Evolution And Mormonism

[thesometimesaint]

The current theory is that at the Big Bang the matter was more prevalent than antimatter. However that issue has not been thoroughly resolved

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Now all you have to do is prove it.

[bu11fr0g]

Horses and donkeys are different species. The have a mule.

Lions and Tigers are different species. Their offspring is very different based on which is the father and which is the mother.

Wolves and coyotes are different species. Their offspring are different.

Humans have children with lots of different chromosomal changes where the children look different and a sterile. Down syndrome is the easiest example.

If a small group of intermarrying people had robertsonian translocations, they would still look human but would no longer be capable of having fertile children with anyone outside of their group.

The differences between these relationships and the difference between a dog and fox, or a human and chimpanzee are quantitative not qualitative. I.e., the same type of differences are present only more.

[Bikeemikey]

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

More important than real ants?

[bu11fr0g]

A horse will not have a dog as a child --but that is never the way it worked. Evolution is one species splitting up into two over time.

Foxes are just more completely split than jackals are from dogs.

[ERayR]

The current theory is that at the Big Bang the matter was more prevalent than antimatter. However that issue has not been thoroughly resolved

You mean that decisive and solid explanation has some unresolved issues? Surely not.

[ERayR]

More important than real ants?

Now you are using the same method as evolutionary indoctrinators to read more into the statement than was written. Clue: Nothing was even mentioned about "Real Ants"

[changed]

Horses and donkeys ...Lions and Tigers ....Wolves and coyotes .....Their offspring are different.

Whatever the offspring is, hopefully, and usually, the offspring was the result of a proactive choice - it didn't just randomly happen, it was intelligently designed... Can everyone agree that ID is an important part of the process at least?

Atheists might not define the intelligence as being God, but at least they should recognize that animals think and act, and that those actions determine where they live, what they eat, who they mate with - and ultimately what their offspring are, and what the evolutionary chain will look like.... there might be random elements in the process, but most of it is dictated by thought/intelligence... Theists might define that intelligence with a larger brush stroke, including the source that speaks to our spirits and influences our thoughts, inspires us to progress... we're blind mice describing a multifaceted elephant, but if we could all just agree on the ID part of it, start from that common ground, perhaps there would not be as much animosity?

[mfbukowski]

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!

There is a big difference between saying "Scripture is figurative" and saying "I believe it is literally true, but if it is figurative, I believe anyway".

Blessed are those who have NOT seen and yet believe.

[Bikeemikey]

There is a big difference between saying "Scripture is figurative" and saying "I believe it is literally true, but if it is figurative, I believe anyway".

Blessed are those who have NOT seen and yet believe.

I second that thought.

[BCSpace]

Horses and donkeys ...Lions and Tigers ....Wolves and coyotes .....Their offspring are different.

Whatever the offspring is, hopefully, and usually, the offspring was the result of a proactive choice - it didn't just randomly happen, it was intelligently designed... Can everyone agree that ID is an important part of the process at least?

Sure, as long as you don't confuse it with Intelligent Design. If the process of creation was evolution, God for sure set the initial conditions and/or may have had a hand in natural selection and He certainly could have made small direct adjustments here and there that science could never hope to detect. Part of natural selection is geology and climate and so that means in order to detect God in evolution, one would have to be able to track all sub atomic particles in the universe for all time, past and present.

I also think it would be good to note here that evolution, like the doctrine, teaches that like produces like. In scientific evolution, dogs do not give birth to cats, monkeys do not morph into humans, and apes don't give birth to humans, etc. There are too many reproductive steps in between to notice a significant difference from one generation to the next.

[Rob Osborn]

Sure, as long as you don't confuse it with Intelligent Design. If the process of creation was evolution, God for sure set the initial conditions and/or may have had a hand in natural selection and He certainly could have made small direct adjustments here and there that science could never hope to detect. Part of natural selection is geology and climate and so that means in order to detect God in evolution, one would have to be able to track all sub atomic particles in the universe for all time, past and present.

I also think it would be good to note here that evolution, like the doctrine, teaches that like produces like. In scientific evolution, dogs do not give birth to cats, monkeys do not morph into humans, and apes don't give birth to humans, etc. There are too many reproductive steps in between to notice a significant difference from one generation to the next.

So, you are saying that evolution is intelligent design.

[Bikeemikey]

So, you are saying that evolution is intelligent design.

A position that is entirely a faith statement and can not be verified or proven false. A lot of LDS I know take this approach.

Saying this is still saying you believe in evolution though. It is saying yes, evolution is supported by evidence, I agree with that, I also believe (with no evidence) that god came up with evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

A position that is entirely a faith statement and can not be verified or proven false. A lot of LDS I know take this approach.

Saying this is still saying you believe in evolution though. It is saying yes, evolution is supported by evidence, I agree with that, I also believe (with no evidence) that god came up with evolution.

Agreed

[Bikeemikey]

Agreed

That is twice tonight that someone has outright agreed with me... time to quit while I am ahead. (and it was your 28,000 post to - congrats.)

Off to bed for me.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[bu11fr0g]

It takes very little intervention to affect evolution. Affecting survival by 0.01% would have a marked affect over many generations.

The miracles of the seagulls and partridges are much more than this.

That being said, most major variation has little to do with intelligent action from humans. We have no ability to choose whether a child is born with Down syndrome or whether a child is a boy or girl.

[ERayR]

A position that is entirely a faith statement and can not be verified or proven false. A lot of LDS I know take this approach.

Oh you mean like the statement that all species are the result of evolution from a single source. Nah that couldn't be a faith statement.

[thesometimesaint]

You mean that decisive and solid explanation has some unresolved issues? Surely not.

There are plenty of unresolved issues with that explanation. However as with any theory it is the best explanation we have so far.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh you mean like the statement that all species are the result of evolution from a single source. Nah that couldn't be a faith statement.

All it takes is a single source, and time, for evolution to work.

[Bikeemikey]

Oh you mean like the statement that all species are the result of evolution from a single source. Nah that couldn't be a faith statement.

Of course that is a faith statement. Though it would be theoretically possible.

The evidence supported part of evolution is change over time (it is a process science). It has no capacity to inform the exact original origin. Such statements are speculation. Some better supported than others.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[bu11fr0g]

The key question to ask is "how would a separate origin of life look?" Then go out and try to find any evidence of that.

Different DNA structures and genetic codes?

Different chromosomal and genetic relationships?

So far, all complex organisms are consistent with a single origin. Uncertainty lies in some of the extreme forms of life that can live off of sulfur rather than oxygen, for example.

The only other possibility would be some kind if constraint that only lets life exist in a certain way. But these constraints, if any, would try to separate the origin of plants and animals. Not humans from chimpanzees.

[Nofear]

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.

While the anti-matter problem is a real one, it does not appear to me that your characterization of it is accurate and/or fair. The best models of physical matter today predict that a big bang event would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Those equal amounts would then annhialate completely. Obviously they did not. The question is why? It's an open question. (see wiki: Baryon Asymmetry)

For me, the baryon asysmmetry problem is not one of the bigger questions as I believe that physical matter is only a portion of the universe (spirit matter being another primary constituent). This is almost directly analogous to why most of the evolution discussion is fluff with most of it completely missing the mark. Life on earth is but a tiny portion of life in the universe. That doesn't mean evolution isn't potentially a real and significant influence but there can be no real hope of fully understanding the problems/questions until we have a greater understanding of the rest of the story.

[cdowis]

Sorry for being so dumb, but for me the biggest unexplained issue is that animals have two genders, and the whole issue of a "first" male and "first" female simultaneously evolving in the same time and space, and then mating with each other.

Does anyone else see a problem with that? The only answer I have heard is that there is no "first" anything, which, of course, is absurd. If i follow my pedigree back, how does it begin?

Edited March 10, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

There are plenty of unresolved issues with that explanation. However as with any theory it is the best explanation we have so far.

Then do not try and pretend it is not a faith based explanation. You have placed your faith in it as the best explanation we have so far and like any good religious adherent you do not consider any alternative as having merit.

[ERayR]

Of course that is a faith statement. Though it would be theoretically possible.

The evidence supported part of evolution is change over time (it is a process science). It has no capacity to inform the exact original origin. Such statements are speculation. Some better supported than others.

Then it is a viable alternative to use other explanations that also require faith to be viable. It becomes a matter of which paradigm one chooses to adhere to after thoughtfully weighing the evidence.