Human Evolution

[Brian 2.0]

The key phrase in your post is "working theory" --  when we don't know......  we pretend to know.

A scientific theory is not something "we don't know" it's not pure speculation in the laymans way of using the word "theory". It's not a hypothesis.

Any talk of "well it's just a theory" shows a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

This article needs to be auto-pinned to the top of every evolution thread because we go over it every single time

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[cdowis]

 

 

 

A scientific theory is not something "we don't know" it's not pure speculation in the laymans way of using the word "theory". It's not a hypothesis.

Any talk of "well it's just a theory" shows a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

This article needs to be auto-pinned to the top of every evolution thread because we go over it every single time

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.htmlIf

If you feel that we need to be educated on this, please summarize the salient point of the article and start a new thread.

Edited September 8, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Sorry, having technical problems with my computer.

[Freedom]

If you feel that we need to be educated on this, please summarize the salient point of the article and start a new thread.

Alternatively you could read the article to understand why you are mistaken. Have you come up with an alternative and viable alternative to evolution?

But here is one definition:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative

 

From wikipedia

[Rob Osborn]

A theory always works until it doesn't.   Few here would doubt the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity. But for some reason can't come to terms with the theory of evolution.

Well, when there is no actual evidence for human evolution it is a no-brainer. Y'all can believe we came from monkeys but I shall believe that my species has always been human throughout all existance of the universe.

[Freedom]

Well, when there is no actual evidence for human evolution it is a no-brainer. Y'all can believe we came from monkeys but I shall believe that my species has always been human throughout all existance of the universe.

Yes, your species has always been human. You are again demonstrating your ignorance of evolution by making such a comment. And no, no biologist would suggest we came from monkeys, this is another example of your blinding ignorance of the science.

 

And to suggest that there is no evidence of human evolution would suggest that we are all the same color, height, facial structure and resilience to infection. How, if we all came from Adam and Eve, can you explain that there has not been any evolution given the vast diversity of the human race on the planet?

[Brian 2.0]

Well, when there is no actual evidence for human evolution it is a no-brainer. Y'all can believe we came from monkeys but I shall believe that my species has always been human throughout all existance of the universe.

So do you believe homo-habilis and homo-erectus were "your species" or were they separate species that might have looked "human" but were not "human"?

[Rivers]

Well, when there is no actual evidence for human evolution it is a no-brainer. Y'all can believe we came from monkeys but I shall believe that my species has always been human throughout all existance of the universe.

We didn't come from monkeys.  Monkeys and humans are two modern creatures that commonly descended from ancient creatures (according to evolutionary theory).

[Rivers]

Yes, your species has always been human. You are again demonstrating your ignorance of evolution by making such a comment. And no, no biologist would suggest we came from monkeys, this is another example of your blinding ignorance of the science.

 

And to suggest that there is no evidence of human evolution would suggest that we are all the same color, height, facial structure and resilience to infection. How, if we all came from Adam and Eve, can you explain that there has not been any evolution given the vast diversity of the human race on the planet?

I once talked to a guy who once had trouble disbelieving evolution because of the diversity of peoples.  He said he later learned from someone else that this divirsity can be explained by God cursing people. 

[Tiki]

The Origin of Man

BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH

Ensign February 2002

It 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/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

[Rivers]

The "theories of man" is exactly what evolution is; theories that have only gotten stronger over time.

 

The Origin of Man
BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH
Ensign February 2002

It 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/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

The "theories of men" is exactly what evolution is; theories that have only become stronger over time.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Rivers

[guerreiro9]

Lucy is pretty complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

 

What we know of thermodynamics tends to argue against a God. OTOH we don't know very much at all.

 

Would you mind explaining what aspect of thermodynamics tends to argue against a God?  I have taken a number of thermodynamics courses including at a graduate level and am currently working on a number of thermodynamic systems and have seen nothing of the sort.

 

-guerreiro9

[Rob Osborn]

Let me correct my earlier statement. We disnt come frim monkey-like animals. Sorry to burst anyone bubbles but we truly are decendants of God himself.

[Rivers]

Let me correct my earlier statement. We disnt come frim monkey-like animals. Sorry to burst anyone bubbles but we truly are decendants of God himself.

So do you believe that Adam was born of God the Father in the same way that the rest of us were born? Edited September 8, 2013 by Rivers

[Freedom]

The Origin of Man

BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH

Ensign February 2002

It 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/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

The church is separating scientific theory from doctrine. From a doctrinal perspective, Adam is the first man. Likewise, from a doctrinal perspective Abraham is our father. Consider this quote:

 

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere...whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God

 

and this:

 

"Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology...to scientific research.

 

and this:

 

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

 

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

 

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

 

[Tiki]

The church is separating scientific theory from doctrine. From a doctrinal perspective, Adam is the first man. Likewise, from a doctrinal perspective Abraham is our father. Consider this quote:

 

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere...whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God

 

and this:

 

"Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology...to scientific research.

 

and this:

 

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

 

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

 

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

 

So you disagree with this phrase? That is, you believe Adam and Eve evolved from lower orders of the animal creation?

(Notice the operative word "creation" not "evolution" for lower orders of animals.)

"It 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."

[thesometimesaint]

At what point is a man a man?

[Freedom]

So you disagree with this phrase? That is, you believe Adam and Eve evolved from lower orders of the animal creation?

(Notice the operative word "creation" not "evolution" for lower orders of animals.)

"It 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."

Do you disagree with the other quotes I provided?

1) Adam was the first man/son of God/priesthood holder.

2) evolution is a theory of man - not a false theory, but not a gospel truth either.

These work for me.

[thesometimesaint]

Me too.

[cdowis]

Freedom

 

 

 Have you come up with an alternative and viable alternative to evolution?

 

My "working hypothesis" has nothing to do with evolution, but a reconciliation of the scriptural account of the creation with scientific findings.  I have tackled the interpretation of the scriptural account.

 

My project is to tackle the "common ancestry" side of things.  I have no problem with the mechanism of evolution itself, but its broad use by its proponents such as common ancestry.  Evolution just cannot "handle the load" of such applications, without waving the magic wand of evolution.

 

As I have mentioned in the Dawkins thread, the step by step process is unable to handle certain features of living creatures.  There needs to be an extension of evolution which tackles "quantum jumps" which are observed throughout nature.

 

Step by step just does not work in all situations.  It is a matter of "god of gaps" vs "the magic wand of evolution".

Edited September 8, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Please explain.

[cdowis]

Not sure what you mean.  

 

Specifically, are you proposing there are no unanswered questions in evolution theory?  Just a few minor things, dotting the i's and crossing a few t's.

Edited September 8, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Not sure what you mean.  

 

Specifically, are you proposing there are no unanswered questions in evolution theory?

 

Give us your hypothesis concerning Common Descent.

Common Descent(ancestry). 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

I've always claimed there are plenty of questions yet to be answered.

Edited September 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Brian 2.0]

Freedom

As I have mentioned in the Dawkins thread, the step by step process is unable to handle certain features of living creatures. There needs to be an extension of evolution which tackles "quantum jumps" which are observed throughout nature.

Step by step just does not work in all situations. It is a matter of "god of gaps" vs "the magic wand of evolution".

And in that other thread there were examples provided on how you could step by step certain specific features you provided. Your claim is that of irreducible complexity. And all the claims of different features being irreducible, examples have been shown of specific intermediary steps and how it actually is reducible. Edited September 8, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Rob Osborn]

So do you believe that Adam was born of God the Father in the same way that the rest of us were born?

Most definately. Why else would God need a wife other than their seed could continue into eternity.