My 180 On Evolution

[CV75]

I don’t think the questions in the OP have much to do with evolution at all!

I indicated in a post a couple of days ago that our natural drives, regardless of how they come about, are fundamentally divine in nature. God through His Gospel shows us how to master them in mortality and as exalted beings (the devil tempts us to use them selfishly).

I think the “controversies among Christians …of why God would create man with evil desires, only to punish him for following those desires,” has nothing to do with evolution and is a doctrinal difference. My understanding of the plan of salvation is that 1) the desires are not evil; 2) what we do with them could be good or evil; 3) we are punished for the evil that we do. “Man is that he might have joy.”

I can appreciate the implications that evolution as a natural process is in opposition to a divine process, but I don’t think the three bullets support that. The word “natural”, depending on how it is used, can mean that which is evil (“the natural man”), that which is nurtured under God’s loving care (“the natural tree”), and that which is good (the natural tree, Alma 30:44).

So I view the 3 bullets as needing some further explanation or refinement, as I can’t tell if “natural” is supposed to mean “of God” or “of natural selection / product of evolution.” For example:

• God is bound by laws - particularly mercy and justice. Even an omnipotent God operates within natural laws. [“Natural” supports divinity and divinity is aligned with that which is natural]
  

• Like God, "evolved man" operates under natural laws. [if God operates under natural laws, how can the drives mentioned in the OP be evil; or, if “evolved man” operates under natural laws, how can he drives be evil?] Biological drives like the drive to reproduce, to fight for survival, etc. are all the result of natural selection; not placed there by God. [if these drives are the result of natural laws, which God also abides, how can they be evil?]
  

• God then places a divine spirit in that body, and directs us to "overcome the natural (evolved) man. [To be consistent with the idea that God is “natural” (bullet #1) and evolution is “natural” (bullet #2) then how is it that the “natural (evolved) man”(bullet #3) has to be overcome; how can an “evolved man” operating under natural law be out of line with God, who operates within natural laws?]
  

(Sorry, Interupted by phone call): Inasmuch as any element of natural selection or evolution are not part of God's design, they are merely processes that are neither good nor evil and their products in and of themselves cannot be either good or evil; that is up to the spirit or Spirit that posseses those products.

Edited May 17, 2012 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

KtG:

I think they are both important elements. However, the same trait that makes one superior for survival in one environment could prove detrimental in another. Natural selection--environments always change eventually. And yes, no matter how superior our genes are, if we don't pass them on, they die out.

If we live long enough something is going to kill us. Evolution, descent with modification, per say isn't about the survival any one individual it is however about the survival of the species.

Edited May 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[katherine the great]

KtG:

If we live long enough something is going to kill us. Evolution, descent with modification, per say isn't about the survival any one individual it is however about the survival of the species.

I agree.

[Freedom]

In any event Neanderthals existed far longer than we have so far. Neanderthals buried their dead in a religious type ceremony.

I was not referring specifically to the Neanderthals but more a general reason why we will not necessarily find missing links. The fossil record is so tiny that it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the vast majority of species.

[CASteinman]

Has anyone proposed no spirits for pre-Adamites though? I specifically have, in my hypothesis, spirits within (pun intended) pre-Adamite homo sapiens because of that doctrine. Why would anyone think that pre-Adamites would have no spirits or be souless?

I'm not disagreeing with you exactly. But I have a problem with the idea that all animals have souls and will be resurrected. Do the gnats and mosquitoes that filled the measure of their creation go to the Celestial Kingdom? one must hope not.

[CASteinman]

Generally speaking I accept evolution.

Nevertheless, mitochondria, as necessary and useful as they are, annoy me.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

Tiny is a relative word. It is tiny when compared with all the creatures who have ever lived on this planet. However to make the connections all we need is a tiny amount of specimens. Just like we don't need every human skeleton to see that we are all related, just one is all that is necessary.

[katherine the great]

I'm not disagreeing with you exactly. But I have a problem with the idea that all animals have souls and will be resurrected. Do the gnats and mosquitoes that filled the measure of their creation go to the Celestial Kingdom? one must hope not.

Lol! I certainly hope not!

[CV75]

Do the gnats and mosquitoes that filled the measure of their creation go to the Celestial Kingdom?

I think they can be deployed to do some very interesting things that help out in both the immortal and mortal kingdoms!

[CV75]

Generally speaking I accept evolution.

I hope someone starts a "how/why do you accept / not accept evolution thread"!

[Freedom]

Freedom:

Tiny is a relative word. It is tiny when compared with all the creatures who have ever lived on this planet. However to make the connections all we need is a tiny amount of specimens. Just like we don't need every human skeleton to see that we are all related, just one is all that is necessary.

I think you are missing the point. Of the species we know about, we have tiny samplings. In many cases we do not even have a single full example. Consequently, there are no doubt thousands if not millions of creatures that have been completely lost so we will never know they existed. These could have spoken volumes about the question of evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

We don't need more than a tiny amount/samplings of fossils to establish relationship. I can show I'm related to my Grandmother, and I don't need my fathers' skeleton to prove it. As far as unknown creatures all we have to do is find a fossil. IE For many years the link between fish and land animals was missing then we found a fossil, so it no longer can be disputed that fish and land animals are related. Unknowable is a different question. Of course new finds add to knowledge, but I seriously doubt we're going to overturn Evolution.

[rodheadlee]

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

Welcome to the board. Maybe you could paraphrase some of the info and bring it into the discussion in your own words.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

We don't need more than a tiny amount/samplings of fossils to establish relationship. I can show I'm related to my Grandmother, and I don't need my fathers' skeleton to prove it. As far as unknown creatures all we have to do is find a fossil. IE For many years the link between fish and land animals was missing then we found a fossil, so it no longer can be disputed that fish and land animals are related. Unknowable is a different question. Of course new finds add to knowledge, but I seriously doubt we're going to overturn Evolution.

I think that, again, you are missing my point. I drew two conclusions. One is that common DNA does not prove evolution, and any missing links does not disprove it.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

I don't know as there is any one factor that is conclusive proof of Evolution. However that some 80% of DNA is dedicated to just the functioning of a single cell is certainly signification evidence for Evolution. DNA(unknown to Darwin) is the means by which Evolution takes place. At least in theory it is easy to disprove Evolution. Just find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. That no one to date has been able to do it says it's harder than it looks.

[CASteinman]

I don't know as there is any one factor that is conclusive proof of Evolution. However that some 80% of DNA is dedicated to just the functioning of a single cell is certainly signification evidence for Evolution. DNA(unknown to Darwin) is the means by which Evolution takes place. At least in theory it is easy to disprove Evolution. Just find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. That no one to date has been able to do it says it's harder than it looks.

DNA is evidence for evolution. It is also evidence for intelligent design. It may even be evidence for something else that we have not thought of.

Your notion of how to disprove evolution is unscientific.

[thesometimesaint]

CASteiman:

DNA is evidence for evolution. It is also evidence for intelligent design. It may even be evidence for something else that we have not thought of.

Your notion of how to disprove evolution is unscientific.

DNA is evidence for evolution, but not for ID. There are just too many permutations that work to be evidence for ID. Now that doesn't say that God didn't use Evolution, but there is no way to prove it by using science. I can think of all types of fanciful creatures, so could Doctor Seuss. But lets stick with the natural real world.

I can't think of a better easier way to disprove evolution using science.

[CASteinman]

DNA is evidence for evolution, but not for ID.

Incorrect. DNA is also evidence for intelligent design.

There are just too many permutations that work to be evidence for ID.

Incorrect. The permutations are either 1. Part of the Evidence or 2. Irrelevant to the point.

I can't think of a better easier way to disprove evolution using science.

That may be so, but it does not make your idea scientific. It also violates logic.

[mfbukowski]

Pretty much anything can be "evidence" for pretty much anything if one is creative enough.

Edited May 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

Freedom:

I don't know as there is any one factor that is conclusive proof of Evolution. However that some 80% of DNA is dedicated to just the functioning of a single cell is certainly signification evidence for Evolution. DNA(unknown to Darwin) is the means by which Evolution takes place. At least in theory it is easy to disprove Evolution. Just find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. That no one to date has been able to do it says it's harder than it looks.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that you are agreeing with me.

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes:

That wouldn't do it.

[CASteinman]

Pretty much anything can be "evidence" for pretty much anything if one is creative enough.

I suppose if you are creative with the word creative, that has to be true. You could include insanity as an element of creative.

But I was not talking about such extremity. I meant that it is "reasonably" evidence for both things -- evolution and intelligent design.

[mfbukowski]

I suppose if you are creative with the word creative, that has to be true. You could include insanity as an element of creative.

But I was not talking about such extremity. I meant that it is "reasonably" evidence for both things -- evolution and intelligent design.

Yes I understand. My point was maybe overstated for shock value- I do that a lot- but the reality is that both schemes - id and Darwinian E. are fundamentally metaphysical theories neither of which can be totally proven- just as Newtonian physics was included and superseded by Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, which will be superseded by who knows what, both will be superseded one day.

Ultimately what you have is hard evidence and someone's creative explanation of what the evidence is saying. That's what I actually meant.

You have fossils blending into other fossils higher up which are similar to the deeper ones but more complex. That's the evidence.

The problem with ID is that science by definition does not look at what evidence would verify a definition of "intelligence" which doesn't even exist much less is agreed upon. And even if it were well defined and agreed upon, any suggestion that God was the "intelligence" would be unacceptable to the world of "science".

It's just not politically correct. Neither is parapsychology or extra terrestrials. There might be something there, but we are going to have to start doing real science with no holds barred to figure that out- and good luck on that one as long as "science" is really the quest for grants and tenure.

Edited May 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[bu11fr0g]

DNA clearly shows phylogenetic relationships consistent with evolution and inconsistent with independent creation and also inconsistent with a sudden creation and inconsistent with man being the temporally ultimate creation and inconsistent with man being separately created dna wise from other primates and incomsistent with a bottleneck worldwide within the last 100000 years.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not disagreeing with you exactly. But I have a problem with the idea that all animals have souls and will be resurrected. Do the gnats and mosquitoes that filled the measure of their creation go to the Celestial Kingdom? one must hope not.

Though D&C 77 implies that all non-human animals have spirits, I'm not sure there is a theological basis for the idea that all non-human animals are resurrected. Smith once said that God can save particular intelligent, language-speaking, non humanoid life forms from other planets (DHC 5, pp. 343-44), like the alien creatures referred to in D&C 77. These particular alien animals were "saved from other worlds, because they were perfect." (Ibid.) But I don't think he ever said that every non-human animal on every planet would be resurrected in an eternal and glorified body.

If every animal, plant, or other lifeform that ever lived on this earth were resurrected, including especially bacteria, then my rough calculations indicate that the volume of living matter would dwarf the size of the earth itself. If that were just limited to animals, then I don't know what the volume would be, but it would still be very huge. We would be literally swimming in a huge sea of insects, mostly ants and termites.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70