Evolution And Mormonism

[ERayR]

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

You do place a lot of faith in time.

[bu11fr0g]

The first individual can be either a male or female. With a balanced chromosomal mutation, the individual is essentially indistinguishable from any other other than many of their children would be nonviable. When the viable children of this individual interbreed is when the new species becomes more apparent. As these descendants continue to interbreed with each other and individuals that looked like the original are killed off then the characteristic gets locked in. Additional mild mutations accumulate until the new species can no longer interbreed and is substantially different physiologically.

Note that this is consistent with an initial Adam and Eve as children of a different being. Their children would subsequently interbreed to form humanity with other mankind like hominids being killed off.

[cdowis]

The first individual can be either a male or female.

And please tell us who were the parents of the "first individual"? You are not making sense.

With a balanced chromosomal mutation, the individual is essentially indistinguishable from any other other than many of their children would be nonviable.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly do you mean "balanced chromosomal mutation"? Is this first individual both male and female, capable of bearing children without a mate? If so, that is not a homo sapiens, but some other creature.

You are speaking nonsense.

When the viable children of this individual interbreed is when the new species becomes more apparent. As these descendants continue to interbreed with each other and individuals that looked like the original are killed off then the characteristic gets locked in. Additional mild mutations accumulate until the new species can no longer interbreed and is substantially different physiologically.

You are writing English, but it is gibberish, and makes no sense at all. I am speaking of the first organism that we can classify as homo sapiens, and you are talking about some weird creature that has nothing to do with human beings. Is it male, is it female, is it both, is it neither. And magically it gives "birth" to a homo sapiens.

And then what? Does it live for hundreds of years, ranging around for thousands of miles until he/she finds a suitable mate, that just happens to be evolved of the opposite sex?

You spout rubbish because you have no cogent answer.

Note that this is consistent with an initial Adam and Eve as children of a different being. Their children would subsequently interbreed to form humanity with other mankind like hominids being killed off.

You are out of your depth here, if you want to talk religion.

Adam and Eve had human parents, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Edited March 11, 2013 by cdowis

[bu11fr0g]

Sorry you didnt understand. It would be much more generous to ask for a more detailed explanation than to respond in an aggressive way.

The human chrimosomal is normally diploid meaning we have one copy from each parent from each of 23 chromomes (x- y recognized). However some people have two chromosomes fused together. This is perhaps 1:50,000 new births. When having two chromosomes fused, they have only 45 chromosomes. (Or with a partial duplication 47). This doesnt make much difference many times until that persons descendants interbreed, then you have children with 44 chromosomes or 48 chromosomes. These new individuals if further interbreeding have the ability to make a chromosomally different species. (This is the way a horse and donkey differ.). Add more characteristics that favor the new configuration and the species can lose their ability to interbreed.

I hope this is more understandable.

In short, the first "human" is fairly indistinguishable. His (or her) inbred descendants may be markedly different.

[bu11fr0g]

Or a better question might be "when is someone that is born not human?" There are humans that have a number if different body cofigurations that look much more like a seal, for example. There are humans that are profoundly retarded or malformed. How do we know they are still human and not animal cross-breeds as the ancients thought?

[Rob Osborn]

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

When writing fairytails all it takes is empty pages and an active imagination. Thats not any different of an approach than dreaming up evolution. What gets me is things like hunan reproductive organs- how exactly did they evolve from a single form to do the job of carrying on the DNA line. You just cant evolve sex organs that serve purpose to each other, especially when it is vital to the survival of the species.

[bu11fr0g]

What gets me is how some lizards and fish can actually change their sex.

And how henetic boys that are insensitive to testosterone due to a mutation in their testosterone receptor are born without male reproductive organs ( testicular feminization if you want to look it up). And how deletion of a small pieces of dna eliminate the formation of secual organs.

Even more complicated is how relativity explains plantary motion better than gravity.

Why cant humans regrow our arms when we are cutblike lizards can? Why do we need vitamin C when almost none of God's other creations do?

Why were there people in the Americas before Christopher Columbus? Why are there dinosaur bones and bones that are unlike any animal we have ever found living on earth? Why are there animals smaller than can be seen with the naked eye? Why do flies come out of meat that has been laying around? Why does milk spoil? The scientific process has yielded much better answers to these questions than philosophers, inspired or not.

Religion seems much better at changing human behavior for the better.

[ERayR]

The scientific process has yielded much better answers to these questions than philosophers, inspired or not.

Only if one does not look at all the information.

[bcuzbcuz]

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?

Were it so that cats (for example) suddenly appeared with no links to any other similar animal, then yes, the question of first parents or first male evolving at same time as first female, be a question of concern. But such is not the case. There is no first cat that suddenly appears as a cat, no matter how absurd you think the matter be. You need to actually spend some time reading a qualified book or books dealing with evolution. You might want to start with Darwin's "Origin of Species". But there are many good books dealing with evolutionary change based on the genetic information we now have.

[bcuzbcuz]

When writing fairytails all it takes is empty pages and an active imagination. Thats not any different of an approach than dreaming up evolution. What gets me is things like hunan reproductive organs- how exactly did they evolve from a single form to do the job of carrying on the DNA line. You just cant evolve sex organs that serve purpose to each other, especially when it is vital to the survival of the species.

Either you haven't done your homework or your understanding of time is somewhat skewed. Read some basic texts on evolution where you can get a proper understanding of how asexual and sexual production actually occurs, the why and the how. You seem to think that sexual reproduction organs just suddenly appeared one day, when just the day before, the creatures were happily asexually reproducing. The why behind sexual reproduction should be enlightening. It all has to do with deepening the gene pool.

[bcuzbcuz]

Only if one does not look at all the information.

And which information do you think is missing, specifically?

[bu11fr0g]

I have been looking at this information in detail for several decades. I specifically have not avoided any areas.

I am quite sure that I have read or been exposed to all of the major thoughts on this area. But there are always unknown unknowns. What information is there to look at that It appears I may have missed?

In contrast, I have found most of the arguments against evolution to be very ill informed. Moreover, as additional information continues to come along, the evidence for evolution as the general guiding principle becomes stronger and stronger.

[changed]

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33 - 35)

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

I honestly don't think that Adam was the first man (or if he was, perhaps he was the first spirit to keep his first estate?) and I don't think that ours is the only world, or the first world, on this planet.... I think the word "world" is similar to the word "age" - Many ages have passed away.

New worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds, as evidenced by:

(Book of Mormon | Ether 13:9)

9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

What does it say in Genesis? It states that the world "had become void"

click on "hayah" - הָיָה means "to become"... and what does everyone think was on the earth before it became void? I don't think it's not scriptural to suggest that another world was here, another world that had become void - that Adam and Eve came from a more perfect sphere - perhaps fell from a heavenly sphere - to bring a new era/age to a dieing world.

The plan of salvation, if there is "no other way" then other worlds/ages have progressed as ours have, and the cycle seems to end in some sort of an apocalyptic collapse, followed by a millennium (Eden), and then the start of a new era where perhaps the cycle starts all over again? In any event, ours is not the only world, 6,000 years is not the only time period for people to have lived, and Gen is not "the" beginning, it is just "a" beginning.

Edited March 11, 2013 by changed

[changed]

whoops!

Edited March 11, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

You do place a lot of faith in time.

Time itself is relative to the observer. But it doesn't take much, if any, faith to recognize the logical sequence of events.

[Rob Osborn]

Either you haven't done your homework or your understanding of time is somewhat skewed. Read some basic texts on evolution where you can get a proper understanding of how asexual and sexual production actually occurs, the why and the how. You seem to think that sexual reproduction organs just suddenly appeared one day, when just the day before, the creatures were happily asexually reproducing. The why behind sexual reproduction should be enlightening. It all has to do with deepening the gene pool.

I have read a few fairytales ...

Edited March 11, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

When writing fairytails all it takes is empty pages and an active imagination. Thats not any different of an approach than dreaming up evolution. What gets me is things like hunan reproductive organs- how exactly did they evolve from a single form to do the job of carrying on the DNA line. You just cant evolve sex organs that serve purpose to each other, especially when it is vital to the survival of the species.

And all it takes to write anything including "scripture" is a blank page and an active imagination. What is your point?

You want to disprove evolution? I've offered you a way to do it by using science to disprove the science. No need to invoke God(s) or a fairytale.

Here is just a brief start for the evolution of sex. http://en.wikipedia....al_reproduction

You want more? a beginning course in biology will help you immensely.

Edited March 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[semlogo]

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.

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.

Where there is insufficient evidence to come to a definitive conclusion, the logical reaction is to withhold judgement, not jump to a conclusion like "and then God interfered with the universe HERE." The God of the gaps argument is many thousands of years old. It is fallacious, since it is an argument from ignorance. Many bright minds have fallen prey to this fallacy. It behooves us to learn from their mistakes. Wherever it has been used it has inevitably been replaced with actual scientific explanations.

Thankfully, evolution requires no faith and has no priesthood or creeds, or anything resembling them. I find it puzzling, though, when other religious folks use those terms as if they are insults. Thoughtful believers in God have nothing to fear from science. There are many PhD LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc biologists who accept that evolution is a fact. It has not turned them all into atheists.

Edited March 11, 2013 by semlogo

[Rob Osborn]

And all it takes to write anything including "scripture" is a blank page and an active imagination. What is your point?

You want to disprove evolution? I've offered you a way to do it by using science to disprove the science. No need to invoke God(s) or a fairytale.

Here is just a brief start for the evolution of sex. http://en.wikipedia....al_reproduction

You want more? a beginning course in biology will help you immensely.

Scripture is revealed from God whereas evolutionary theory is imagined by mans brain. Big difference there.

Interesting that when scientists speak of things like the evolution of sex they do so in a fairytale sort of way. At no point do they ever offer any evidence to show that it actually did what they say it did. I dont want some fairytale I want actual evidence, experiments, etc. done in the lab or documented by scientists in the field that show their theory working. We might as well say that it was aliens who planted life here as part of their biology experiment for class.

[Rob Osborn]

Where there is insufficient evidence to come to a definitive conclusion, the logical reaction is to withhold judgement, not jump to a conclusion like "and then God interfered with the universe HERE." The God of the gaps argument is many thousands of years old. It is fallacious, since it is an argument from ignorance. Many bright minds have fallen prey to this fallacy. It behooves us to learn from their mistakes. Wherever it has been used it has inevitably been replaced with actual scientific explanations.

Thankfully, evolution requires no faith and has no priesthood or creeds, or anything resembling them. I find it puzzling, though, when other religious folks use those terms as if they are insults. Thoughtful believers in God have nothing to fear from science. There are many PhD LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc biologists who accept that evolution is a fact. It has not turned them all into atheists.

To believe in Darwinian evolution theory of how life arose and came to be, one MUST disregard God as having anything at all to do with that process. Dont believe me? Then place God within evolutionary model as a "requirement" for life to arise. This is the exact problem that arises between evolutionists and intelligent designers. Intelligent design doesn't try to disprove evolution, it just places the principle of intelligence and design as being the mechanism for life to arise. Evolutionists fight against this quite staunchly because they absolutely MUST explain the entire existance and origins of life outside of any pre-existing design or intelligence. Translated correctly, Darwinian evolutiuon is entirely void of God and thus it is indeed atheistic in principle- you can never include any god or type of intelligence to explain life.

[thesometimesaint]

Scripture is revealed from God whereas evolutionary theory is imagined by mans brain. Big difference there.

Interesting that when scientists speak of things like the evolution of sex they do so in a fairytale sort of way. At no point do they ever offer any evidence to show that it actually did what they say it did. I dont want some fairytale I want actual evidence, experiments, etc. done in the lab or documented by scientists in the field that show their theory working. We might as well say that it was aliens who planted life here as part of their biology experiment for class.

Humm. So the ancient Greek Gods are the ones we should worship? Or is it the Hindu Gods or is the Shinto Emperor God the one? So many "Scriptures"(pieces of paper and active imaginations) and Gods to choose from. I've got a better idea. Lets leave the Supernatural to the mystics, and science to us with more Natural abilities.

Whether life was planted here by God, space aliens, or developed with neither, it wouldn't effect the evidence for evolution.

[semlogo]

To believe in Darwinian evolution theory of how life arose and came to be, one MUST disregard God as having anything at all to do with that process.

I agree. Just as meteorology rules out the theory of intelligent lightning. But that doesn't rule out the existence of a God.

This is the exact problem that arises between evolutionists and intelligent designers. Intelligent design doesn't try to disprove evolution, it just places the principle of intelligence and design as being the mechanism for life to arise.

Intelligent design does not have a workable model for making predictions about life. It has contributed nothing to human knowledge about biology.

Evolutionists fight against this quite staunchly because they absolutely MUST explain the entire existance and origins of life outside of any pre-existing design or intelligence.

Evolution does not deal with the origins of life. Surely you've been told that before.

Translated correctly, Darwinian evolutiuon is entirely void of God and thus it is indeed atheistic in principle- you can never include any god or type of intelligence to explain life.

All branches of science are entirely devoid of any mention of God. That is because science is science, not religion. You can never include any god or type of divine intelligence to explain chemistry or planet formation or weather patterns. Science deals with what can be observed (directly or indirectly) in the natural world.

If you wish to learn theology, a church is more appropriate than a laboratory.

Edited March 11, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

Scripture is revealed from God whereas evolutionary theory is imagined by mans brain. Big difference there.

Interesting that when scientists speak of things like the evolution of sex they do so in a fairytale sort of way. At no point do they ever offer any evidence to show that it actually did what they say it did. I dont want some fairytale I want actual evidence, experiments, etc. done in the lab or documented by scientists in the field that show their theory working. We might as well say that it was aliens who planted life here as part of their biology experiment for class.

You misunderstand the nature of evidence. Scientists cannot produce a solar system in the lab either. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence describing how they are formed.

[bcuzbcuz]

I have read a few fairytales ...

I'm glad you have read a few fairy tales. That means you will recognize the patterns of a fairy tale and be able to distinguish between a fairy tale and real science.

You probably remember a number of fairy tales that include the number three. The three bears, fairy godmother gives three wishes, Jack has to bring back three things from the giant, and so on. This characteristic of three is found not only in European stories, but Islamic, Chinese, Indian and Jewish stories, to name a few. There is often a factor of magic, never the lead character but the evil witch, or a magic ring, an angel appearing or a magic phrase.

The hero or heroine are human and mortal, animals often have human characteristics. The animals, like the three pigs or billy-goats or donkeys can carry on conversations. The stories often begin with "once upon a time" and end with "happily ever after". The stories don't require deep thought. Even little kids "get" the idea; good wins over evil, animals saved from destruction, beware of "dark" things...forests, under the bed, sinister looks, evil thoughts, etc.

Secret words, whispered phrases, curses and promises also have their part of the story.

Does all this sound familiar? You'll recognize them from fairy tales. Do you find any parts that fit in evolutionary theory?

And don't give me the "once upon a time" thing because evolution tries very much to attach time to the events and continually uses every factor available to adjust and confirm exactly the incidence of time. (Big Bang isn't evolution)

You can read fairy tales, either for your kids or ancient tales of wonder and glory, like scripture, but evolution isn't one of these tales. The parts don't fit.

[bu11fr0g]

What is the evidence that your scriptural interpretation is correct?