volgadon Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 This is how I hypothesize in my reconciliation of LDS doctrine with evolution. The spirits first found in homo sapiens were lesser, more animal-like spirits rather than literal spirit children of God. I hypothesize that the change could be marked and dated to the rise of civilization.Not that I necesarilly buy into it, but this does remind me of the "animal soul" idea which featured prominently in medieval philosophy.
brasasman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Take a look at this website and you will have your answer about evolution. It does exist, but it's organized and definitely designed by God. This is by Perry Marshall who has a good friend scientist in Chicago that has discovered some mind-blowing stuff. http://perry.fingerprints.s3.amazonaws.com/index.htm
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Take a look at this website and you will have your answer about evolution. It does exist, but it's organized and definitely designed by God. This is by Perry Marshall who has a good friend scientist in Chicago that has discovered some mind-blowing stuff. http://perry.fingerprints.s3.amazonaws.com/index.htmIf you don't mind asking- who is this guy and why should we listen? (how long is it?- it doesn't say, but clearly it's ..l..o..n..g..)I don't mind putting in the time if he's some known authority, but if he's not, why bother? It's not that I worship authorities, but the fact is that people are regarded as authorities because they have a known track record, and from his first few lines, he seems quite self-satisfied with himself that he has come up with something no one else has ever thought. That's a tall order.The problem with saying that intelligent design or related principles can be proven scientifically, is that it puts God into the realm of science. That means his existence could also be disproved scientifically. That's incorrect. Do you really think we could build a telescope or a god-o-scope to take his picture and measure his electro-magnetic glory field and compare it to, say different stars in the universe?God's existence cannot be proven nor disproved scientifically.
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Actually Joseph Smith solved the problem when he allegedly said:"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)Therefore animals may have evolved on this planet but not humans. Anybody buy this?I am not convinced Joseph Smith said this, but whether he did or not, I could buy that. I don't believe it, but I could buy it and would not be shocked or horrified if it were somehow true.
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 I want to relate a story I heard. I do not have a source, I just heard it and I will related it as best I can but I may get some details wrong.When the Church was considering the theory of evolution, two of the brethren presented a case. BH Roberts and Joseph Field Smith. JFS argued that the scriptures told the whole story and anything that was taught in contradiction to the scriptures could not be true. BHR argued that science seemed to show many indications supporting evolution. He suggested a theory that involved the whole earth evolving for millions of years. On the earth was planted, by God, a Tree of Life which had a benevolent influence over a space of the earth. This space was the Garden of Eden. Then, man was brought to the earth and placed in the Garden. We do not know how long he was there -- it could have been millions of years -- as he tended the garden in an eternal state of immortality. Meanwhile, outside of the Garden, the lone and dreary world was in full progress, with all of creation in a turmoil and evolution progressing. But when Adam fell, the Tree of Life was removed from the earth and Adam found himself no longer under its influence, growing older and dying, just like the world around him. I think BHR's theory is very clever. The President of the Church then turned to Elder Widtsoe or Elder Talmadge and asked him to write the official position of the Church. The Apostle asked "What is the official position?" and was told, in essence "As far as science goes, we will leave that to the Scientists, but there was a real Adam and Eve and they were our first parents". And so, from that, the Church produced its official doctrine and as far as I know, it has remained unchanged to this day.
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Those who doubt the fact that we're mammals and that our species evolved need only consider that fact that we have vestigial tails and share 98% of our DNA with chimps.So men are 98% similar to chimps, but we are a whole Chromosome different from women. Hmmmm..
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Anatomically correct human beings have been on earth for about a half million years. Yet it is only sometime in the last 15,000 that we have had the key elements of the culture of man: domestication of animals, farming, writing and educational technologies, building of cities, etc. It was, anatomically the exact same body -- the exact same brain -- that had been fumbling around for nearly 500,000 years without any significant accomplishment. Then, suddenly like a blast or an explosion, something happened in the dim recesses of history and yet very recently in the "anatomically correct" human history that upended the whole situation. Suddenly, virtually overnight, we were different. And yet, morphologically we were no different at all.This has led me to suspect that the religious accounts of the creation of man harken to a time when God stepped in to create a "leap" in our status. A leap by which "Man" appeared on the earth for the first time, despite the much earlier appearance of homo sapiens. 1
BCSpace Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Actually Joseph Smith solved the problem when he allegedly said:"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)Therefore animals may have evolved on this planet but not humans. Anybody buy this?The Church dosen't seem to have adopted it as doctrine.
BCSpace Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 It was, anatomically the exact same body -- the exact same brain -- that had been fumbling around for nearly 500,000 years without any significant accomplishment. Then, suddenly like a blast or an explosion, something happened in the dim recesses of history and yet very recently in the "anatomically correct" human history that upended the whole situation. Suddenly, virtually overnight, we were different. And yet, morphologically we were no different at all.This has led me to suspect that the religious accounts of the creation of man harken to a time when God stepped in to create a "leap" in our status. A leap by which "Man" appeared on the earth for the first time, despite the much earlier appearance of homo sapiens.Precisely. Besides a different spirit, I think the revelation and knowledge of God works well too.So men are 98% similar to chimps, but we are a whole Chromosome different from women. Hmmmm.. Yeah. Chromosomally, women are probably 98% similar to jellyfish; poisonous ones. The President of the Church then turned to Elder Widtsoe or Elder Talmadge and asked him to write the official position of the Church. The Apostle asked "What is the official position?" and was told, in essence "As far as science goes, we will leave that to the Scientists, but there was a real Adam and Eve and they were our first parents". And so, from that, the Church produced its official doctrine and as far as I know, it has remained unchanged to this day.The 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement makes reference to BHR's idea that the word "replenish", as in "multiply and replenish the earth", implies something that has been done before and uses this to make the case for preAdamites against the opinion of JFS. Regarding the argument between the two, that statement says:The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.Thus, one can accept homo sapiens being on the earth well before Adam and Eve without comming into conflict with LDS doctrine.
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 So men are 98% similar to chimps, but we are a whole Chromosome different from women. Hmmmm.. Just shows what a difference 2% makes, and how silly the statement is that we are 98% similar to chimps. I don't mean that as a put-down to you- it is a common statement- my point is merely that a 2% difference in genes can make for a huge difference in the reality of the situation. I don't even know how they got "2%" when we have many many genes in common with even songbirds- in fact the same gene that controls speech in us controls the way birds sing songs.Anyway, I have never in my life wanted to kiss a chimp.
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Anatomically correct human beings have been on earth for about a half million years. Yet it is only sometime in the last 15,000 that we have had the key elements of the culture of man: domestication of animals, farming, writing and educational technologies, building of cities, etc. It was, anatomically the exact same body -- the exact same brain -- that had been fumbling around for nearly 500,000 years without any significant accomplishment. Then, suddenly like a blast or an explosion, something happened in the dim recesses of history and yet very recently in the "anatomically correct" human history that upended the whole situation. Suddenly, virtually overnight, we were different. And yet, morphologically we were no different at all.This has led me to suspect that the religious accounts of the creation of man harken to a time when God stepped in to create a "leap" in our status. A leap by which "Man" appeared on the earth for the first time, despite the much earlier appearance of homo sapiens.
Calm Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Chromosomally, women are probably 98% similar to jellyfish; poisonous ones. Spot on.
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 I don't even know how they got "2%" when we have many many genes in common with even songbirdsI am not sure exactly. I think I heard that we share something like 40% of the genes of a banana. I don't resist the concept of evolution, but I have to admit, my mind entirely rebels at the thought that a Maple Tree and I have a common ancestor.Anyway, I have never in my life wanted to kiss a chimp. I have you beat on that one... No chimp has ever been willing to tolerate a kiss from me.
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 I am not sure exactly. I think I heard that we share something like 40% of the genes of a banana. Nah, I'm not going to say it.... 1
Calm Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) my mind entirely rebels at the thought that a Maple Tree and I have a common ancestorReally? not me. Life is life.I like the idea of all life being connected at a very fundamental level. Edited May 16, 2012 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Some 80% of all DNA is directed towards the functioning of a single cell. 96% of human DNA and Chimp DNA is the same.
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Some 80% of all DNA is directed towards the functioning of a single cell. 96% of human DNA and Chimp DNA is the same.96, not 98, huh?THAT explains why I don't want to kiss one.
cinepro Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 FWIW, The Great Divorce is my favorite C.S. Lewis book. While allegorical, it could almost have been written by an LDS author.Indeed...
cinepro Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) BHR argued that science seemed to show many indications supporting evolution. He suggested a theory that involved the whole earth evolving for millions of years. On the earth was planted, by God, a Tree of Life which had a benevolent influence over a space of the earth. This space was the Garden of Eden. Then, man was brought to the earth and placed in the Garden. We do not know how long he was there -- it could have been millions of years -- as he tended the garden in an eternal state of immortality. Meanwhile, outside of the Garden, the lone and dreary world was in full progress, with all of creation in a turmoil and evolution progressing. But when Adam fell, the Tree of Life was removed from the earth and Adam found himself no longer under its influence, growing older and dying, just like the world around him.I think BHR's theory is very clever.Some of the cleverest people I have ever met are those who try to reconcile LDS teachings with science. Edited May 16, 2012 by cinepro
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Some of the cleverest people I have ever met are those who try to reconcile LDS teachings with science.Gosh, I didn't know how you felt about me until now. Oh wait.... I forgot I don't do that.... Edited May 16, 2012 by mfbukowski
katherine the great Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 "Anatomically correct"? Somehow that description doesn't sit quite right (IMHO). Anatomically modern maybe? Our bodies have barely changed since Homo erectus! At any rate, most human's skull morphology has changed quite a bit even in the past 100,000 years even if our bodies really haven't. The only exception I can think of are the Australian aboriginal people. I work in an anthropology/archaeology lab and get to see fun goodies sometimes and was ogling the aboriginal skull that passed through there the other day. I was sure it was an archaic skull, but it wasn't! It's just an extreme in modern variation. Australian aboriginal people are completely modern in behavior even if they have retained some of the archaic facial features--heavy brow ridge and saggital keel.At any rate, this is an interesting discussion. I think about these topics a lot as I study human evolution. It's true, there is no missing link--just a continuum of more and more "manlike" hominids until we were the only ones left. There is no doubt in my mind that our bodies descend from a line of these hominids, but I don't think it really matters which one. I'd be proud to have any of them as a distant ancestor because each one brought us a step closer to being human and being qualified to be put under covenant with our creator.
katherine the great Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Can you imagine North Korea becoming democratic? (Or even republican? )No. If it ever happens though, I will weep with joy!
bu11fr0g Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 I am not sure exactly. I think I heard that we share something like 40% of the genes of a banana. I don't resist the concept of evolution, but I have to admit, my mind entirely rebels at the thought that a Maple Tree and I have a common ancestor.I have you beat on that one... No chimp has ever been willing to tolerate a kiss from me.The fundamental biochemistry of life is largely the same. This is why we can eat energy that plants have made and use also use their nutrients for our own cellular processes.Although the genes are similar, the nucleic acids that form nearly the same genes are only about 40% similar between fish and man.Between rats and man it is above 90%With chimps it is >98%.Moreover, much of the noncoding, unimportant DNA is shared between chimps and humans.The exceptions are very interesting .. things that have to do with language, brain development, skull size.Humans are >99% similar amongst different ethnic groups including the noncoding DNA.The exceptions are very interesting .. things that have to do with drinking milk, tolerance of high altitudes
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 "Anatomically correct"? Somehow that description doesn't sit quite right (IMHO). Anatomically modern maybe?That is what I thought he said, but maybe I am wrong. I would not bet a great deal on the perfection of my memory!
Monster Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Certainly true if you are saying that religion knows nothing about the scientific nature of the planet or the universe. But that's not what it's about.What you're missing is that science knows nothing about religion either, and those who think that only science explores "reality" really need to learn what is important in life, and a whole lot more about the true nature of "reality".Science knows considerably more about religion than religion does about science. It is not science per se that I trumpet but the scientific method. If religion would adopt something similar and be willing to discard romantic beliefs it could evolve more dramatically.
Recommended Posts