Human Evolution

[thesometimesaint]

So if you set aside scripture/prophets/personal revelation and just went with scientific evidences, would you view evolution as the best model, though incomplete, for explaining the fossil record and speciation? Or do you see another explanation? Or would you say it's all just guessing as there isn't physical evidence to answer that question enough to have a theory?

I know I'm asking for a hypothetical as you obviously do take into account scripture and revelation in your process, but say you had to write a scientific paper on it and couldn't use those sources... would you purport any other theory besides evolution?

 

Science by definition can't posit any God or Godlike force. So no I couldn't.

[cdowis]

So if you set aside scripture/prophets/personal revelation and just went with scientific evidences, would you view evolution as the best model, though incomplete, for explaining the fossil record and speciation? Or do you see another explanation? Or would you say it's all just guessing as there isn't physical evidence to answer that question enough to have a theory?

I know I'm asking for a hypothetical as you obviously do take into account scripture and revelation in your process, but say you had to write a scientific paper on it and couldn't use those sources... would you purport any other theory besides evolution?

 

My "working hyothesis" is an attempt to reconcile evolution with the story of the creation.  So evolution is the default position, even though I see it as incomplete. 

 

So, again, I have no problem with evolution as a mechanism except as mentioned above (quantum leaps).  I see nothing that would replace it.

[cdowis]

I figure the Gods evolved, and that pretty much takes care of both sides of the debate for me. ("Eternal progression" applied to the biological realm!)

For anyone interested, a good primer on evolution which I often recommend is Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

 

"By examining fossils and DNA, he shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our heads are organized like long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genomes look and function like those of worms and bacteria"  Amazon.

 

I see this as a function of designing multiple products -- the concept of re-using (replicating) designs in one "product" or creature with other similar products.  The lawnmower has features found in the automobile, and even the jet engine. 

 

This is an alternative to uniquely designing (one-off design) of each product, starting from scratch so to speak.  It is an illusion of evolution, and for all practical purposes, it is evolution.  So we could say that the jet engine evolved from the small engine.

Edited September 10, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

"By examining fossils and DNA, he shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our heads are organized like long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genomes look and function like those of worms and bacteria"  Amazon.

 

I see this as a function of designing multiple products -- the concept of re-using (replicating) designs in one "product" or creature with other similar products.  The lawnmower has features found in the automobile, and even the jet engine. 

 

This is an alternative to uniquely designing (one-off design) of each product, starting from scratch so to speak.  It is an illusion of evolution, and for all practical purposes, it is evolution.  So we could say that the jet engine evolved from the small engine.

 

More in rhetorical sense of the word. Non-living things don't evolve(They can't reproduce). But change they do.

[cinepro]

"By examining fossils and DNA, he shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our heads are organized like long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genomes look and function like those of worms and bacteria"  Amazon.

 

I see this as a function of designing multiple products -- the concept of re-using (replicating) designs in one "product" or creature with other similar products.  The lawnmower has features found in the automobile, and even the jet engine. 

 

This is an alternative to uniquely designing (one-off design) of each product, starting from scratch so to speak.  It is an illusion of evolution, and for all practical purposes, it is evolution.  So we could say that the jet engine evolved from the small engine.

 

If your theory was correct, then it could totally invalidate the theory of evolution by resulting in incongruent parts being found across the animal kingdom. 

 

It's not just the "parts", but also the time and order in which those parts evolved.

[ERayR]

I know I'm asking for a hypothetical as you obviously do take into account scripture and revelation in your process, but say you had to write a scientific paper on it and couldn't use those sources... would you purport any other theory besides evolution?

 

That is like trying to drive a car with only two wheels. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If your theory was correct, then it could totally invalidate the theory of evolution by resulting in incongruent parts being found across the animal kingdom. 

 

It's not just the "parts", but also the time and order in which those parts evolved.

This is exactly correct. If God was just exchanging parts, bats would have feathers and whales would have gills. A rhino horn wouldn't be made out of hair, but would be more similar to a sheep's horn. Evolution works with the parts it has available.  

[ERayR]

This is exactly correct. If God was just exchanging parts, bats would have feathers and whales would have gills. A rhino horn wouldn't be made out of hair, but would be more similar to a sheep's horn. Evolution works with the parts it has available.  

 

I think you don't give God credit for knowing what he is doing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think you don't give God credit for knowing what he is doing.

And I don't think you give God credit for what he actually did.

[ERayR]

And I don't think you give God credit for what he actually did.

 

It is not me who is locking him out of the process.  I give him much more credit and involvement than to macro-evolutionists.  I also do not advocate a process that would negate the atonement.

 

Look it is not as if God was starting from scratch.  Transplants are much simpler.

Edited September 11, 2013 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is not me who is locking him out of the process. I give him much more credit and involvement than to macro-evolutionists. I also do not advocate a process that would negate the atonement.

And I only advocate for the way he actually choose to create us. I do not pass judgement that he was not involved enough in the process.

[ERayR]

And I only advocate for the way he actually choose to create us. I do not pass judgement that he was not involved enough in the process.

 

Which you have no way of knowing unless you are claiming to have received revelation on the subject.   Someone is always saying the simplest answer is the correct one.  How about this. 

 

Look it is not as if God was starting from scratch.  Transplants are much simpler and accounts for the data that macro-evolutionists have to ignore and dismiss..

Edited September 11, 2013 by ERayR

[Brian 2.0]

That is like trying to drive a car with only two wheels. 

 

I understand but it's good to get clear what grounds we're debating on.  Good to know if we're talking about how evolution doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective alone, or if it doesn't make sense from a scientific and scriptural perspective combined. 

[ERayR]

I understand but it's good to get clear what grounds we're debating on.  Good to know if we're talking about how evolution doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective alone, or if it doesn't make sense from a scientific and scriptural perspective combined. 

 

I understand and cdowis has some pretty good points where it doesn't make sense.  Where do anomalous artifacts fit?

[cdowis]

I am making a simple proposal -- some of the evidence for common ancestor (evolution) can have an alternative explanation which points to an intelligent designer.  If there is someone who can refute this proposal, I would be very interested.

Unfortunately, much of the technical nuts and bolts of evolution (genetics) is beyond my formal training so some of my ideas may be naive.  I think I will do something about that deficiency.

[thesometimesaint]

Just for fun, here's a great article about Intelligent Design on the LDS Science Review Blog:

 

Why I Still Dislike Intelligent Design

 

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

I understand and cdowis has some pretty good points where it doesn't make sense.  Where do anomalous artifacts fit?

 

They don't. So far all have succumed to the Argument from Ignorance.

[thesometimesaint]

I am making a simple proposal -- some of the evidence for common ancestor (evolution) can have an alternative explanation which points to an intelligent designer.  If there is someone who can refute this proposal, I would be very interested.

Unfortunately, much of the technical nuts and bolts of evolution (genetics) is beyond my formal training so some of my ideas may be naive.  I think I will do something about that deficiency.

 

So far every science based argument for ID(Creationism) has been refuted.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Which you have no way of knowing unless you are claiming to have received revelation on the subject.   Someone is always saying the simplest answer is the correct one.  How about this. 

 

Look it is not as if God was starting from scratch.  Transplants are much simpler and accounts for the data that macro-evolutionists have to ignore and dismiss..

Evolution is true in the same way that atomic theory and germ theory are true.  All of these theories require faith, but it is not a religious faith, but more of a philosophical faith that we are not in Plato's cave or situated in the matrix.

 

If God transplanted us, he sure went through a lot of trouble creating a fossil record, dna, etc etc entirely consistent with evolution.

[cinepro]

Here's another problem I have with evolution vs. LDS Doctrine.

 

The scriptures teach that God created the Earth and then rested after that creation was finished:

 

 

 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

Genesis 2

 

This is further clarified in 2 Nephi:

 

 

 

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 

2 Nephi 2:22

 

So if God used evolution to create the different forms of life on Earth (Intelligent Design), then what does it mean if evolution has continued to this day, and will continue into the future?  In other words, since the creation was brought about by evolution, and plants and animals are still evolving, then we are still being created, and  we are therefore still in the sixth "day" of creation. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by cinepro

[pogi]

At what point is a man a man?

 

That's a better question for this guy -

[ERayR]

Here's another problem I have with evolution vs. LDS Doctrine.

 

The scriptures teach that God created the Earth and then rested after that creation was finished:

 

 

 

This is further clarified in 2 Nephi:

 

 

 

 

So if God used evolution to create the different forms of life on Earth (Intelligent Design), then what does it mean if evolution has continued to this day, and will continue into the future?  In other words, since the creation was brought about by evolution, and plants and animals are still evolving, then we are still being created, and  we are therefore still in the sixth "day" of creation. 

 

A good question but then you havn't been listening.  God had nothing to do with it and there was no fall. 

[cdowis]

If God transplanted us, he sure went through a lot of trouble creating a fossil record, dna, etc etc entirely consistent with evolution.

 

ONCE AGAIN, depends on what you mean  by "evolution".

 

For example, tell us how the fossil record confirms transitional organisms -- moving from one species to another.  We have already discussed DNA, unless you have something to add.

Edited September 12, 2013 by cdowis

[Freedom]

If we are to reject evolution on religious grounds, then we must be able to produce a passage in the scriptures that teaches intelligent design. I do not know of one.

[thesometimesaint]

ONCE AGAIN, depends on what you mean  by "evolution".

 

For example, tell us how the fossil record confirms transitional organisms -- moving from one species to another.  We have already discussed DNA, unless you have something to add.

 

http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

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

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html