Evolution And Mormonism

[cdowis]

The implication of these sorts of arguments seems to be to jump to an argument from ignorance for an intelligent designer.

I do not understand.

A scientific theory is only as powerful as its ability to explain observable phenomena. If you cannot explain anything with a particular theory, to take an extreme example, you are suggesting scientists should not look for a superior theory because of "god of gaps", or arguing from ignorance. You are throwing out clever phrases and arguments that are absolute nonsense.

Argument from ignorance, indeed.

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

Well, we can simply close our eyes and continue to have a fanatical faith that the god of evolution will answer all questions. OR, follow science investigation to wherever it takes us. We do this in other branches of science, but in evolution it has become sacred and holy with its own priesthood and creeds.

Edited March 8, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

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.

See.

[Ahab]

See.

You're still not telling me what makes you believe that happens. It's a nice little story but it doesn't provide any evidence to show evolution really happens, and it also doesn't tell me why you believe it does.

[bu11fr0g]

"A dog will always be a dog. "

What about a coyote that is capable of cross breeding with a dog? Or a fox that can't?

Or a dingo or wolf that are not so separated but look markedly different?

Or more complex, the golden jackal that can cross breed with dogs while the other species of jackals cannot.

Horses, zebras, donkeys, ponies have similar relations.

Same with tigers, lions, domesticated cats, lynxs, pumas and bobcats.

Humans, Neanderthals and Chimpanzees do too.

So a dog is always a dog unless it crosses with a jackal.

A horse is always a horse unless it crosses with a donkey.

[changed]

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.

sorry,

I believe in an eternal progression

because of the principle of eternal progression, I have hopes that "a dog will not always be a dog"... that we will all be "changed", in the twinkling of an eye, into something better than we now are. Isn't that the entire point of it all, to be changed? and to progress? and evolve into a higher life form?

[blackstrap]

Personally, I am anxiously awaiting that day at Adam-ondi-ahman when the figurative Christ meets with all of the figurative heads of the dispensations to receive back the figurative keys.That includes the figurative 'ancient of days' Adam,and that figurative boat builder Noah.I just hope to be allowed to be a figurative gatekeeper at the figurative New Jerusalem. Maybe I'll be permitted to sweep the figurative streets of gold with my figurative broom. At least, that what I figure!

[ERayR]

Personally, I am anxiously awaiting that day at Adam-ondi-ahman when the figurative Christ meets with all of the figurative heads of the dispensations to receive back the figurative keys.That includes the figurative 'ancient of days' Adam,and that figurative boat builder Noah.I just hope to be allowed to be a figurative gatekeeper at the figurative New Jerusalem. Maybe I'll be permitted to sweep the figurative streets of gold with my figurative broom. At least, that what I figure!

And don't forget that we will be able to rely on the figurative atonement.

[cdowis]

Humans, Neanderthals and Chimpanzees do too.

This is a formal CFR, that they can cross breed.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

You combine a strange mixture of half truths and wild speculation to defend your belief that evolution does not exist. You're willing to chop the idea into pieces, stating you believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution". First off, there is no such thing as "micro-evolution". That is a terminology invented by creationists to try and circumvent the very obvious manipulation of species practiced by humans in dog breeding, pidgeon breeding, cattle breeding and a whole list of other breedings.

What creationists don't have is an understanding of time. If they can't see it right here, right now, it doesn't exist. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain a whole series of things that are observable in the world and draw links between these observations. If you can come up with a better theory, go for it.

But the "micro-evolution" you say you beieve in is just a short time observation of the same principles first put together by Darwin. If you haven't read his first book, I can heartedly recommend it, "The Origin of Species". Check out what he says about pidgeon breeding, a field that he not only practiced but was also a superb observer of.

If you know anything about genetics check out the genetic links between wolves and dogs. Note how few wild dogs are actually related to the domesticated dog. All the breeds of dogs link back to wolves. Darwin didn't have any genetic evidence in his day, but he surmized it to be so. And he was right. Darwin did the same links between domesticated pidgeons and wild pidgeons. He also did similar studies in flowers. Today, we have the genetic evidence that show Darwin's imagination encompassed what actually exists.

If you believe in Noah and his ark, do you have any explanation why the vast majority of animals in Australia, exist nowhere else? Or why any island more than 500 kilometers from mainland contain no large mammals, only small ones.? Darwin was able to postulate all of this, despite his living prior to modern genetic research.

[bcuzbcuz]

This is a formal CFR, that they can cross breed.

I'll bite. There is ample evidence of neanderthal genes in modern humans and we share some 99% of the genome base. Check anything by the Max Plank institute. Since roughly 2% of the neanderthal genome is traceable in modern humans that demonstrates interbreeding. INterbreeding that must have been more than 20,000 years ago. (roughly 3.2 billion base pairs, of the Neanderthal genome have been identified.)

While humans and chimpanzees share some 98 % of the genome base I can find no evidence of human-champanzee interbreeding. It certainly isn't possible in modern times.

[bu11fr0g]

The relation between humans and neandethals is the same as the relation of the jackal to the wolf. The red wolf contains proportions of jackal dna while the grey wolf does not seem to. European humans have small proportions of neanderthal dna while other groups do not.

The relations between humans and chimps is similar to that between wolves and foxes (with the relation between humans and chimps being closer than the differences between wolves and foxes). With the technical advances that have been made recently, it should be possible. Egg fertilization rather than chromosomal/gene problems are the main problem. The restraints on this are societal rather than technical.

There are at least some scientists that believe human-chimp interbreeding previously occured:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?ex=1171515600&en=50ac61aa1c998951&ei=5070&_r=0

More detail can be found on wikipedia if desired:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee#section_5

Note that fusion is a different process and that human-rodent fusions exist as well as several viable rodents with human dna sequences. http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/genomic/genomic3.htm

[bu11fr0g]

I errer the red wolf has coyote (Canis latrans) dna not jackal dna.

[Ahab]

"A dog will always be a dog. "

What about a coyote that is capable of cross breeding with a dog? Or a fox that can't?

Or a dingo or wolf that are not so separated but look markedly different?

Or more complex, the golden jackal that can cross breed with dogs while the other species of jackals cannot.

Horses, zebras, donkeys, ponies have similar relations.

Same with tigers, lions, domesticated cats, lynxs, pumas and bobcats.

Humans, Neanderthals and Chimpanzees do too.

So a dog is always a dog unless it crosses with a jackal.

A horse is always a horse unless it crosses with a donkey.

I was using the word dog to refer to all of the canine breeds.... whether they be poodles, pomeranians, greyhounds, german shepherds, wolves, dingos, collies... what have you. They're all some kind of dog, basically.

... and etc, etc, etc, for all other kinds of breeds too.

Just don't commit the error of thinking a man is some kind of money or gorilla. We are not the same kind of creatures, although we are similar just as dogs are a lot like other kinds of creatures that look a lot like dogs.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

http://www.history.com/shows/the-universe/videos/creation-of-the-moon#creation-of-the-moon

[changed]

It's not right to take everything figuratively of coarse, but it's equally incorrect to make dogmatic statements out of assumptions... Let's not pretend that the missing gaps in the scriptures don't exist, or pretend that there are not multiple ways to fill those gaps in.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

Our relationship to money is economic. We are of the same genetic family as the other great Apes.

Edited March 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

I suggest you watch the National Geographic "Earth From Space" program. We humans are merely ants in the picture of the development of our planet.

[Ahab]

It's not right to take everything figuratively of coarse, but it's equally incorrect to make dogmatic statements out of assumptions... Let's not pretend that the missing gaps in the scriptures don't exist, or pretend that there are not multiple ways to fill those gaps in.

There are multiple ideas for what is missing in those gaps but you shouldn't try to squeeze something incorrect into them.

I can see how the theory of evolution makes sense, from a certain standpoint, but that doesn't mean the theory is true.

Just wait and see if you don't know what happened before us, because we'll eventually see what really happened.

To me it's as simple as the birds and the bees. Like begats like, not some other kind. Always has. Still does. Always will.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Ahab:

Our relationship to money is economic. We are of the same genetic family as the other great Apes.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. I've already told you and the whole world wide web that isn't true.

[bu11fr0g]

"They're all some kind of dog basically."

And humans & chimpanzees are all some kind of primate basically.

What are the criteria you use to separate what are and are not the same? DNA, chromosomes, physiology, anatomy, biochemistry? Superficial appearences and socialization?

The wolf and toy poodle are the same species.

You are capriciously choosing what is like something else to say evolution doesnt happen. Horses and mules are more different than humans and chimpanzees in most respects.

[bcuzbcuz]

To me it's as simple as the birds and the bees. Like begats like, not some other kind. Always has. Still does. Always will.

Have you ever seen a two headed snake, or a two headed calf? I have. You can probably find something similar at your own Museum of Natural History. Spend a Saturday morning there. Then tell me like begets like.

Or you can just Google "missing links", even though that phrase is a misnomer.

[cdowis]

From my previous post

Such research into interbreeding, as I understand, is within the past few years, which makes it subject to new interpretation and discoveries. I've seen many of these theories discounted over time so I prefer to be patient before jumping on any bandwagon that rolls around.

A recent news item:

"A new study shows that certain organisms can undergo reverse evolution, that is, go back to the way they were living before evolving new traits. The study challenges the idea that evolution is uni-directional and an organism can't undo changes.

The idea that organisms can't revert back is held by Dollo's law, which states "that evolution is not reversible; i.e., structures or functions discarded during the course of evolution do not reappear in a given line of organisms." http://www.naturewor...on-possible.htm The study is published in the journal Systematic Biology

This underlines my conservative position to wait before jumping on every new "discovery" until time has been sufficient for additional research and interpretation of the data. It appears that Dollo's law... well, it's not really a law. But, of course, we need to wait for further research into this issue.

Edited March 10, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

I suggest you watch the National Geographic "Earth From Space" program. We humans are merely ants in the picture of the development of our planet.

Ants? Maybe but ants which are very important to a very influential person in the cosmos.

[ERayR]

Have you ever seen a two headed snake, or a two headed calf? I have. You can probably find something similar at your own Museum of Natural History. Spend a Saturday morning there. Then tell me like begets like.

Or you can just Google "missing links", even though that phrase is a misnomer.

You seem to be confused. Is a two headed snake(have seen some) a snake or not? Is a two headed calf somehow not a calf? Do they suddenly become some other species because they are mutants?

[ERayR]

And I find that the Big Bang that supposedly started all this has some troubling problems. Nobody can find the anti-matter to correspond with the matter involved. It is a big mystery where it has gone to. Lots of suppositions floating around.