Evolution And Mormonism

[ANACO]

You can use gospel concepts to determine the fallacy of some scientific conclusions. There was no death before the Fall. If one argues otherwise, then one has to undermine with that argument other gospel truths.

The Creation, The Fall, The Atonement and The Resurrection are not mutually exclusive of each other.

[shalamabobbi]

You may argue the conclusions of science until the cows come home, but you can't delete the data. As the old missionary illustration for the BOM illustrates. Draw one point and it contains innumerable lines, add another point and only one line passes between the two.

If you think you can create an alternate scenario that includes all the data into one harmonious model without invoking God creating false evidence have at it. I'll be the first to buy your book and give it a read.

Otherwise enforcing this dichotomy upon the minds of believers only results in proving the church to be false.

[blackstrap]

The evidence for evolution is incredible.I believe that literally. If God guided evolution through natural selection and random mutation,both highly destructive events, He is very wasteful and inefficient. The genetic and epigenetic codes shout design.Having read about the 600 generations of fruitflies experiment conducted by supposedly intelligent scientists in which they succeeded in producing a fly that would fly upward instead of downward,I am convinced.Evolution is proven.

[mfbukowski]

You can use gospel concepts to determine the fallacy of some scientific conclusions. There was no death before the Fall. If one argues otherwise, then one has to undermine with that argument other gospel truths.

The Creation, The Fall, The Atonement and The Resurrection are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Not sure if you are speaking to me or not.

Of course there could be no human conception of any "Fall" from sinlessness until there were people who understood sin.

Animals kill and eat each other but do you really think they contemplate their own death? Of course there could be no concept of "death" as we know it until there existed humans who could understand the concept and word, just as there could be no sin before humans understood sin.

Remember that sin brings death? That is what the story means. We cannot have one without the other. If there is no concept of sin or death, they do not exist as we know them.

[mfbukowski]

You may argue the conclusions of science until the cows come home, but you can't delete the data. As the old missionary illustration for the BOM illustrates. Draw one point and it contains innumerable lines, add another point and only one line passes between the two.

If you think you can create an alternate scenario that includes all the data into one harmonious model without invoking God creating false evidence have at it. I'll be the first to buy your book and give it a read.

Otherwise enforcing this dichotomy upon the minds of believers only results in proving the church to be false.

Is this meant as a reply to me?

I have no problem with the evidence for evolution, but I have no clue what your line story has to do with that.

[ERayR]

The entire problem is confusing the spiritual explanation with the scientific one. "What really happened" is unknowable anyway and pretty irrelevant.

I would agree with you except it bears heavily upon the fall and subsequent atonement.

[shalamabobbi]

Is this meant as a reply to me?

I have no problem with the evidence for evolution, but I have no clue what your line story has to do with that.

No. When I post w/o quoting it is a response to the post immediately preceding mine. I'll stop doing that.

The line is constrained by 2 points. Fitting the data with a model is about the constraints of the data..

[mfbukowski]

I would agree with you except it bears heavily upon the fall and subsequent atonement.

I have faith that it did happen, and a certain testimony that it did because it has been personally revealed to me by God- but none of us can know in a scientific sense- meaning that it is scientifically provable. It cannot be scientifically proven because science does not deal with these issues. There could be all the data in the world for the resurrection for example- let's pretend we go back in a time machine and actually take real photos of Jesus returning to life, and we take a doctor with us who certifies his death and return to life- that would still NOT prove that he took upon himself your sins and mine.

That is an entirely spiritual concept and has nothing to do with any measurable event- not even in principle.

[ANACO]

Not sure if you are speaking to me or not.

Of course there could be no human conception of any "Fall" from sinlessness until there were people who understood sin.

Animals kill and eat each other but do you really think they contemplate their own death? Of course there could be no concept of "death" as we know it until there existed humans who could understand the concept and word, just as there could be no sin before humans understood sin.

Remember that sin brings death? That is what the story means. We cannot have one without the other. If there is no concept of sin or death, they do not exist as we know them.

It was just a general statement.

No. There can be no sin until there's knowledge of right from wrong. Remember, little children cannot sin due to lack of knowledge.

Adam was told what was right and what was wrong - and thus given his agency - Moses 7:32 - great scripture.

Remember, the Fall includes both physical and spiritual death. Adam was given a choice to live forever or die by eating of the forbidden fruit.

When he did, Adam "fell" by becoming mortal and death came into the world. This affected the rest of the creation as Adam was appointed over it.

The world doesn't understand this because they only perceive with their eyes the world around them and then assume falsely that death had existed forever.

This can be countered by the Spiritual Creation (in Moses 2 explained in 3), where Adam and Eve were created last. Yet, in the physical creation, Adam was the first flesh upon the earth.

"

And I, the Lord God, had

d

created

all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the

e

ground

; for in

f

heaven

g

created

I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;"

There were no spiritual creation of intermediary evolved species. Moses 2:11-"yields after it's own kind."

Study those 2 chapters. Moses 2&3.

No. The Theory of Organic Evolution isn't supported by the scriptures. It's an interesting concept, but it's not correct.

Regards.

[shalamabobbi]

The evidence for evolution is incredible.I believe that literally. If God guided evolution through natural selection and random mutation,both highly destructive events, He is very wasteful and inefficient. The genetic and epigenetic codes shout design.Having read about the 600 generations of fruitflies experiment conducted by supposedly intelligent scientists in which they succeeded in producing a fly that would fly upward instead of downward,I am convinced.Evolution is proven.

Are we having a discussion? OK..

There are 435 papers on fruit fly experiments. All of them show evolution. You may be confused about the rate of change?

Let's accept your position that evolution doesn't happen for the sake of argument.

What are we now left with?

About a 3.6 billion year history of life upon the planet.

http://en.wikipedia....history_of_life

Let's suppose all this life was placed upon the planet from pre-existing life forms from elsewhere.

Would you care whether or not any of these life forms reproduced during all this time?

If so (strict interpretation of no death before the fall) then each and every life form was transplanted here individually during that entire time.

But we have a contradiction already since no death before the fall precludes the creation of fossils.

Are you happy with this picture of the data so far?

[shalamabobbi]

ANACO

Remember the tree in Lehi's vision? Do you take it to be a literal tree?

[ANACO]

Yes. The same tree is mentioned elsewhere in the scriptures.

Revelation 2:7, Revelation 22:14.

[ANACO]

Are we having a discussion? OK..

There are 435 papers on fruit fly experiments. All of them show evolution. You may be confused about the rate of change?

Let's accept your position that evolution doesn't happen for the sake of argument.

What are we now left with?

About a 3.6 billion year history of life upon the planet.

http://en.wikipedia....history_of_life

Let's suppose all this life was placed upon the planet from pre-existing life forms from elsewhere.

Would you care whether or not any of these life forms reproduced during all this time?

If so (strict interpretation of no death before the fall) then each and every life form was transplanted here individually during that entire time.

But we have a contradiction already since no death before the fall precludes the creation of fossils.

Are you happy with this picture of the data so far?

There is no evidence of one species evolving into another. There may be numerous varieties of fruit flies, but they're all fruit flies. They reproduced after their own kind.

Fossilization doesn't require millions of years. Soft tissue was found in several T-Rex.

Coelacanths have been found in fossils and also alive.

Regards

Edited August 28, 2012 by ANACO

[shalamabobbi]

Yes. The same tree is mentioned elsewhere in the scriptures.

Revelation 2:7, Revelation 22:14.

So it is a tree that gives eternal life rather than Jesus Christ?

[shalamabobbi]

ANACO,

Are you Jo?

There is no evidence of one species evolving into another. There may be numerous varieties of fruit flies, but they're all fruit flies. They reproduced after their own kind.

I conceded this for the sake of argument.

Fossilization doesn't require millions of years.

Fine I'll concede this as well. But you agree fossilization requires death?

Now you are going into gish-gallop mode..

Let me ask you this. Does a tree prior to the fall grow or does it not add rings each year in an immortal condition?

ETA:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/11/coelacanth-evolution/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Edited August 28, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[thesometimesaint]

There is no evidence of one species evolving into another. There may be numerous varieties of fruit flies, but they're all fruit flies. They reproduced after their own kind.

Fossilization doesn't require millions of years. Soft tissue was found in several T-Rex.

Coelenterates have been found in fossils and also alive.

Regards

That isn't what evolution says. It says that there is change with descent. That in isolated population changes accumulate, and that given enough time the two populations will not be able to reproduce together.

True, fossilization doesn't take millions of years for All fossils.

Not quite.

See

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein

1. Mary Higby Schweitzer1,2,3,*,
   
2. Zhiyong Suo4,
   
3. Recep Avci4,
   
4. John M. Asara5,6,
   
5. Mark A. Allen7,
   
6. Fernando Teran Arce4,8,
   
7. John R. Horner3
   

+ Author Affiliations

1. ¹ Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
   
2. ² North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA.
   
3. ³ Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA.
   
4. ⁴ Image and Chemical Analysis Laboratory Facility, Department of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA.
   
5. ⁵ Division of Signal Transduction, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
   
6. ⁶ Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
   
7. ⁷ Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA.
   
8. ⁸ Center for Nanomedicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
   

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: schweitzer@ncsu.edu
   

Abstract

We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time.

Who ever said that jelly fish weren't still alive? I don't get your point.

[ANACO]

That isn't what evolution says. It says that there is change with descent. That in isolated population changes accumulate, and that given enough time the two populations will not be able to reproduce together.

True, fossilization doesn't take millions of years for All fossils.

Not quite.

See

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein

1. Mary Higby Schweitzer1,2,3,*,
   
2. Zhiyong Suo4,
   
3. Recep Avci4,
   
4. John M. Asara5,6,
   
5. Mark A. Allen7,
   
6. Fernando Teran Arce4,8,
   
7. John R. Horner3
   

+ Author Affiliations

1. ² North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA.
   
2. ⁴ Image and Chemical Analysis Laboratory Facility, Department of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA.
   
3. ⁶ Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
   
4. ⁸ Center for Nanomedicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
   

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: schweitzer@ncsu.edu
   

Abstract

We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time.

Who ever said that jelly fish weren't still alive? I don't get your point.

There you go. "We propose..."

All discoveries lead to new propositions to a new variation of the theory of Evolution. What's so new about modifying the theory? The theory is absolute, but always changing!

http://www.talkorigi.../darwinism.html

Edited August 28, 2012 by ANACO

[ANACO]

So it is a tree that gives eternal life rather than Jesus Christ?

Why don't you ask your fruit flies.

[thesometimesaint]

ANACO:

Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory

Ever hear of the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Theory of Gravity?

[shalamabobbi]

I think a good analogy to help the initiate to understand the ToE might be to compare it to the Olympics. The surviving species and beneficial mutations are analogous to the world record holders. The rest of the population who don't make the Olympics or choose to compete is analogous to the mutations that aren't beneficial and the extinctions. One can see from the analogy that the process has stages and that there are eras of rapid change but in the end less change and improvement.

What's so new about modifying the theory? The theory is absolute, but always changing!

Like the theory of gravity.

A theory changes as necessary to describe additional facts. We can never get at the *truth* but the stubborn facts remain.

Like the fact that deep below the surface bacteria live that reproduce once every thousand years. Interesting fact. I wonder why given that the earth fell a few thousand years ago they are there? And how it is that some of them are so distinct from other known forms of life as to induce evolutionists to suggest that there might be more than one tree of life!

However, some bacteria have been found in rocks a kilometre underground, slowly digesting organic material without the aid of oxygen and dividing only once every thousand years or so.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life_terrestrial.html

Scientists don't know much about these deep-seafloor bacteria—they can't even be named yet, since their DNA doesn't match that of any known bacterial species, Røy said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120511-bacteria-microbes-slow-alive-life-oceans-science/

http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/05/17/94348/ancient_deepsea_bacteria_are_in_no_hurry_to_eat

[thesometimesaint]

Life will find a way if it is possible.

[shalamabobbi]

Life will find a way if it is possible.

Yes, like bacteria in Mono Lake that utilize arsenic in their DNA.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-12-03-microbe03_ST_N.htm

God made them "special" just for Mono Lake. But wait, Mono Lake didn't exist until after the global flood. So evolution made them special in just 4,000 years. But wait, we don't accept evolution!? The world is such a confusing place!

Must be a mystery, like the trinity and infinite regression..

[ERayR]

I have faith that it did happen, and a certain testimony that it did because it has been personally revealed to me by God- but none of us can know in a scientific sense- meaning that it is scientifically provable. It cannot be scientifically proven because science does not deal with these issues. There could be all the data in the world for the resurrection for example- let's pretend we go back in a time machine and actually take real photos of Jesus returning to life, and we take a doctor with us who certifies his death and return to life- that would still NOT prove that he took upon himself your sins and mine.

That is an entirely spiritual concept and has nothing to do with any measurable event- not even in principle.

I agree completely to what you have said here.

[ERayR]

Are we having a discussion? OK..

There are 435 papers on fruit fly experiments. All of them show evolution. You may be confused about the rate of change?

Yet by some miracle they remain fruit flies.

[BCSpace]

Absolutely. Why couldn't these details fit in with LDS doctrine? Why couldn't God use natural selection and random mutation to create?

I asked three questions because it is these questions that, given certain answers to them, might seriously put LDS theology in trouble.

There is no trouble whatsoever for LDS theology in accepting evolution.

1. If humans did evolve through evolution, what did God do? If we are made in the image of God, did God also evolve or why does he have the physical traits we have?

Could be various possibilities. The God's themselves evolving and pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and now having found a better path to Godhood via Atonement and utilizing evolution to create is one.

The whole evolution thing starts to look like a very manipulated process by God, but yet no explanation of what he actually did?

LDS doctrine is that there are no details on the creative process.

Did he start the ball rolling and created the mountain in such a way that he knew what way the ball was going to roll? Did he (and does he) kill some preys to predators can reproduce more or kills predators so the preys can reproduce more and affect the environment like that? Etc.

Sure. Or did He manipulate one chemical molecule in the far distant past that put homo sapiens at the pinnacle of evolution?

2. If Adam and Eve were NOT real people but symbols only for something else, what is one to make of the necessity of the Atonement and verses like 1 Corinthians 15:21,22?

I believe Adam and Eve have to be real people as per the doctrine. 1 Cor 15:21-22 does not preclude evolution as 2 Nephi 2:22 clearly separates the creative process from the finished creation and the placement into the garden state. The doctrine on D&C 77 in teh institute manual does something very similar by placing the context of all this at the point of the finished creation, not before.

How did whatever-the-symbol-for-Adam-and-Eve-are create the necessity for a LITERAL Savior? Clearly, Jesus Christ's sacrifice is not symbolic so, what did he died for?

I think you are assuming since I accept evolution that I must believe Adam and Eve to be symbolic. Let me be clear in stating that I accept the doctrine of the creation and the Fall and Adam and Eve AND claim that evolution, and indeed all science, does not conflct with LDS doctrine.

Let me also be clear that I am not arguing that evolution is LDS doctrine nor am I precluding creationism as a valid belief vis a vis LDS doctrine. However, whenever some does speak up in Church stating LDS doctrine precludes evolution, I am quick to speak up and point out this is not the case.

Edited August 28, 2012 by BCSpace