beliefs.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

I'll let BCSpace answer for himself.

But whether life was started by God/series of Gods or a superior advanced space alien that wouldn't effect the evidence for evolution. Science by defintion can not use a supernatural agent to explain a natural event. Scientists of course can and do.

See http://mormonscholar...ex-by-specialty

Edited April 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

I'll let BCSpace answer for himself.

Please do. If, however, you too are equivocating with respect to the meaning of the word "evolution" when you use it, as he is, then I would ask the same question of you: why do you use "evolution" to describe your beliefs when you don't mean by "evolution" what is meant by biologists / philosophers of science / scientific naturalists / materialists / atheists when they use the word "evolution"?

But whether life was started by God/series of Gods or a superior advanced space alien that wouldn't effect the evidence for evolution. Science by defintion can not use a supernatural agent to explain a natural event. Scientists of course can and do.

See http://mormonscholar...ex-by-specialty

What is the evidence that random mutation and natural selection are the sole processes by which biological complexity has reached its current state?

Would advanced space aliens qualify as "supernatural agents"?

Would humans with advanced technology qualify as "supernatural agents"?

What would evidence of intelligent or artificial selection look like?

What would evidence of directed mutations look like?

Why should one agree that science is and ought to be simply applied materialist philosophy?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[bcuzbcuz]

What is the evidence that random mutation and natural selection are the sole processes by which biological complexity has reached its current state?

Circular argument. What evidence do you have that random selection and natural selection are NOT the sole processes?

I will assume you believe in Noah's ark. How do you explain the endemic species found at distant places around the earth with no linking similar species in between. If Noah took the Aye-Aye on board the ark, how come this mammal exists nowhere else than in Madagascar? Do you have any links that show wombats anywhere else than Australia? Did Noah have wombats on board? If so, did he let them jump ship in Australia?

Do you have any explanation for endemic species that number in the thousands from islands around the world?

[Log]

Circular argument.

It's not an argument - at all.

Thanks for playing.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[bcuzbcuz]

There's actually a quite simple explanation for the aboriginals, cavemen, or any other 'non-descendent' of Adam.

In short, these people never really existed on this Earth.

Their fossil remains and remnants are simply part of the package that came with our Earth, since the Earth was materialized by God as a copy of some prior Earth.

So, the non-descendants were real, only that they were real in another time and space apart from this universe.

God didn't bother to remove fossil evidence from the template copy of Earth, mainly because there would be literally no end to the modifications He would have to make in order to hide its age and natural genesis.

So, unfortunately, these poor non-descendants of Adam probably never had a soul, because there was no god at the time to keep their soul.

But, on a happier note, we can be assured that all people's of this Earth are descended from Adam, and they do indeed have souls.

See, I told you it was simple!

Does that also apply to our genetic links back to and including the peoples of Africa? What skin color did Adam and Eve have...keeping in mind the recessive factors of skin color, hair color and eye color?

[katherine the great]

What is the evidence that random mutation and natural selection are the sole processes by which biological complexity has reached its current state?

They aren't. You forgot gene flow and drift. I've always considered random mutation a perfectly valid concept because what may be seen as completely random in the natural world may not be random to the Lord. Even if it is entirely random, the mutation is still subject to natural selection. Natural selection is absolutely not a random process. It is driven by the environment.

[Log]

You forgot gene flow and drift.

Actually, no, I didn't - it's utterly irrelevant to the issue of the generation of genetic variance. Feel free, should you so desire, to address all of the questions, and, please, be straightforward and relevant.

[katherine the great]

Actually, no, I didn't - it's utterly irrelevant to the issue of the generation of genetic variance. Feel free, should you so desire, to address all of the questions, and, please, be straightforward and relevant.

Gene flow is irrelevant to the issue of genetic variation? (I assume you mean variation) Are you serious?

[Log]

Gene flow is irrelevant to the issue of genetic variation? (I assume you mean variation) Are you serious?

Perfectly serious. Gene flow shuffles variants around, but does not produce them.

So, moving on to the questions...

[katherine the great]

Perfectly serious. Gene flow shuffles variants around, but does not produce them.

So, moving on to the questions...

What are your particular questions? It really sounds like you just want to argue.