Evolution And Mormonism

[bcuzbcuz]

All I am suggesting is that intelligence has always existed, it did not arise on its own and is not capable of arising on its own.

And you know this because??????

[bu11fr0g]

Which of the following beliefs of some LDS apostles do you believe are true?

1-there was no death on the earth while Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden

2- all mankind are direct and exclusive descendants of Adam and Eve

3- Adam and Eve did not have blood prior to the fall.

4- the first mortal humans were born within the last 10,000 years

5- Adam and Eve and all mankind were once in what is now missouri

6- less than 20 people survived a flood less than 10,000 years ago

7- the continents were not separated less than 10,000 years ago

8- blacks have and whites have a distinct separation that occured less than 10,000 years ago.

9- animals exclusively have descendants of their own species and likeness

10- America first had humans less than 10,000 years ago.

11- genetic and physical similarities among creatures are not due to a previous parental relationship

[Rob Osborn]

And you know this because??????

Basing it on logic and fact. We know through testing and research that intelligent information can only come from a pre-existing intelligent source.

[ERayR]

The point of course is that that is impossible so evolution cannot be proven experimentally. Of course you can show it within species of fruit flies etc but that is not quite the same as the chain of complexity needed

Of course I believe in evolution. I am a man of faith

I know that evolution on the micro level is fact. Being an old animal breeder I have observed it. However, on the macro level I have never seen it develop a new species.

Despite all the assurances and postulations as to how I am wrong I can not reconcile evolution on the macro level with the fall and atonement. I too am a man of faith.

[cdowis]

And you know this because??????

Human intelligence falls outside the ability of evolution to explain --just brushed aside as "the miracle of evolution"

For example,

"Darwin’s suggests that the intelligent of different classes rise to the top of their particular place in the social structure, even rearing a greater number of children. But he doesn’t seem convinced by his own words, quickly worrying that the reckless and improvident might still threaten to overwhelm the intelligent, just by sheer numbers and willingness to procreate. And then he veers again, suggesting that there might be some intelligent folk among the reckless and improvident, whose ability will give them some advantage. It’s a bit confusing, and reflects the difficulties of trying to decide how natural selection and intelligence are related." http://apps.patrickm...lved Englishman

Edited March 5, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

And you know this because??????

And you know it is not so How?

[thesometimesaint]

I know that evolution on the micro level is fact. Being an old animal breeder I have observed it. However, on the macro level I have never seen it develop a new species.

Despite all the assurances and postulations as to how I am wrong I can not reconcile evolution on the macro level with the fall and atonement. I too am a man of faith.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over time. You just haven't lived long enough.

Beside evolution doesn't propose one species morphing into another.

See..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiZdhxkfBCk

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097857

[bu11fr0g]

The gist of evolution is that those who have children are more represented in the next generation. The second piece is that those having the most children differs based on the environment. The third piece is that mutations occur, adding new variations.

Human intelligence vis a vis chimpanzees -- it is not hard at all to tell how intelligence helps humans have more children in many environments.

Humans vs humans -- again it is not hard to see that the profoundly retarded have less children.

I dont think there is much of a strong selection bias for greater intelligence now. But it doesnt take much: better survival in battle probably being the longest and most important. Perhaps better planning for disasters, better literacy....

[cdowis]

cdowis:

See http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12097857

That's nice.

Are you asking me to review the article? To comment on its conclusions? Are you asserting that this article is relevant in any way to my post?

I do not respond to articles, so if you want to copy and make comments from the article, if you are willing to defend these authors in what they have written, I will be happy to respond to you, to take you on.

Before you begin: 1. I know the difference between opinion and fact. 2. I am not intimidated by professional journals and academic titles-- Herr Professor Doktor, etc etc. 3. Be prepared to write in normal English. Don't hide behind technical gibberish.

In short, be prepared to explain and to defend with logic, facts, and common sense.

Edited March 5, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Tell me everything you know. I have a minute.

[bu11fr0g]

The problem and the good thing anout science is that everything is a theory. Some theories have mounds of evidence to support them (like gravity). Others are new and others have been disproven.

The problem with suspect revelation is that no amount of contradicting evidence changes the opinion.

[cinepro]

I believe in crocoduck.

[mfbukowski]

Basing it on logic and fact. We know through testing and research that intelligent information can only come from a pre-existing intelligent source.

Because you would not define the "information" - whatever that means- as "intelligent" if it did not. I have no idea what this even means. What is "unintelligent information"?

Perhaps you are speaking of language. And yes, only people speak.

[bcuzbcuz]

Basing it on logic and fact. We know through testing and research that intelligent information can only come from a pre-existing intelligent source.

I must admit my disappointment. I was hoping for a more substantive response.

[mfbukowski]

Despite all the assurances and postulations as to how I am wrong I can not reconcile evolution on the macro level with the fall and atonement. I too am a man of faith.

Well the honest truth is that evolution cannot be proven, really, either way. I suppose we get to choose which works best for us individually.

[Rob Osborn]

Because you would not define the "information" - whatever that means- as "intelligent" if it did not. I have no idea what this even means. What is "unintelligent information"?

Perhaps you are speaking of language. And yes, only people speak.

Intelligent information, intelligent processes, etc. are the product of some intelligent purpose, design, etc. An example- The human language is an intelligent process. The numbering system computers use is the product of intelligent informatiom. DNA is an intelligent coding system. Cells repairing damaged tissue in the finger- intelligent processes.

Something that is unintelligent- A rock falling randomly from a cliff smashing into a thousand pieces at the bottom- unintelligent. Lightning hitting a tree and burning it up- unintelligent. Moon dust- unintelligent. The paint on my car casting a reflection from the sun- unintelligent. Etc. etc. etc.

[Rob Osborn]

I must admit my disappointment. I was hoping for a more substantive response.

What were you hoping for? Hehe

We are all aware of the digital computer programming world. The drive to create the next artificial intelligence program is the top of the food chain in a computer programmers world. Some honestly believe that eventually we will be able to create a program that really is truly intelligent itself. The problem is that it will always run off a program that an intelligent programmer first designed to run exactly in the manner it runs. As such, only artificial intelligence will always exist in their programming world. Never will there come a time when they will design and engineer a program to think for itself and decide for itself and ultimately write new programs for itself. Its just not possible. As this relates to nature-

All living things have sophisticated blueprints and programs built in to do myriads of complicated building , repairing, sensing, replicating processes all of which operate on an extremely efficient and intelligent level. Think of it like the ultimate computer program. How did this program come into existance? If we as intelligent engineers ourselves struggle in the lab to do simple things with biologic substance using sophisticated means then how improbable is it that any of this could come about outside of intelligent designs and processes with purpose in mind?

We know through long research and study that intelligent information, no matter how simple or sophisticated, can only possibly come about through thoughtful and intelligent means to begin with. Assumimg this principle to be true- that intelligence or intelligent processes, intelligent information, can only come from something intelligent preceding it, then intelligence itself has always existed in some form in the universe.

[mfbukowski]

Intelligent information, intelligent processes, etc. are the product of some intelligent purpose, design, etc.

That's my point.

All this says is that "intelligent processes are the product of intelligent purpose".

It's a tautology. It begs the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Look I am not disagreeing that God organized the universe- just that your argument does not show it. You cannot prove any of this logically. You either believe it or you don't, and if you believe it, it has to come from testimony, period.

All the logic in the world won't get you anywhere especially when you presuppose intelligent purpose to prove intelligent purpose. It's just a bad argument, not apostasy or godlessness.

Edited March 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bu11fr0g]

Intelligent information only comes from an intelligent source.

Intelligent information, intelligent processes are the product of an intelligent source.

Beautiful circularity!

Is a virus intelligent information?

Is a prion?

If i set up a random process with selection to identify a DNA molecule that can interact, does this count as intelligence?

Does the immune response to a virus count as intelligent?

How about if the immune system attacks the person it is part of ( autoimmune)

Is the beauty of the stars at night intelligent?

Are the laws of physics intelligent?

Are the songs of birds?

[mfbukowski]

repeat

Edited March 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bu11fr0g]

I think the counter is showing how random processes can be used to obtain knowledge?

MicroRNA selection comes to mind.

Antibody purification.

Random enzyme selection.

Coding algorithms.

Monte Carlo proofs.

Think of things that are difficult to tell if random or not:

If traffic accidents happen at a particular spot are they intelligently designed?

[mfbukowski]

All I am suggesting is that intelligence has always existed, it did not arise on its own and is not capable of arising on its own.

You don't need tautologies to prove that, just a testimony. But you need to acknowledge that it is a non-falsifiable religious idea and not scientific since science by its very presuppositions, ignores God.

[bu11fr0g]

I think the best proofs of God are the existence of freewill and goodness. We understand both intuitively but they seem impossible to prove?

[ERayR]

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over time. You just haven't lived long enough.

You keep repeating this like a catechism but you yourself impart a difference when you attribute changes to time that does not happen in micro-evolution. The transmutation of species does not happen at the micro level but you assert it for the macro level.

A princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince equals a fairy tale.

A princess kisses a frog for a million years and frog turns into a prince equals scientific explanation.

Edited March 6, 2013 by ERayR