Evolution And Mormonism

[thesometimesaint]

are you suggesting that living organizsms are made up of something different than non-living organisms? It's all just atoms, right? if it's all just atoms, then it should all behave the same - it shouldn't matter if it's alive or not. But what is alive is not just made up of atoms - it is also made up of intelligence/spirit/conscience/mind - that's the point, you have to recognize that intelligence is involved.

I know - long periods of stasis counter the concept of gradual change, because most things don't gradually change - the fossils when they first appear on the scene, look like the fossils when they exit - long periods of stasis. New species appear suddenly - you know, Cambrian "explosion" - in an explosion, not through gradual random changes.

Rocks are made up of atoms - the same things that make up your body - the same types of interaction potentials etc. etc. so why should it matter if it is alive or not?

If there is a "winner" and a "loser", then there is a "better" and a "lesser", there is a "more evolved" and a "less evolved"... I know the latest trend is to deny progression (because categorizing things into "better/more evolved" vs. "more primitive" leads to the horrible racist ideas of Darwin and Hitler and evolutionists want to distance themselves from that - but if you are going to argue a purelyf materialistic viewpoint - with no spirit or intelligence as a driving mechanism - then I am sorry, that is what you are left with - racism... that's what racism is you know, judging someone based on the material that they are made up of - just looking at their skin color, rather than looking at their spirit.)

You make the false assumption that living things are confined by their environment. It's not about meeting the demands of an environemnt - we don't just react , we act- we're not robots - we create our own environments, we're not just reacting to what is around us - we create what is around us. Rocks change with the environment, we change our environment. We don't like the water? my kids are in the water swimmning right now - a nice clean, temperature controlled man-made environment

LOL, I love it when people say things like "it's just so highly complex", - playing "science of the gaps" science of the missing links? If it's a simple reproducable reaction that produces a given sequence - that produces the actual program, the information - then let's see it. Let's see abiogeneiss.... that's what abiogenesis is you know, a simple understanding of the formation kinetics devoid of intelligent design. If you can't produce abiogenesis - if these structures cannot be created without intelligent design, then what is the simplest solution? And even if you are able to perform abiogenesis, you would still have to prove that your specimen wasn't contaminated with something called "spirit", and that would be rather hard to do.

Understanding the mechanisms, vs. watching it happen, are two very different things. I'm fine with micro-evolutaionry processes, and I believe the mechanism is intelligent design, and a will to progress and learn. Learning, surviving, progressing - these are all products of intelligence, of spirit. The rocks do not learn, living things do, the difference between them is the quality of their spirit.

exactly - why is that do you think? Again, it's because we're talking about more than just atoms, interaction potentials, and robots. If there was no such thing as a spirit, living and non-living things would behave exactly the same. They would both fall under gravity (instead of fly like a bird), they would both erode and increase entropy, there would be nothing new under the sun - there would just be the same old laws making the same old things.

I know some biologists who would disagree with you...

Common ancestor.... You asume that DNA can only be inherited through ancestory - which is another false asumption.... Vertical gene transfer is not the only form of gene transfer - ever hear of horizontal gene tranfer?

http://en.wikipedia....l_gene_transfer

HGT means you can share the same genes WITHOUT sharing the same ancestor... to assume that because their DNA is the same they have the same parents, is akin to saying two chunks of steel came from the same mine because they have the same microstructure.... it's non-sequitur.

In short, put ID in evolution, and I have no problem with it. Claim that it happens through random processes devoid of ID - and I will disagee with you (so perhaps we are not disagreeing as I don't know your viewpoints on ID). Living/intelligence entities with a spirit evolve, non-living/non-intelligent entities without a spirit do not evolve. I think a simple comparison of the behavior of living vs. non-living entities is proof enough to show what is going on.

Every thing that is is made up of atoms. Do different atoms behave differently? Yes they do. Just as different molecules(Groups of atoms) behave differently.

Of what intelligence is the hydrogen atom made up of?

From what you have stated, No you don't know. The Cambrian explosion took between 5 million and 10 million years to happen. A minimum of 20 times longer than humans have existed.

Repeat. Every THING that is is made up of atoms.

Take a bio-chem class. You'll find out the difference between living and nonliving things.

Loser's don't reproduce, they get eaten. Those that reproduce are the winners in the evolutionary sense.

There is no better or lesser in the evolutionary sense. Only those living things that reproduce. IE; A walrus built thin like a spider monkey would be at a distinct disadvantage in the arctic. Just like a spider monkey built like a walrus would be at a distinct disadvantage in the jungles.

What on Gods green earth are you talking about? Say I'm a racing dog breeder. Do I choose from fast dogs or slow dogs if I want to win races? Am I being racist if I do? Is the female Manakin being racist when she selects only one mate.

Comparing Darwin with Hilter is beyond the pale. I'm done with this conversation.

[mfbukowski]

In short, put ID in evolution, and I have no problem with it. Claim that it happens through random processes devoid of ID - and I will disagee with you (so perhaps we are not disagreeing as I don't know your viewpoints on ID). Living/intelligence entities with a spirit evolve, non-living/non-intelligent entities without a spirit do not evolve. I think a simple comparison of the behavior of living vs. non-living entities is proof enough to show what is going on.

All these theories are memes which themselves evolve. May the best meme win! Do memes have a spirit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

But the problem is that when we speak of these things we are using memes to analyze other memes. It's like facing two mirrors toward each other- all you get is an infinite regress with no power to really explain anything. It's like trying to see color while wearing multiple layers of colored sunglasses- you take one off, but you still haven't gotten any closer to the way things "really are".

Some day something better than phase diagrams and bonding theories will come along and have even better predictive value- but will you be finally "done" and have perfect knowledge?

I think it's best from the beginning to know that all we have is imperfect models which are no more than memes which evolved to fill their function until something better comes along, then the old meme will die off and the new one will survive.

All we have and will ever have is ever-changing models which themselves "evolve".

Edited May 27, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Evolution is not progression.

"Evolving" can mean "progression" though, such as a thought evolving over time. (see dictionary.com, their dictionary and thesaurus)

I think the scientist who decided to call it "evolution" saddled the theory with a lot of unintended baggage.

Change the environment and those individuals that best meet the demands of that environment long enough to reproduce win.

And the species generally gets better at doing so over time....which looks like "progression" to most people. Edited May 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

"Evolving" can mean "progression" though, such as a thought evolving over time. (see dictionary.com, their dictionary and thesaurus)

I think the scientist who decided to call it "evolution" saddled the theory with a lot of unintended baggage.

And the species generally gets better at doing so over time....which looks like "progression" to most people.

It can, but all it really means is change. Some animals today are devolution's of their predecessors.

Mostly it was non-scientists that saddle the word with meanings that Darwin never intended. IE; Economic survival of the fittest is more properly called Social Spencerism.

I dislike the word progression when used for evolution. Maybe the term "better adapted" should be used. Change the environment and those well adapted species suddenly aren't so well adapted. Humans are pretty unique in that we can quickly adapt to differing environmental conditions through the use of clothing and shelter. So we can live everywhere from the Arctic to the Tropics. IE; Our closest cousins the great Apes wouldn't do well at all in the Arctic. Yet they are 98% to 99% genetically identical to us.

[Calm]

Mostly it was non-scientists that saddle the word with meanings that Darwin never intended. IE; Economic survival of the fittest is more properly called Social Spencerism.

Which is why he should have never used a word that already meant something different.

[changed]

Every thing that is is made up of atoms. Do different atoms behave differently? Yes they do. Just as different molecules(Groups of atoms) behave differently.

I am well versed on the behavior of atoms - I write MD sims . Yes, of coarse different atoms create different atomic microstructures - repeating patterns produced by the nature of the bonds. Here's a book for you - link- if you do not yet recognize the difference between a microstructre that is produced based on atomic bonding, and microstructures that are created as information bearing entities... the difference between a pile of blank paper, vs. a pile of paper that has writing on it.... the difference between a computer that has been programmed, vs. one that has not.... it is clearly evident from the microstructure what has created it - and it was not created through mere atomic interaction potentials, that's why you don't see things like phase diagrams or MD sims to produce different DNA molecules for different species.

Of what intelligence is the hydrogen atom made up of?

I think you are missing the point - if a hydrogen atom behaves according to it's interaction potential - ie - you can create a MD simulation to show what microstructures it can produce etc. etc. then I would not worry about anything called "intelligence".... if however, you see something like this going on with the molecules link it is evident that spins/information was created by something other than atomic potential.

The Cambrian explosion took between 5 million and 10 million years to happen. A minimum of 20 times longer than humans have existed.

There is a reason it is called an explosion - link...

Repeat. Every THING that is is made up of atoms.

Take a bio-chem class. You'll find out the difference between living and nonliving things.

Just because it has Carbon, doesn't mean it's alive. Organic Chemistry is a well established field with phase diagrams, MD sims, nice and tidy reproducable experiements... Based on interaction potentials, environemntal changes, T, P, composition changes - can you predict what the next evolved species will look like? No? If DNA was a mere product of atomic forces, then you could predict the next evolutioanry step.

Loser's don't reproduce, they get eaten. Those that reproduce are the winners in the evolutionary sense.

This entire idea is talking about what a creature thinks - how they behave - how clever they are... do you see the difference between talking about structures made from things like atomic interaction potentials, vs. something that is made through conscience/intelligence/thought/mind/spirit? When I talk about steel - I don't tell people "there's no more of that type of steel around because it was not able to reproduce, it could not win a fight, or it was unable to adapt to it's surroundings.... "Mating rituals and practices" is a topic for liberal arts fields - for philosophy and psychology because it involves – not physical laws – but thinking patterns/beliefs etc. etc.

Do you understand the difference between the "physical sciences" vs. everything else?

evolution is not a physical science...

Physical Science: n. Any of the sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology, that analyze the nature and properties of energy and nonliving matter.

In other words, "physical science" is materialistic in nature - deals with matter, and energy, the laws of thermo, physics, chemistry, geology etc. etc. as opposed to "life sciences" where you have to deal with thoughts/motivations/conscience/beliefs ...

Comparing Darwin with Hilter ...

read this:

http://www.discovery.org/a/5159

it's pretty short... in their own words.

if you have more time, read "Descent of Man" and then read "Mein Kampf", and tell me they are not racist, and that "Mein Kampf" had nothing to do with Darwin's "Descent of Man".

Do memes have a spirit?

Sure, why not?

All we have and will ever have is ever-changing models which themselves "evolve".

not just changing models - a changing universe, and changing life. Does the principle of eternal progression anhiliate the possibility of ever coming to know the truth - the whole truth - and nothing but?

Edited May 27, 2013 by changed

[ERayR]

It's like facing two mirrors toward each other- all you get is an infinite regress with no power to really explain anything. I

All we have and will ever have is ever-changing models which themselves "evolve".

Have you ever thought that maybe an infinite regress may be correct.

[mfbukowski]

not just changing models - a changing universe, and changing life. Does the principle of eternal progression anhiliate the possibility of ever coming to know the truth - the whole truth - and nothing but?

Maybe it is a changing universe but it is still only models of it, that we can know.

What many do not understand is what all we as humans know is limited by what we CAN know. Scientific knowledge is even further limited to what can be expressed in words/math, meaning that one cannot ever get beyond verbal models. We will never see what gamma rays "really" look like because all we can achieve is some representation on a machine. What do radio waves "really" look like? There is no point in asking- but people still think they know what chairs and tables look like even though we cannot see atoms with our eyes.

And if we could would what we saw capture all that an atom "is"? Do what we see as color capture all that there is to say about the visible spectrum of light? Clearly not.

Unfortunately not all can be put into words. Compare eating a steak to what it says on the menu and you will see what I mean. Something always gets lost in the translation. The full richness of experience is always- and always will be- beyond what can be said about the experience.

"it's clouds illusions I recall- it really isn't clouds at all"

So should we mourn that? No, we just need to know that the REAL illusion is the illusion that we can know "things as they are" at all!

[mfbukowski]

Does the principle of eternal progression anhiliate the possibility of ever coming to know the truth - the whole truth - and nothing but?

It's not a question of knowing - it's a question of what our minds create from the inputs they have- in other words what we organize from matter unorganized.

And guess what? We are already doing that now. We will just get better and better at it!

If you want to call that "intelligent design" I have no problems with it- but what that means to me is that the intelligence that created evolution was Darwin's.

There is a real sense in which we humans create all we can know as humans- it comes from a human brain- and God himself is a human, so that still holds true there as well.

Edited May 27, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

All that humans can know came out of a human brain.

To me that is a tautology- I cannot understand why so many have trouble understanding that.

[halconero]

read this:

http://www.discovery.org/a/5159

it's pretty short... in their own words.

if you have more time, read "Descent of Man" and then read "Mein Kampf", and tell me they are not racist, and that "Mein Kampf" had nothing to do with Darwin's "Descent of Man".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

You've addressed several key points in your post above in the debate on the validity of the theory of revolution, some of your points are quite strong. This however, is the weakest attack. It does not really address whether or not the theory of evolution is true or not, but instead provides examples on how it has been used to justify horrible beliefs and actions.

The same has been done with the bible: The crusades, Slavery, Abuse of children and women, etc. That does not make the Bible false or true anyway, it just shows that it, along with most ideological material, can be used to justify good and bad.

A criticism I have, and maybe I misunderstood you, is that the theory of evolution should, but cannot predict the "next step" in the evolutionary process. This is not true. The Theory of evolution has been used multiples times to predict the mutation and change of microorganisms (particularly disease carrying ones) on occasion. This is not the only example, but a very obvious one.

[changed]

http://en.wikipedia....tio_ad_Hitlerum

You've addressed several key points in your post above in the debate on the validity of the theory of revolution, some of your points are quite strong. This however, is the weakest attack.

I think the racist implications of evolution are a strong attack, let me explain. Why does everyone view racism as an evil thing? We all view racism as evil because we all recognize that who we are is more than the matter that we are made up of - more than our DNA - more than the color of our skin or the color of our eyes. Who we are comes from our mind/conscience/spirit - that we are not a mere product of nature/nurture. To recognize that racism is bad, is to see beyond the material, and recognize the entity which is intelligence.... and once you recognize intelligence, you can see intelligent design.

Edited May 28, 2013 by changed

[changed]

it's a question of what our minds create from the inputs they have- in other words what we organize from matter unorganized.

Which is why it is so important to be careful about what we believe - because imaterial thoughts are quickly transformed into material realities.

If you want to call that "intelligent design" I have no problems with it- but what that means to me is that the intelligence that created evolution was Darwin's.

You can call this intelligence "God" or you can call the intelligence "Life". The point is to recognize that the universe is made up of more than matter and energy - it is also made up of information (read through the holographic universe ideas), and of coarse, if you understand a little of the information theories, you will recognize that information does not exist except there is another entity - intelligence - to understand, transmit, and produce it... Intellignce is a real entity, a creative entity that is responsible for arranging atoms as surely as atomic potentials can arange them. Intelligence is the stuff of life... "that which acts, and that which is acted upon", intelligence is the part of the universe that is able to act.

it comes from a human brain

I actually think it is more than just the brain - plants don't have a brain, but they do have a spirit. Our entire system is an elecrochemical powerhouse - it's not just our brain that produces our mental life - see this for instance:

Our emotional mood / disposition is controlled by more than just our brain - it's controlled by our entire body.

All that humans can know came out of a human brain.

We know what we become... walk a mile in another's shoes. Someone once asked me if the only way to know God was to become God, I think they might have had a point.

[mfbukowski]

Someone once asked me if the only way to know God was to become God, I think they might have had a point.

Brilliant post- Thanks!

And indeed THAT is the genius of Mormonism! This captures everything I first saw in the church which convinced me intellectually to follow this path and of course the "Spirit" confirmed it!

[thesometimesaint]

Darwin observed that conscience is what most distinguishes humans from other animals.