Evolution And Mormonism

[ERayR]

Safe assumptions, like the laws of physics continuing to work even when inconvenient to one's interpretation of scripture.

Even the laws of physics are only safe in the bounds of set parameters. i.e. dating techniques are only valid if you assume a constant, unchanging

I see evolution deniers misrepresenting evolution. That indicates either a lack of reading or reading scurrilous sources of information.

Examples Please

[danielwoods]

Safe assumptions, like the laws of physics continuing to work even when inconvenient to one's interpretation of scripture.

No one disagrees with the idea that the laws of physics have continued to work as they do today. What is missing is clear evidence that the laws of physics are capable of creating life, or even intelligent life.

So, from "safe" assumptions, our world view leads us to our claim of "unsafe" assumptions, such as claiming that "The building blocks of DNA arise spontaneously" which somehow lead to an intelligent being.

[bu11fr0g]

To say that mankind was created independently of the animals requires heroic mental twistings to accommodate findings. Francis Collins book The Language of God goes into some detail from as a Christian theist who deeply understands genetics.

The presence of pseudogenes, color vision (gene duplication), loss of vitamin C metabolism, ordering of genes, locations of viral inserts, chromosomal arrangement of genes, etc., are facts. I can't see how it is possible to conceive of an independent origin of man other than to say that God was intentionally doing things to fool us, He just rotely copied the chimpanzee genome and added a couple tweaks, or that God Himself evolved from animals.

[thesometimesaint]

Even the laws of physics are only safe in the bounds of set parameters. i.e. dating techniques are only valid if you assume a constant, unchanging

Examples please.

[Stone holm]

You don't have to go very far to see evidence for the way things really happened, and still happen.

Like begats like. That's what we see all around us. You've got a fairy tale idea that some kind of being begat another kind of being, and you have NO evidence for that idea. You think the fact that some kinds of beings are similar to other kinds of beings is evidence that one kind was begat by another kind, but that similarity doesn't prove that. Of all the kinds of beings there are it stands to reason that each kind would be more like some other kind of being in existence, rather than none of them having any similarities at all whatsoever.

When God put this planet together he simply put different kinds of beings here from some other places where they already existed, and then once they got here they started reproducing, each after their own kind of being. All plants came from other plants, with each kind of plant from their own kind of plant. And the same for all other kinds of beings whether they lived on the land or in water. God was the architect. He put it all together, and without him (and those who helped him) to do it this planet would not have become the way it was by itself. The crowning touch was when he begat his own kind of being and put his own kind on this planet, both male and female.

The truth couldn't be more obvious if you were to see it happen now as it happened before. It's the simple story of the birds and the bees that all people should have heard from their parents when they were little children. But don't mind me. You can continue to believe in your fairy tales if you really like those stories better. For me that stuff is just a big bunch of hoo hah.

Interesting, and probably partly true. He probably did terra form the planet to a certain degree as was suggested by Brigham Young. But, otherwise this ignores not only science, but the position of the Church which only objects to evolution with respect to Adam and Eve. We know that evolutionary theory is basically correct, it is why we have been inadvertently creating super bacteria, super viruses and super weeds because of our irresponsible use of antibiotics and herbicides. And yes X sometimes gives birth to Y and if it happens enough times and the environment favors Y then X may eventually disappear.

[thesometimesaint]

, but the position of the Church which only objects to evolution with respect to Adam and Eve.

Not even that. The Church takes no position on evolution period. However it does allow its members to believe anything they want regarding it.

[Rob Osborn]

Not even that. The Church takes no position on evolution period. However it does allow its members to believe anything they want regarding it.

The church's official position is that man is not descended from animals.

[Ahab]

Interesting, and probably partly true. He probably did terra form the planet to a certain degree as was suggested by Brigham Young. But, otherwise this ignores not only science, but the position of the Church which only objects to evolution with respect to Adam and Eve. We know that evolutionary theory is basically correct, it is why we have been inadvertently creating super bacteria, super viruses and super weeds because of our irresponsible use of antibiotics and herbicides. And yes X sometimes gives birth to Y and if it happens enough times and the environment favors Y then X may eventually disappear.

When referring to evolution I am referring to what is known as macro-evolution. I'm aware that micro-evolution takes places within a certain species or kind of being, which is how we get different breeds of dogs or cats or chickens or viruses or bacteria, but a virus doesn't and can't become some higher life form like a chicken or dog.

The idea in macro-evolution is that one kind of being can and did become another kind of being, rather than another kind of its own kind, and that is the idea that isn't true.

[Rob Osborn]

Brain size in humans is much different(larger) than that of the other great apes. The female mammary glands in humans, while functionally the same, is much more developed than any of the other great apes. Age of sexual maturity in much longer in humans. Our local cords are much lower in our throats allowing for talking. Our social organizations. Our use of fire. Invention of the wheel. Our ability to invent complex machines is obviously far greater than any of the other great apes. I don't know enough about dog v jackal physiology to comment.

To add-

Our intelligence is so far superior to animals that it begs the question of why are we so extremely intelligent compared with other animals if we really did evolve? Shouldnt there be animals that are close to us in intelligence? Why the huge gap?

[semlogo]

Now would be a fine time for you to clear up any misrepresentation you see, or think you see. Just remember to KISS, or keep it simple... well, you probably already know what I meant.

I've already pointed out several, such as:

Claiming that evolution covers the jump from non-life to life

Claiming that evolution teaches an animal will give birth to a different species

Claiming that evolution relies on a religious-like faith

Claiming that evolution is anti-God

[semlogo]

No one disagrees with the idea that the laws of physics have continued to work as they do today. What is missing is clear evidence that the laws of physics are capable of creating life, or even intelligent life.

Chemical processes probably CAN create life, but again, this is outside the purview of the study of evolution

So, from "safe" assumptions, our world view leads us to our claim of "unsafe" assumptions, such as claiming that "The building blocks of DNA arise spontaneously" which somehow lead to an intelligent being.

That and much more has been observed to occur. It's not an assumption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

The existences of modern viruses, which are somewhere in between true life and non-life, should make it obvious that life can arise naturally from chemical processes. The boundary between life and non-life is fuzzy, not sharp.

[semlogo]

Even the laws of physics are only safe in the bounds of set parameters. i.e. dating techniques are only valid if you assume a constant, unchanging

Young earth only works if you assume (without evidence) that constants are not constants.

Physics doesn't stop working just because some people read Genesis literally.

Examples Please

Examples are in my previous response to Ahab.

Edited March 13, 2013 by semlogo

[Stone holm]

Not even that. The Church takes no position on evolution period. However it does allow its members to believe anything they want regarding it.

Well it is possible that they have changed the General Handbook of Instructions since I was Bishop, but it used to clearly state that they only took exception to "organic evolution" insofar a Adam and Eve were concerned.

[Rob Osborn]

I've already pointed out several, such as:

Claiming that evolution covers the jump from non-life to life

Claiming that evolution teaches an animal will give birth to a different species

Claiming that evolution relies on a religious-like faith

Claiming that evolution is anti-God

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

Seems as if the staff at Berkeley believe the origins of life is connected with evolution, in fact part of it -

"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

[Stone holm]

When referring to evolution I am referring to what is known as macro-evolution. I'm aware that micro-evolution takes places within a certain species or kind of being, which is how we get different breeds of dogs or cats or chickens or viruses or bacteria, but a virus doesn't and can't become some higher life form like a chicken or dog.

The idea in macro-evolution is that one kind of being can and did become another kind of being, rather than another kind of its own kind, and that is the idea that isn't true.

If macro-evolution were not valid, it would be very difficult to explain the fossil record, and Noah's ship would have been very crowded indeed. Obviously, genetic separation usually requires generations to achieve speciation (or more graphically stated the ability to succesfully mate), but I fail to see the logical flaw. Or why there would necessarily be some absolute block between the primordial soup given sufficient time and an appropriate atmosphere becoming a chicken or a dog? Now there is a theory that the Neanderthal, and Homo Erectus, etc. were degenerate humans...but the problem is they seem to pre-date us, and if they were something wholly other then how is it that they appear to have been doing some very odd things like using tools, engaging in art, etc. etc. I am not saying that humans are not wholly different than most species, but to say that evolution is just a fairy tale -- well, that is way beyond the mark. However, I believe that the stubborn anti-science and anti-intellectual stances taken by the literal fundamentalists may eventually cause the field of biology to stumble. Not because the fundamentalists are correct, I don't think any serious minded person who has studied the matter in any detail any longer agrees with the idea that evolution is just some silly notion dreamt up by atheists -- but because in fending off the fundamentalists, the biologist are in danger of becoming too orthodox themselves. We can see that right now in the differing attitudes between say the astro-physicists and the biologists, with the former willing to entertain and play with what might at first glance appear to be off the wall speculations -- unlike the biologists who tend to be more rigid in their thinking. Its like the stupid rigidity of the religious quacks have inadvertently injected a certain amount of rigidity into the thinking of the biologists.

[Ahab]

If macro-evolution were not valid, it would be very difficult to explain the fossil record, and Noah's ship would have been very crowded indeed.

1) The fossil record simply shows that creatures once existed in parts of what is now on this planet, from wherever the various parts of this planet came from. There is nothing to prove one kind of being became another kind of being. That is just speculation based on the idea that some kinds of being are very much like some other kind(s) of being(s).

2) All that would have been required on the arc was one of each kind of being, rather than one of each kind of each kind.

Obviously, genetic separation usually requires generations to achieve speciation (or more graphically stated the ability to succesfully mate), but I fail to see the logical flaw.

The logical flaw is in presuming that because one kind of being is like another kind of being both must have come from a similar kind, the kind they both presumably came from. It is logical, from a certain perspective, but it is not true, and it would be a good theory if it weren't for that fact. The fact that it's not true kinda ruins the whole theory.

[Stone holm]

1) The fossil record simply shows that creatures once existed in parts of what is now on this planet, from wherever the various parts of this planet came from. There is nothing to prove one kind of being became another kind of being. That is just speculation based on the idea that some kinds of being are very much like some other kind(s) of being(s).

2) All that would have been required on the arc was one of each kind of being, rather than one of each kind of each kind.

The logical flaw is in presuming that because one kind of being is like another kind of being both must have come from a similar kind, the kind they both presumably came from. It is logical, from a certain perspective, but it is not true, and it would be a good theory if it weren't for that fact. The fact that it's not true kinda ruins the whole theory.

Yeah I have heard the theory that maybe the Earth got put back together from prior failed attempts and that maybe the fossils came from that. The problem is that they have been able to lay out the development of the solar system with actual mathematical exactness, etc. I think maybe ancient astronaut theories are more defensible than that. Not that there might not have been failed experiments at creating Earths, its just that it is a bit of a stretch to have relatively ubiquitous evidence of various stages and life-forms that just somehow might have been left over by a remashing of the cookie dough. I suspect that you may have indulged in too much of Cleon Skousen here. I can go with terra-forming and intelligent guidance of evolution, I even suspect that Darwin may not have got the whole story quite exactly right as evolution may not be completely dependent upon chance certain developmental change may have been somehow pre-wired into the proto-species -- but to go with Biblical literalism, is to do like the Catholics did with rejecting Galileo about whether the Earth revolved around the Sun. And I am fully aware of the hymn by Eliza Snow that no longer appears in the hymnbook about the Earth being literally towed through space when Adam fell and the Earth supposedly going to get bigger, etc.

[Ahab]

Yeah I have heard the theory that maybe the Earth got put back together from prior failed attempts and that maybe the fossils came from that. The problem is that they have been able to lay out the development of the solar system with actual mathematical exactness, etc.

Failed attempts? I wasn't referring to anything like that. Just that certain creatures lived on this planet, or parts of what became this planet, before it was "terra formed" (as you say) into a planet the way it was when it was created for us. From matter somewhere else, rather than "brand-new" matter without any age. I'm sure we're not on the only planet in the universe where things die, or have died, and it's more reasonable to think certain kinds of creatures lived and died on what later became this planet long before we and other kinds of beings were put here from wherever we came from than to believe in evolution.

I think maybe ancient astronaut theories are more defensible than that.

I'm not suire about what you're taling about, or how it's different than what I'm talking about.

Not that there might not have been failed experiments at creating Earths, its just that it is a bit of a stretch to have relatively ubiquitous evidence of various stages and life-forms that just somehow might have been left over by a remashing of the cookie dough. I suspect that you may have indulged in too much of Cleon Skousen here.

How much is too much, and what makes you think the theory of evolution makes more sense than what I'm talking about?

[Stone holm]

Failed attempts? I wasn't referring to anything like that. Just that certain creatures lived on this planet, or parts of what became this planet, before it was "terra formed" (as you say) into a planet the way it was when it was created for us. From matter somewhere else, rather than "brand-new" matter without any age. I'm sure we're not on the only planet in the universe where things die, or have died, and it's more reasonable to think certain kinds of creatures lived and died on what later became this planet long before we and other kinds of beings were put here from wherever we came from than to believe in evolution.

I'm not suire about what you're taling about, or how it's different than what I'm talking about.

How much is too much, and what makes you think the theory of evolution makes more sense than what I'm talking about?

Because as you concede we can clearly see that evolution works on what you say is a micro-scale, whereas we have no scientific evidence that the Earth was formed from "parts of what became this planet" (which basically is the cookie dough argument). We could argue that God caused the various near extinction events and then repopulated the Earth -- but that is reaching for an explanation when you already have an explanation that works on a micro-scale which doesn't require supranatural intervention of the magnitude that you are suggesting. I have no particular quarrel with the idea that God may have come along and decided okay lets sanitize this planet, and may have done it a couple of times, but then what the heck were those other species doing here? and why does there appear to be such a streamlined flow of development with similar organs, limbs, etc.? It seems much more sensible that evolution is just a tool that Gods use when preparing Earths, and it might well be that there is something special about humans -- something that is especially done for them and not for other species. But we haven't identified it as yet. Or maybe we aren't even the supreme mortal species that we believe we are, it appears we are and thus far from the doctrine we know it seems like we are...but....

[thesometimesaint]

The church's official position is that man is not descended from animals.

No it's not. We take no position on evolution period.

[thesometimesaint]

http://evolution.ber...ginoflife.shtml

Seems as if the staff at Berkeley believe the origins of life is connected with evolution, in fact part of it -

"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

Its posted that life origination was in ancient oceans(Where). Abiogenesis is the study of how life first originated. Evolution is the study of how it evolved once begun.

Edited March 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Because as you concede we can clearly see that evolution works on what you say is a micro-scale, whereas we have no scientific evidence that the Earth was formed from "parts of what became this planet" (which basically is the cookie dough argument). We could argue that God caused the various near extinction events and then repopulated the Earth -- but that is reaching for an explanation when you already have an explanation that works on a micro-scale which doesn't require supranatural intervention of the magnitude that you are suggesting. I have no particular quarrel with the idea that God may have come along and decided okay lets sanitize this planet, and may have done it a couple of times, but then what the heck were those other species doing here? and why does there appear to be such a streamlined flow of development with similar organs, limbs, etc.? It seems much more sensible that evolution is just a tool that Gods use when preparing Earths, and it might well be that there is something special about humans -- something that is especially done for them and not for other species. But we haven't identified it as yet. Or maybe we aren't even the supreme mortal species that we believe we are, it appears we are and thus far from the doctrine we know it seems like we are...but....

Agreed.

[bu11fr0g]

To add-

Our intelligence is so far superior to animals that it begs the question of why are we so extremely intelligent compared with other animals if we really did evolve? Shouldnt there be animals that are close to us in intelligence? Why the huge gap?

No, there can be special niches. Why aren't there any animals that are close to them in flying?

That being said, the nonhuman apes and monkeys do a lot better than most other mammals. This is entirely consistent with evolution.

[Ahab]

Because as you concede we can clearly see that evolution works on what you say is a micro-scale, whereas we have no scientific evidence that the Earth was formed from "parts of what became this planet" (which basically is the cookie dough argument). We could argue that God caused the various near extinction events and then repopulated the Earth -- but that is reaching for an explanation when you already have an explanation that works on a micro-scale which doesn't require supranatural intervention of the magnitude that you are suggesting.

The "micro-scale) doesn't involve one kind of being becoming another kind, though. Just creatures reproducing after their own kind, somewhere, with this Earth created as a place where they could live and reproduce.

Much easier and a heck of a lot faster than having to wait for one kind to gradually evolve from another kind, etc, etc, etc, etc, eventually. And what would there have been to start with? So God just puts a little bitty tadpole-like creature here and then waits until the tadpole-like creature is ready to turn into something else, which eventually turns into something else, etc, etc etc, etc, etc until the planet is ready for us to come here to inhabit a body? And what did we look like then? What kind of body did our spirit inhabit? Did we enter into the bodies of the tadpole-like creatures or wait for something better for our spirit to inhabit? How about a dog? Some might have enjoyed being a dog for a little while, maybe, until something better came along? Or did we all wait until the bears came along, so we could stand up on our hind legs? Oh, but then there were going to be monkeys, so maybe we waited for the monkeys to get here, eventually, after a whole lot of evolving had gone on? And then some of us went into some monkeys to help them evolve inito humans like us? Oh, I know, better yet, we just waited up there in heaven until our kind of being gradually developed from who knows what or where and with God keeping that a mystery until he chooses to tell us sometime later?

Terra forming still seems to me like the best option. Pick a mass of matter, put some water on it before adding plants and animals to it, and then put our kind of being here too. Considering the fact that this planet wasn't the first our Father and Lord created, I'm sure he could have found some plants and animals somewhere, like where he had already put some.

I have no particular quarrel with the idea that God may have come along and decided okay lets sanitize this planet, and may have done it a couple of times, but then what the heck were those other species doing here?

Are you under the impression that this is the only planet in the universe where creatures are living, and dying?

and why does there appear to be such a streamlined flow of development with similar organs, limbs, etc.?

Because it just makes sense that one kind of being would have some similaries to some other kinds of beings, rather than each kind of being having no similarites at all to other kinds of beings. Life just is, and there are various kinds of beings.

It seems much more sensible that evolution is just a tool that Gods use when preparing Earths, and it might well be that there is something special about humans -- something that is especially done for them and not for other species. But we haven't identified it as yet. Or maybe we aren't even the supreme mortal species that we believe we are, it appears we are and thus far from the doctrine we know it seems like we are...but....

Searching for the truth and still not able to find it, even when it's right in front of your face and as simple as the story of the birds and the bees. But go ahead and keep using your imagination.

[Ahab]

No it's not. We take no position on evolution period.

That's never going to be true no matter how many times you say that. I hope you will find the truth someday.