Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 30, 2013 Author Posted August 30, 2013 I'm not saying this is a valid form of argumentation. I'm saying just the opposite. Simply because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it must default to something we believe happened. This is essentialy why I created this thread. I think there is some holes we don't know everthing and just saying "Hey Macro evolution is the key" doesn't cut it. And that is were this idea that "faith" is required. A belief in an unknown.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 30, 2013 Author Posted August 30, 2013 Micro-evolution is a fact and works. The varieties in the plant and animal species attest to this. However, as hard as we have pushed in this area we have never been able to end up with a different kind than what we started with. We have made changes within but have not breached the limits of what made the animal what it is. Correct. I am unware of anything that has resulted in a different kind. You can point to the finches on the Galapagos Islands. But they are still finches. 1
ERayR Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 As a Saint I have faith that God used Evolution in Creation(Why stuff works). As a scientist I can not posit any God(How stuff works). Ps. Faith is evidence of things not seen. Science is what is seen. And so an unassailable position is carved out.
Brian 2.0 Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) Correct. I am unware of anything that has resulted in a different kind. You can point to the finches on the Galapagos Islands. But they are still finches. My beleif in macro evolution is not that I have seen an evolutionary move from one kind to another. Such an observation is obviously impossible for me to witness in my lifetime. But it's all of the little piece of evidence talked about (unused DNA sequencing, vestigital organs, fossil records etc etc) that are used to support macro evolution. They don't SHOW an evolution from one kind to another. But they point to it as a very plausible cause of speciation. And it's not looking at ONE piece of evidence (like a set of unsed DNA in humans), it's looking at all of those little pieces of evidence as seeing how they fit together. And they fall rather nicely into the model of macro evolution. It's like looking at a kid's "connect-the-dots" book and figuring out what the picture is of without actually connecting the dots. Say we think the picture is of a sailboat... talking about each individual dot doesn't actually help in convincing someone it's sailboat. "That's a dot... not part of a line drawing the bow of the boat." And if you look at just that dot, then you're right. But if you look at all the dots they seem to be forming a line to form the bow... and what's great about science throughout the years is we are actually getting more and more "dots" in our connect-the-dots picture to help us figure out what the picture is! And those dots are landing where we would think they would go in the theory! 100 years ago the connect-the-dots picture was pretty sparse on evolution... and the macro-evolution theorists postulated that if it was true we'd start finding dots here and dots there... and as DNA sequencing, fossil records, etc have come forward... we find those dots appearing where we thought they would! That's pretty good evidence that our theory that this connect-the-dots picture is what we thought it was... macroevolution. And we are NOT finding dots where they do not make sense (dormant feather dna in humans for example)! Which is pretty good evidence that we aren't just making up a connnect-the-dots picture of macroevolution where it's actually just a set of random dots on a page. If we are waiting for actual lines to be drawn between the dots before we will guess at what the picture is we may never get it. To me, that is the equivalent of asking to see evolution from one kind to another kind... it's crazy hard to "observe." You have to look at all the dots, make a model where you would expect to find more dots, and if dots start appearing there over time... you're probably on the right track. That is what has happened with the theory of macroevolution. And that is why I believe in macroevolution. Edited August 30, 2013 by Brian 2.0 2
Questing Beast Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 The reason you don't know of any is because whenever God is mentioned it is summarily rejected. If I were to reference Brigham Youngs statement that God brought Adam and Eve from another planet you would summarily dismis it. If I were to say God took the map of life and used it as a pattern, turn off portions he didn't want to use and turning on what he did want to use, You would summarily dismis it. In a words you will not consider anything that postulates that God had a hand in it. You then say that God used evolution to create man. Make up your mind. If you are going believe God had any connection with creation then to be consistent you have to accept that God may have used one of these other methods and the conclusions are possibly the result of biased interpretation of the data.I see, the medium of communication botches the observer/respondent's conclusion. Nowhere have I advocated for "God" not being intimately involved in Creation. I am a Creationist in that respect. I am not a biblical creationist by any means. I consider the Bible, and all that follows from it (including JS's religion) to be a "revealed religion" in the same sense that any insight or inspiration comes from "God" to the minds of human beings. We don't make this stuff up or inspire ourselves, "God" does it. That we then go ahead and misrepresent what "God" says is inescapable. And back in the times when the first biblical stories got "invented" we were "bronze age" savages. What exactly could a bronze age savage, no matter how intellectual, understand about God and the Creation? You agree that the Creation is technical in the most extreme definition of the word? No way is a bronze age savage a decent receptacle for technical information. We are hardly any better, but we are better equipped today to begin to understand some of the methodology by which "God" creates in the world of humans. I consider all of your possible "other" explanations to be equally valid, if science can show them as replicable theories. They don't have anything to do with literally believing "let there be light" and all that follows in Genesis....
thesometimesaint Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 No one yet has a good scientific explanation for the word "kind". http://mesk.stormloader.com/KindDef.html
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 The reason you don't know of any is because whenever God is mentioned it is summarily rejected. If I were to reference Brigham Youngs statement that God brought Adam and Eve from another planet you would summarily dismis it. If I were to say God took the map of life and used it as a pattern, turn off portions he didn't want to use and turning on what he did want to use, You would summarily dismis it. In a words you will not consider anything that postulates that God had a hand in it. You then say that God used evolution to create man. Make up your mind. If you are going believe God had any connection with creation then to be consistent you have to accept that God may have used one of these other methods and the conclusions are possibly the result of biased interpretation of the data.It's not dismissed because you mention God. God taking a map of life and using as a pattern is a plausible hyposthesis. Turning things on here off there. It makes sense. You could also use it to for certain hypothesis and then support or reject those hypothesis. If you actually took the time to do this you would realize that the DNA, fossil record, etc etc does not support this happening. God could have put many things into the DNA that would have disproven common descent. He didn't.
Questing Beast Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 My beleif in macro evolution is not that I have seen an evolutionary move from one kind to another. Such an observation is obviously impossible for me to witness in my lifetime. But it's all of the little piece of evidence talked about (unused DNA sequencing, vestigital organs, fossil records etc etc) that are used to support macro evolution. They don't SHOW an evolution from one kind to another. But they point to it as a very plausible cause of speciation. And it's not looking at ONE piece of evidence (like a set of unsed DNA in humans), it's looking at all of those little pieces of evidence as seeing how they fit together. And they fall rather nicely into the model of macro evolution. It's like looking at a kid's "connect-the-dots" book and figuring out what the picture is of without actually connecting the dots. Say we think the picture is of a sailboat... talking about each individual dot doesn't actually help in convincing someone it's sailboat. "That's a dot... not part of a line drawing the bow of the boat." And if you look at just that dot, then you're right. But if you look at all the dots they seem to be forming a line to form the bow... and what's great about science throughout the years is we are actually getting more and more "dots" in our connect-the-dots picture to help us figure out what the picture is! And those dots are landing where we would think they would go in the theory! 100 years ago the connect-the-dots picture was pretty sparse on evolution... and the macro-evolution theorists postulated that if it was true we'd start finding dots here and dots there... and as DNA sequencing, fossil records, etc have come forward... we find those dots appearing where we thought they would! That's pretty good evidence that our theory that this connect-the-dots picture is what we thought it was... macroevolution. And we are NOT finding dots where they do not make sense (dormant feather dna in humans for example)! Which is pretty good evidence that we aren't just making up a connnect-the-dots picture of macroevolution where it's actually just a set of random dots on a page. If we are waiting for actual lines to be drawn between the dots before we will guess at what the picture is we may never get it. To me, that is the equivalent of asking to see evolution from one kind to another kind... it's crazy hard to "observe." You have to look at all the dots, make a model where you would expect to find more dots, and if dots start appearing there over time... you're probably on the right track. That is what has happened with the theory of macroevolution. And that is why I believe in macroevolution. That got a rep point out of me....
cinepro Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) It's not dismissed because you mention God. God taking a map of life and using as a pattern is a plausible hyposthesis. Turning things on here off there. It makes sense. You could also use it to for certain hypothesis and then support or reject those hypothesis. If you actually took the time to do this you would realize that the DNA, fossil record, etc etc does not support this happening. God could have put many things into the DNA that would have disproven common descent. He didn't. That's one of the key points that the creator of that video fails to see. Scientists don't believe evolution because they have "faith" in it. They believe it because it is the best explanation for what they see. And it isn't just one part of "science"; it's scientists from many different disciplines that find it works equally well in many different areas. And it's not just "this is a way we're explaining the data". It's a way of explaining and learning more, and taking research into new areas and building upon the original theories. And, as per the scientific method, there are countless points in the theory of evolution that stand to be "falsified"; every day brings the new possiblity that a scientist somewhere could find something that contradicts the existing theories (i.e. a crocoduck). But that hasn't happened yet. Instead, we have a wide range of very specific evidences that have stood up to the scientific method again and again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ What is so incredible about each of those points is that they include a "potential falsification"; they actually say what kind of data could falsify that point, and what predictions that point encourages scientists to make. Edited August 30, 2013 by cinepro 2
cinepro Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) For those who are impressed with the arguments and "tactics" used in this video, I recommend another video, in which they use the same approach (loaded "gotcha" questions, man-on-the-street interviews with non-authorities etc.) against the LDS Church. The fun starts at about 5:15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vBdfoOxfI Don't miss the question at 12:12. And what copy of the Book of Mormon does KC have at 19:25 that has 2 Nephi in the middle of the book? And don't miss the exchange at 37:00. I'm surprised they didn't edit that out ("Didn't God create him?" "....that's right...yeah...") Edited August 30, 2013 by cinepro
danielwoods Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 My beleif in macro evolution is not that I have seen an evolutionary move from one kind to another. Such an observation is obviously impossible for me to witness in my lifetime. But it's all of the little piece of evidence talked about (unused DNA sequencing, vestigital organs, fossil records etc etc) that are used to support macro evolution. They don't SHOW an evolution from one kind to another. But they point to it as a very plausible cause of speciation. And it's not looking at ONE piece of evidence (like a set of unsed DNA in humans), it's looking at all of those little pieces of evidence as seeing how they fit together. And they fall rather nicely into the model of macro evolution. It's like looking at a kid's "connect-the-dots" book and figuring out what the picture is of without actually connecting the dots. Say we think the picture is of a sailboat... talking about each individual dot doesn't actually help in convincing someone it's sailboat. "That's a dot... not part of a line drawing the bow of the boat." And if you look at just that dot, then you're right. But if you look at all the dots they seem to be forming a line to form the bow... and what's great about science throughout the years is we are actually getting more and more "dots" in our connect-the-dots picture to help us figure out what the picture is! And those dots are landing where we would think they would go in the theory! 100 years ago the connect-the-dots picture was pretty sparse on evolution... and the macro-evolution theorists postulated that if it was true we'd start finding dots here and dots there... and as DNA sequencing, fossil records, etc have come forward... we find those dots appearing where we thought they would! That's pretty good evidence that our theory that this connect-the-dots picture is what we thought it was... macroevolution. And we are NOT finding dots where they do not make sense (dormant feather dna in humans for example)! Which is pretty good evidence that we aren't just making up a connnect-the-dots picture of macroevolution where it's actually just a set of random dots on a page. If we are waiting for actual lines to be drawn between the dots before we will guess at what the picture is we may never get it. To me, that is the equivalent of asking to see evolution from one kind to another kind... it's crazy hard to "observe." You have to look at all the dots, make a model where you would expect to find more dots, and if dots start appearing there over time... you're probably on the right track. That is what has happened with the theory of macroevolution. And that is why I believe in macroevolution. And the difficulty is that not one time has macro-evolution ever been demonstrated. What I mean is not one line moving from one major organism to another has ever been observed. I would find it more convincing if we had at least one to point to. Until that point, the evidence that supports stasis is more persuasive to me.
Brian 2.0 Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) And the difficulty is that not one time has macro-evolution ever been demonstrated. What I mean is not one line moving from one major organism to another has ever been observed. I would find it more convincing if we had at least one to point to. Until that point, the evidence that supports stasis is more persuasive to me. That's because in trying to show a "kind-to-different kind" of evolution, you simply can't "observe" it. It would take too long. And then in trying to show what you can "observe" it, it gets dismissed as being just evolution "of the same kind." It's an impossible request. And in regards to "major organisms" we aren't talking about moving from dogs-to-cats or chimp-to-human ("jumping branches" in the evolutionary tree). We're talking about a common ancestor. So you're asking about "observing" a common ancestor evolving to both a dog and a cat. That takes A LONG time, and we didn't have GoPro's set up in the prairie to produce a timelapse of it to show it. So we're stuck with looking at "dots". And we have a lot of those dots along those evolutionary branches. But that's obviously not good enough for people that want to see the "lines", who want to "observe" something evolving from one "kind" to another. So... we go to what we can observe evolving. We look and fruitfries and such and watch them evolving. We get to see that initial branch off point from a common ancestor! We observe a line being drawn! But that also isn't good enough, because it's just showing evolution "within a kind" of fruitfly. It's not showing something as great as going from "dog to cat". But... if you went back to the common ancestor between a dog and a cat, you'd get back to a common ancestor that doesn't look like either a dog or a cat. And if we "observed" the mutation that started the branch off that would eventually lead one branch to dog and the other branch to cat, you wouldn't accept it as evidence... because that evolutionary step would simply be evolution of the same "kind" of that common ancestor -- just like the evidences show from the fruitflies. There's no satisfying your request. This conversation happens over and over. Back to the connect-the-dots anaogy. We show you dots and you want to "observe" a line being drawn. We show you a line you can observe and you want it to be a longer line between further away dots. Well... that's just not possible to "observe", but we can show you a long string of dots along that line you want. But that's not good enough. How do you propose we can "observe" an evolution from one "kind" to another? Edited August 30, 2013 by Brian 2.0
BCSpace Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 Feb 2002 EnsignIt is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.http://www.lds.org/e...of-man?lang=eng This is fine. However appeals to GA's (or the bible for Protestants) and objections based on theology do not deal with the massive and ever growing evidence for evolution. The 1909 statement says nothing about whether or not evolution is valid vis a vis the doctrine. Evidence of that can be seen in the continuing debate between Talmadge and Roberts against the young JFS until the matter was settled in the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to all GA's. The Church has no position for or against evolution.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 The 1909 statement says nothing about whether or not evolution is valid vis a vis the doctrine. Evidence of that can be seen in the continuing debate between Talmadge and Roberts against the young JFS until the matter was settled in the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to all GA's. The Church has no position for or against evolution.Neither Talmage nor Roberts believed in evolution.
cinepro Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) The 1909 statement says nothing about whether or not evolution is valid vis a vis the doctrine. Evidence of that can be seen in the continuing debate between Talmadge and Roberts against the young JFS until the matter was settled in the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to all GA's. The Church has no position for or against evolution. I wondered if there might have been pre-Adamites. Then I read this comment from President Harold B. Lee, published in the Ensign at the time he was prophet: I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?” She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?” I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?” She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error. Find the Answers in the Scriptures Edited August 30, 2013 by cinepro
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 I wondered if there might have been pre-Adamites. Then I read this comment from President Harold B. Lee, published in the Ensign at the time he was prophet:Also important to remember that when Roberts and Talmage spoke of pre-Adamites they were talking about a separate creation that pre-existed before ours.
ERayR Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 That's because in trying to show a "kind-to-different kind" of evolution, you simply can't "observe" it. It would take too long. Kind of like Nancy Pelosi's take on Obamacare. You gotta pass the bill(accept it) to find out what's in it. When I was younger we used to call that "buying a pig in a poke".
ERayR Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 My beleif in macro evolution is not that I have seen an evolutionary move from one kind to another. Such an observation is obviously impossible for me to witness in my lifetime. But it's all of the little piece of evidence talked about (unused DNA sequencing, vestigital organs, fossil records etc etc) that are used to support macro evolution. They don't SHOW an evolution from one kind to another. But they point to it as a very plausible cause of speciation. Connect the dots for me from macro-evolution to the fall please. I just can not see how you get a fall from an ascention from a lower life form.
Brian 2.0 Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Connect the dots for me from macro-evolution to the fall please. I just can not see how you get a fall from an ascention from a lower life form. I'm afraid I'm the wrong man for this question seeing that I do not believe in the Fall. Therefore I have no problems or conflicts accepting macroevolution as the science lays it out.
ERayR Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 I'm afraid I'm the wrong man for this question seeing that I do not believe in the Fall. Therefore I have no problems or conflicts accepting macroevolution as the science lays it out. I can see how that might make it difficult to fill my request. Is there anybody else that can connect the dots from macro-evolution to the fall for me?
Questing Beast Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) Adam is the first "man", Eve the first "woman". They are different from earlier hominids. Those were not homo sapiens, so not "men" in the view of GtF. They could be a step along the way, or simply not part of this epoch we refer to as "dispensations" deriving from the Garden of Eden. What/where the "garden" was is immaterial. How long it stood, how long the "creative periods" were prior to that epoch, what and how many species of animals prior to the ones Adam named, etc., are all immaterial to the "dispensations" epoch we are part of, that we trace back to Adam and Eve through. So macro evolution if shown by science until all the blanks are filled in, thus "proving" it, does not contradict creationism, it elucidates it. Eventually creationism will be scientific, or it will die.... Edited August 31, 2013 by Questing Beast
cdowis Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 What other "rational interpretation" is there? Science is self-correcting. Religion is corrected BY science, it does not alter otherwise. Is there a third interpretation? I don't know of any.... As Dawkins himself declared, "the absence of imagination" is no argument. This was his reply when someone asked him how some particular feature on an organism had evolved. Now you are stuck with either accepting Dawkins statement, or firmly grounding yourself with "if I can't think of another explanation....". Here is the point. Science does not speak. It cannot talk, converse, reason. Scientists do the talking. They take data and come to a conclusion. It is important to understand the difference between a fact and a conclusion. So, we have many claims on what "proves" evolution. One of the favorite is the hierarchy of organisms -- the "tree" structure of organisms, with branches and leaves. Dawkins declares this to be his favorite argument as proof of evolution. But is it possible to find an ALTERNATIVE explanation? Well, using just a little bit of thought, I have found at least two alternatives. The hierarchy is a "fact" but the interpretation as proof of evolution is "opinion". Just a matter of additional research and the Dawkins statement on imagination.
Questing Beast Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 True. Other imaginative explanations for the variety and complexity of species are possible, always, but do they enjoy the same depth of confirmation? I doubt it. Right now macro evolution is interpreted based on a growing wealth of evidence from many different fields of science. Of course it isn't proven, and if anyone says "here's proof" he's mistaking the facts and using inaccurate terminology....
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 As a Saint I have faith that God used Evolution in Creation(Why stuff works). As a scientist I can not posit any God(How stuff works). Ps. Faith is evidence of things not seen. Science is what is seen.So we are on the same page finally- because macroevolution is not seen then it is faith. I totally agree.
Recommended Posts