Evolution And Mormonism

[mfbukowski]

[mfbukowski]

Also include the infamous Piltdown Man. The funny thing about the whole episode is that when scientists were allowed to actually study it. The whole fraud fell apart. http://www.nhm.ac.uk...tdown-man-hoax/

Uh, fairly literally.

Their results proved that the skull and jaw fragments actually came from 2 different species, a human and an ape, probably an orangutan. Scratches on the surfaces of the teeth, visible under the microscope, revealed that the teeth had been filed down to make them look human. They also discovered that most of the finds from the Piltdown site had been artificially stained to match the local gravels.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/piltdown-hoax-revealed/index.html

[ERayR]

I have one of those living near my home.

[mfbukowski]

As far as evolution is concerned those that reproduce win. Last I heard we don't have many examples of once living, but now dead, organisms reproducing. I could be wrong though.

Whatever reproduces, reproduces.

[mfbukowski]

I have one of those living near my home.

I have too, but then I realized I confused a jackalope with my neighbor the jacka$$.

[ERayR]

I have too, but then I realized I confused a jackalope with my neighbor the jacka$$.

:rofl:

[drums12]

For a time in college, I struggled trying to reconcile evolution with the gospel. I finally came upon a talk by Marion G. Romney, which many of you I'm sure are familiar with. It put my concerns to rest. If there was no fall, there was no need for the Atonement. Period. Were there pre-Adamites? I'm not a scientist, but apparently the evidence strongly indicates that there were. Elder Romney just said that if there were pre-Adamites, they weren't related to Adam. This is good enough for me. The talk is available here http://archive.org/stream/improvementera5606unse#page/n69/mode/2up. You'll have to "flip the pages" until you find it. We can speculate all day long. The answer for me is "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things."

[T-Shirt]

This one is interesting.

Edited March 6, 2013 by T-Shirt

[bcuzbcuz]

Love it! I bet it tastes like chicken.

[semlogo]

The evidence for micro-evolution or small change within species is empiricle and observable and verifiable. Evidence however for evolutionary change with changing fromn one species to another such as a whale to a cow or a monkey to a human is not empiricle, not observable and definately not verifiable. Just becuase something living is similar in shape or form to something else living does not mean it evolved from that or happened that way. A praying mantis for example looks a lot like a leaf or branch from a tree. This does not mean however that the praying mantis evolved from a leaf or branch of a tree.

Sure, as long as you throw out the fossil record and DNA evidence.

[semlogo]

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

The implication of these sorts of arguments seems to be to jump to an argument from ignorance for an intelligent designer. I don't know if that's where you're headed, but I hope not. History should inform us of the folly of the "God of the gaps" argument, an equation where a question mark always = God's interference in the natural world

Edited March 6, 2013 by semlogo

[ERayR]

Love it! I bet it tastes like chicken.

Nope it tastes like rattlesnake.

[mfbukowski]

Nope it tastes like rattlesnake.

Kind of, but my neighbor was even stringier. Long pork I think they call it

[bcuzbcuz]

Kind of, but my neighbor was even stringier. Long pork I think they call it

You ate your neighbor?

[Nathair/|\]

Just for accuracy , Santa Clause was a movie with Tim (the toolman) Taylor. Santa Claus is a mythical character vaguely based on a real personage.

As for evolution , I await the step by step explanation of how the cow became the whale.

There also seems to be a god of hospitality, plenty, and charity who is at present using the name/title of Santa Claus.

[Nathair/|\]

Huh?

I answered the question.

Yes, and there always have been, but it has always taken "humans" to produce other "humans" whether you're referring to the "fallen" or "unfallen" classifications.

No to what?

Somewhere on this planet. I don't claim to know where exactly.

As a spot on a desert? As a spot under a sea? It could look like anything at all at this point. Just know that no part of this Earth has left this planet since this planet was formed long ago, so that chunk of land is here somewhere even if it doesn't look even remotely like it once did when it was a beautiful garden spot with rivers running through it.

What of the moon, or the probes that have been sent out of our solar system?

[Ahab]

What of the moon, or the probes that have been sent out of our solar system?

Good catch. I'll now revise my statement, but not as far as our moon goes. The time I had in mind when this Earth was formed is the time the moon was also formed, so I meant after that no part of this Earth was taken away, thinking of large chunks of land held together. Bits and pieces from some land has been collected and put together to make things like probes, though, and those bits and pieces haven't come back.

I'm still sure that the area of land once referred to as the garden of Eden is still here, though, and as an area of land, just as I'm also sure that when Zion was taken away, what was taken was the people, rather than the area of land the people lived on.

[cdowis]

just as I'm also sure that when Zion was taken away, what was taken was the people, rather than the area of land the people lived on.

Read somewhere that the Gulf of Mexico contained the city of Zion.

[ERayR]

Read somewhere that the Gulf of Mexico contained the city of Zion.

I would not put much stock in them as they are 4th or 5th hand accounts.

[changed]

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

There is quite a wide range of intelligence within the life forms that currently exist (from plants, to bacteria, to humans) and everything that currently exists has had the same amount of time to mutate or not, and I would guess that there are more plants / bacteria / bugs than there are humans, which would suggest that IQ doesn't win the race if that is what it is about.

The intelligence question is an interesting one though, although I think it becomes more evident when comparing living to non-living entities. My background involves studying the structures and formation of materials that are not alive (metallurgy/materials engineering) and in my field the atomic structures are all created through atomic interaction potentials which do not change over time, so the structures do not change. We have programs to simulate lattice structures etc. etc. given formation information (T, P, what materials are being combined) that are nice and repeatable, and to my knowledge, this does not seem to be the case for organic tissues. Evolution does not seem to be a solid, repeatable, kind of science - the atomic structures are not based on mere atomic interaction potentials, the atomic structures change with time - and we know the atomic interactions are not changing, so what is changing? The differences between metals/ceramics - how they behave, their repeatable, unchanging, predictable behaviors and structures - to organic structures that, instead of being repeatable - evolve and change in unpredictable ways, there is more there than matter and energy. It is an information storage device, but more than just information storage (dictionaries store information, but dictionaries are not alive) there is an entity which is using that information, and proactively changing itself with it. More than just matter/energy/information - there is intelligence/spirit/mind/conscience with it. I think the real issue comes down to the nature of what this intelligence is - between the materialists who seem to believe that intelligence/spirit does not exist, vs. those who compare the nature of living and non-living entities, and conclude that something different resides in what lives.... rocks don't evolve... if it were just some random mutation going on, then everything would evolve.

Everything does not evolve - so what is the difference between the rocks that do not evolve, and the living organisms that do? If not spirit? (or call it something else if you don't like the term "spirit")

Edited March 7, 2013 by changed

[Ahab]

I would not put much stock in them as they are 4th or 5th hand accounts.

That's the advantage of having the gift of the Holy Ghost. All you need is an idea to start thinking about and then from there you can find out what is true through the power of God helping you to know what is true. No need to rely on what men say, regardless of how many men say it. All we need is for God to help us know which ideas he agrees with.

[changed]

one more note - "survival of the fittest"... this is a puzzle...

the rocks have survived much longer than anything alive, and the rocks did not evolve in order to survive...

what is alive does not survive, it changes - evolution does not produce species that survive and persist, it produces species that make themselves extinct while new species take their place... what exactly is trying to survive?

[Ahab]

Everything does not evolve - so what is the difference between the rocks that do not evolve, and the living organisms that do? If not spirit? (or call it something else if you don't like the term "spirit")

What makes you think anything evolves? I know some people have that idea, but do you put any stock in it? Why or why not?

In my perspective I see life as something that has always existed, in various forms. The fact that there are some life forms similar to other life forms doesn't mean one evolved from another, though. So if life is something that has always existed, which is what people believe if they believe God has always existed, then why think that life was in only one form? Why not think instead that life has always existed in all of its various forms?

I can see how life evolves in a micro-evolution sort of way. though. Like how at one time on this planet there were only certain forms of dogs and then later we got more kinds of dogs by inter-breeding. But all of what we see now from only one form of life? No, that doesn't make any sense. Forms of life don't just poof from out of nowhere, so if there was only one form of life that created all that we see that one kind must have been all of those kinds of beings in one all along. Thus God would be part ape/dog/whale/flower/tree since all forms of life would have come from him.

[changed]

What makes you think anything evolves?

I do believe in God, but I don't think that He created everything in the traditional Christian sense of the word (DC 93:29)... instead I think God is cleaning up a mess He did not create. I believe in an eternal progression, or evolution of our spirit, and often physical forms take the same shape as spiritual ones, so perhaps physical forms have progressed too? I'm more of a fan of panspermia than gradualism for explaining new species though, and I do think that life is as old as matter and energy and everything else. (link) Abiogenesis - it would be interesting if anyone ever accomplished that, although there would still be the question of the presence of a spirit, what it takes to tempt/enable a spirit into inhabiting a physical body.

[Ahab]

I do believe in God, but I don't think that He created everything in the traditional Christian sense of the word (DC 93:29)... instead I think God is cleaning up a mess He did not create. I believe in an eternal progression, or evolution of our spirit, and often physical forms take the same shape as spiritual ones, so perhaps physical forms have progressed too? I'm more of a fan of panspermia than gradualism for explaining new species though, and I do think that life is as old as matter and energy and everything else. (link) Abiogenesis - it would be interesting if anyone ever accomplished that, although there would still be the question of the presence of a spirit, what it takes to tempt/enable a spirit into inhabiting a physical body.

I asked what makes you think anything evolves, and I don't see you giving me an explanation for that. Can you help me to see what it is exactly that causes you to believe evolution happens? And in what sense, exactly?

As I said, in my perpsective all forms of life have always existed in their various forms. A dog has always been a dog and always will be, whether it's a "fallen" dog or a dog that has been redeemed and restored to its perfect condition as it was before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Elephants too, and whales, and trees, and flowers, and rabbits. They've always existed, in their own various forms, and they always will, in their own form. No rabbit is ever going to become a deer, or a dolphin, and nothing that was ever going to become a rabbit had a chance to be anything else. Each kind of being reproduces after its own kind, not into some other kind.

So again I ask you, what is it that leads you to believe evolution is something that happens. If it happened before, it will happen again, right? Where do you see any evidence for the idea that it has happened, or will happen? All I see are various kinds of beings in their own form, with some more similar to some than some others. Thus, all forms of life have always existed and will always exist in their own form. I see evolution as a bunch of bunk, as far as the macro-evolution stuff goes. Micro-evolution, though, sure. But micro-evolution isn't usually what people are thinking about when they simply say evolution.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Ahab