Human Evolution

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Evolution means change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It means common descent. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by transitional organisms. Are you looking for a mercow as a transitional fossil between a cow and a whale?

 

If so I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed.

 

The fossil record is full specimens that show transitional features. And we find them exactly where we expect to find them as predicted by evolution.  I'll relate one such example. Until about 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish.  30 million years later we find the first tetrapods - ancient amphibians (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega). Neil Shubin of the university of Chicago wanted to find a transitional form from lobe finned fish to an early amphibian. Based on a date of 375 million years ago, the required freshwater habitat, Shubin identified Ellesmere Island in the artic ocean north of Canada as a site. After five years of digging they find a group of Tiktaalik roseae. Tiktaalik exhibits a flattened head with eyes and nostrils on top of its head like a salamander.  The fins are more robust and like early amphibians Tiktaalik has a neck (fish don't have necks). Tiktaalik also shows two other important traits. The first is a sturdy ribcage. Sturdy ribs are required to pump air into lungs. Second instead of many tiny bones in the fins of lobe finned fish, Tiktaalik had fewer and sturdier bones in its fin / limb. These bones are similar in number and posistion to all the land creatures that came after.

 

Again this is just one specimen.  It was found based on evolutionary principles which identified where to look. It is a true transitional form. 

[Brian 2.0]

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.

 

If I'm following your arguments correctly over these past two threads, you don't believe the fossil record CAN confirm movement from one species to another, correct?  It doesn't matter if fossil pops up of an unknown species that is directly in between two known species.  That fossil may LOOK like a transitional species, but that's the scientist connecting the dots.  There could be other explanations for that species existing other than evolution from the previous species.

 

Do you think there is any fossil record that could surface that would convince you of evolution from one species to another?

[pogi]

We are told that evolution works on the principles of genetic mutation which promotes a more fit organism for survival.  This mutated gene is then passed down from generation to generation.  We are told that these mutations are so minute that we would not be able to tell the difference from one generation to another.  I could understand how a macro mutation would promote survival, but I have a hard time understanding how a micro mutation would promote survival.  For example, we are taught that flight was an evolutionary survival tool.  I could see how a reptile giving birth to a bird might promote survival for the bird, but how could a species that is in the stages in-between reptile and bird promote survival.  It seems to me that it would be an awkward reptile and an even more awkward bird.

[thesometimesaint]

We are told that evolution works on the principles of genetic mutation which promotes a more fit organism for survival.  This mutated gene is then passed down from generation to generation.  We are told that these mutations are so minute that we would not be able to tell the difference from one generation to another.  I could understand how a macro mutation would promote survival, but I have a hard time understanding how a micro mutation would promote survival.  For example, we are taught that flight was an evolutionary survival tool.  I could see how a reptile giving birth to a bird might promote survival for the bird, but how could a species that is in the stages in-between reptile and bird promote survival.  It seems to me that it would be an awkward reptile and an even more awkward bird.

 

Evolution is the small genetic changes over time that allow more of a certain individual to reproduce. It isn't directly tied to survival of the individual. Say you had two children. One had no children, while the other had one. The one that had children would pass down their genetics, while the one that didn't have children wouldn't.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

We are told that evolution works on the principles of genetic mutation which promotes a more fit organism for survival.  This mutated gene is then passed down from generation to generation.  We are told that these mutations are so minute that we would not be able to tell the difference from one generation to another.  I could understand how a macro mutation would promote survival, but I have a hard time understanding how a micro mutation would promote survival.  For example, we are taught that flight was an evolutionary survival tool.  I could see how a reptile giving birth to a bird might promote survival for the bird, but how could a species that is in the stages in-between reptile and bird promote survival.  It seems to me that it would be an awkward reptile and an even more awkward bird.

Indeed what use is half a wing? The evolution of birds is one of the spottier records in the fossils. This is due to the fact that birds hollow bones don't fossilize very well.  In addition, feather imprints are exceptionally rare. Here is one potential narrative based on what we can tell from the fossil record:

 

Birds appear to be descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods (agile carnivorous dinosaurs that walked on two legs). We see lots of theropods gradually developing longer arms, which probably helped them grab and handle their pray. This kind of grabbing motion would favor the evolution of muscles that would quickly extend the front arms and pull them inward (also useful in the downward stroke of flight). The next step in the evolutionary development of modern birds appears to be feathers.  These feathers could have been an adaption to maintain body temperature. Discovered in only the last 20 years we have numerous theropod specimens that show lots of feathers.

 

The most likely scenario from here is the ground-up scenario which sees flight evolving as an outgrowth of open-armed runs and leaps that feathered dinosaurs might have made to catch prey. Longer wings might have evolved as runing aids. The chukar partridge uses wings in this fashion - it can even run up a 90° slope. Next would be short airborne hops that could help it flee from danger.

 

While we are forced (for now) to speculate on the details, the existence of transitional fossils show a steady procession from dinosaur to bird:

 

Just look at the Archaeopteryx above:

 

Archaeopteryx is really more reptile than bird. It has a jaw with teeth, long bony tail, claws, separate fingers on the wing, and its neck attaches to the skull from behind.  It is a true transitional form.

Edited September 12, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

Thanks for your explenations.

 

I think Cinepro raises an interesting question in post #95.  With the creation as a central part of Mormon theology, along with the fall and the atonement, I would be curious to hear your explenations of the creation story in view of evolution.  I want to see if it truly can make theological sense.  I have plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, but what theological or scriptural evidence do I have?  How does it jive with what we claim to know?  What spiritual implications does it have on our understanding? 

[Freedom]

A change in species occurs they can no longer pre-produce. This rule does not always apply, such as with organisms that reproduce asexually. There are species of seagulls that appear to be very similar in every respect other than the fact that they cannot mate. There are also seagulls that are so different in appearance that you would think they were of different species, yet they can still mate. Likewise, there are many examples of mosquitos that are virtually identical in every way except for the fact that they cannot produce offspring with each other. There are dozens of living examples of these transitional animals. Animals that are so similar in appearance and even genetics that you would assume that they are of the same species. Each of these species will evolve down their own path and since they cannot ever mate with each other, they will each develop different traits unique to themselves until they eventually become as dissimilar as humans are from apes. 

 

Because the change occurs so slowly and over so many generations, there is no such thing as a transitional creature. Likewise, if you read an essay, you would not be able to identify a transitional letter that signals the change from one idea to another. It is a combination of letters into words and a combination of words into sentences, and a combination of sentences into paragraphs that then produce a change in argument. Finding the one example of a transitional animal is like finding the one letter in the Book of Mormon that proves it is true, or the one atom in the cosmos that proves life exists.

[Freedom]

Thanks for your explenations.

 

I think Cinepro raises an interesting question in post #95.  With the creation as a central part of Mormon theology, along with the fall and the atonement, I would be curious to hear your explenations of the creation story in view of evolution.  I want to see if it truly can make theological sense.  I have plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, but what theological or scriptural evidence do I have?  How does it jive with what we claim to know?  What spiritual implications does it have on our understanding? 

There are many ways this can be answered. At one level, the creation story takes place over an undetermined length of time so it could well have spanned millions of years. At another level, the creation story is part of the temple ceremony - for anybody who has attended the temple it would be a very blatant mistake to take the messages literally. The temple teaches through symbols and imagery. Third, the creation story could be limited to the story of Adam and Eve and their little part of the world. for example, we can render it like this "in the beginning (it does not say of what, but since the climax of the story is Adam and Eve, we can reasonably assume it is talking about their lives) God created the heavens and the earth (the air and land space where Adam and Eve would live, or in other words, the garden of Eden).

 

Ultimately, the creation story has nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of the earth and the development of life, it has to do with covenants and ordinances.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thanks for your explenations.

 

I think Cinepro raises an interesting question in post #95.  With the creation as a central part of Mormon theology, along with the fall and the atonement, I would be curious to hear your explenations of the creation story in view of evolution.  I want to see if it truly can make theological sense.  I have plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, but what theological or scriptural evidence do I have?  How does it jive with what we claim to know?  What spiritual implications does it have on our understanding? 

Cinepro's point is excellent and it is a point that ERayR makes again and again. Evolutionary theory reaks havoc on traditional interpretations of the fall and the creation with potential implications for the atonement.  So much so that Bruce R McConkie lists it as one of seven deadly heresies. And yet the science and evidence for evolution gets stronger each year.  Many of the transitional forms that I linked to have been found very recently.  In addition as whole genome sequencing becomes more and more available the evidence keeps stacking up unabated as new avenues for exploring evolution are opened.  

 

Though a reconciliation is difficult it is not impossible. Steck Peck (a BYU biology professor) has outlined his attempt at reconciliation over 7 blog posts at bycommonconsent and is much more eloquent than I could ever hope to be about the subject. 

Edited September 12, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

Ultimately, the creation story has nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of the earth and the development of life, it has to do with covenants and ordinances.

 

Interesting theory, but I am having a hard time seing the metaphor.  My understanding from the temple is that covenants and ordinances didn't begin until after the 7th day when the creation was finished.  Is this your intellect speaking, or the prophets, or the spirit?  Because that is a very definitive statement, and doesn't give much room for the fallibility factor.

 

If the creation story has to do with covenants and ordinances, please explain the metaphor for me so I can understand.

Edited September 12, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

Cinepro's point is excellent and it is a point that ERayR makes again and again. Evolutionary theory reaks havoc on traditional interpretations of the fall and the creation with potential implications for the atonement.  So much so that Bruce R McConkie lists it as one of seven deadly heresies. And yet the science and evidence for evolution gets stronger each year.  Many of the transitional forms that I linked to have been found very recently.  In addition as whole genome sequencing becomes more and more available the evidence keeps stacking up unabated as new avenues for exploring evolution are opened.  

 

Though a reconciliation is difficult it is not impossible. Steck Peck (a BYU biology professor) has outlined his attempt at reconciliation over 7 blog posts at bycommonconsent and is much more eloquent than I could ever hope to be about the subject. 

 

Thanks for the link, I will be very interested to read it!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thanks for the link, I will be very interested to read it!

For a direct response to 2 Nephi 2 (as noted by CinePro) see part 5, although the earlier essays might be helpful to understand where Steve is coming from here.

[ERayR]

One last post and I am out as I feel this is a waste of time for me right now.  Micro-evolution is a fact and provable but IMO it doesn't translate into macro-evolution and all the evidences used as evidence for macro-evolution is evidence of micro-evolution with a healthy dose of imagination added.  To me the macro-evolutionary concept rejects the concept of God, The fall and the atonement.  I have developed a paradigm that has a place for the ancient technologies that macro-evolutionist have to ignore and ridicule and it allows room for God, The Fall and the Atonement andfor the geologic evidences.

 

With that I am out of here on this one. 

[Brian 2.0]

One last post and I am out as I feel this is a waste of time for me right now.  Micro-evolution is a fact and provable but IMO it doesn't translate into macro-evolution and all the evidences used as evidence for macro-evolution is evidence of micro-evolution with a healthy dose of imagination added.  To me the macro-evolutionary concept rejects the concept of God, The fall and the atonement.  I have developed a paradigm that has a place for the ancient technologies that macro-evolutionist have to ignore and ridicule and it allows room for God, The Fall and the Atonement andfor the geologic evidences.

 

With that I am out of here on this one. 

 

I understand you might be gone, so it's fine if you don't respond, but I don't totally see how ancient technologies throw a wrench into macro-evolution?  Why do they feel they need to throw them out?

[Brian 2.0]

Thanks for your explenations.

 

I think Cinepro raises an interesting question in post #95.  With the creation as a central part of Mormon theology, along with the fall and the atonement, I would be curious to hear your explenations of the creation story in view of evolution.  I want to see if it truly can make theological sense.  I have plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, but what theological or scriptural evidence do I have?  How does it jive with what we claim to know?  What spiritual implications does it have on our understanding? 

 

Here's how I think I reconciled them both during my believing days (this may be spotty as I only sort of thought about it)...

 

Evolution (macro and micro) happened as science generally lays it out.  There is death on the earth.  Adam and Eve, born separately of very human-looking people were born.  They were evolved to the point where God deemed them to be "human."  He took Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden (the whole Earth wasn't the Garden, just a place on Earth).  He caused a sleep to come upon them and it was here that He placed the spirits of Adam and Eve into these bodies (God could have placed them into those bodies at birth without much change to the rest).  When they woke they had no knowledge of "life outside the garden" because the spirits were just placed in these bodies.  He then had Adam and Eve partake of the Tree of Life, which caused them to be able to live forever.  He granted the eternal life in the garden -- no physical death, and no spiritual death as they are with God.  Eventually they partook of the forbidden fruit, angels with swords were placed on the Tree of Life so they couldn't partake of that fruit anymore, and they were kicked out of the garden.  This is the first time both physical and spiritual death were introduced to Adam and Eve as spirits embodied in bodies.

 

That seems to take both into account without throwing much out on either side.

 

I haven't thought through this as much as the blog post that were reference here (i haven't read those yet either), but this was my take on reconciling the two. 

Edited September 12, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Evolution is the small genetic changes over time that allow more of a certain individual to reproduce. It isn't directly tied to survival of the individual. Say you had two children. One had no children, while the other had one. The one that had children would pass down their genetics, while the one that didn't have children wouldn't.

 

 

That video is actually an repost from QualiaSoup who made it.  The original has actually been updated with some cool new graphics and little bit more stuff here and there.  I know you like to post this video now and then (and it's great), so i thought I'd point out the updated version of it.

 

[Freedom]

Interesting theory, but I am having a hard time seing the metaphor.  My understanding from the temple is that covenants and ordinances didn't begin until after the 7th day when the creation was finished.  Is this your intellect speaking, or the prophets, or the spirit?  Because that is a very definitive statement, and doesn't give much room for the fallibility factor.

 

If the creation story has to do with covenants and ordinances, please explain the metaphor for me so I can understand.

Here is one example. Consider the parallels between these two records:

1) Gen 1:31 'and God saw all that he had made and found it very good'. Exodus 39:43 'and when Moses saw that they had performed all the tasks as the Lord had commanded, so they had done' 

2) Gen 2:1 'The heavens and the earth were completed and all their array'.  Exod 39:32 'thus was completed all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting'

3) Gen 2:2 'God finished the work which he had been doing' Exod 40:33 'When Moses had finished the work'

4) Gen 2:3  'And God blessed...' Exod 39:43 'and Moses blessed them'

5) Gen 2:3 'and sanctified it' Exod 40:9 'and to sanctify it and all its furnishings'

 

The firmament is the veil, the tree bares fruit to eat, and it is eaten in the holy of holies or the garden of Eden. The cosmos are organized to serve as Gods temple, and they are portrayed for their function rather than their material origin. Deity rests in the completed temple and invites Adam and Eve (us) in to join him. In the temple, we gain knowledge and receive the sealing ordinances so that we can go out into the world prepared and safe.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

 

[cdowis]

Again, having technical problems.

[thesometimesaint]

Please explain.

[pogi]

Here is one example. Consider the parallels between these two records:

1) Gen 1:31 'and God saw all that he had made and found it very good'. Exodus 39:43 'and when Moses saw that they had performed all the tasks as the Lord had commanded, so they had done' 

2) Gen 2:1 'The heavens and the earth were completed and all their array'.  Exod 39:32 'thus was completed all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting'

3) Gen 2:2 'God finished the work which he had been doing' Exod 40:33 'When Moses had finished the work'

4) Gen 2:3  'And God blessed...' Exod 39:43 'and Moses blessed them'

5) Gen 2:3 'and sanctified it' Exod 40:9 'and to sanctify it and all its furnishings'

 

The firmament is the veil, the tree bares fruit to eat, and it is eaten in the holy of holies or the garden of Eden. The cosmos are organized to serve as Gods temple, and they are portrayed for their function rather than their material origin. Deity rests in the completed temple and invites Adam and Eve (us) in to join him. In the temple, we gain knowledge and receive the sealing ordinances so that we can go out into the world prepared and safe.

 

Thanks for sharing.  I can see how the earth itself could be a symbol for the temple, but I feel like there is so much more to this story. If the creation story is portrayed to teach us about function of temples rather than the material origin of the earth, as you say, what am I to learn about the function of temples from a story about the metaphorical material origin of the earth?  Is this simply a story to teach us how to build temples, because that's what the story is about?  It can't be about function, because man did not even enter the temple (earth) until after it was created.

 

Though there may be a couple superficial parallels, I am having difficulty finding any real meaning to the details of the story in relation to temples and their function.  First of all, the creation story was around long before Moses's temple, so if anything, the creation of temples is more of a representation of the creation of the earth than the other way around. 

 

I can find way too many holes in the metaphor for it to make any real sense for me.  Partly because this is not an isolated story, but it ties into a much larger story of the entire plan of salvation as laid out to us in the pre-earth life. The creation is just a small chapter in the larger story of the plan of salvation.  If I am to read the creation as metaphor, am I to take the entire plan as a metaphor as well, including the pre-earth life, the creation, the fall, the atonement, the millennium, post-earth life, etc.?

Edited September 13, 2013 by pogi

[Freedom]

No, the creation as portrayed in Genesis is a metaphor. The creation itself is not. Moses used the creation story as a way to present the temple ordinance, just as we today use the creation story in our own temple ordinance. The killing of Laban by Nephi is a metaphor, using a real life event to establish Nephi as King with its blatant elusions to King David. The major events recorded in the Book of Mormon are all metaphors for the grand exodus. They all have the same motifs - people in captivity, a prophet/leader leads them out of captivity to a promised land. The scriptures are not history or science books, the authors use real live events to teach gospel principles. It is important to note that the version of the creation in the temple is different than that in Genesis, and the wording is a bit different than that of Abraham. They are teaching different concepts. They exaggerate some aspects and leave out other aspects to present the message they want to portray. Joseph Smith did this with his various versions of the first visions - including some events and leaving out others to suite the message and the audience.

 

So we do not know how the world was created, other than the fact that God had his hand in it somehow. Genesis is using the creation story to teach gospel principles, explaining why we are here but not how we got here. If I were telling a story of sacrifice, I might tell you of a trip I made to Calgary. I would mention how I got there or who I stayed with, but I would stress the aspects of the story to convey the message of sacrifice. If I were telling a story of transportation problems, I would go into great detail of how I got to Calgary, how I got around, the all my observation of travel, but I would not mention anything about the sacrifices I made while in Calgary because they have nothing to do with transportation.

 

The creation did occur, the version in Genesis is not how it occurred, it is using the creation as a metaphor. If not, why would God provide all this evidence that contradicts the story?

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I never found evolution to be incompatible with faith for many reason which I won't get into. I have found that many if not most athiests use the bible to support athiesim and use "God's a horrible sadist" arguement many times over. I can honestly respect one who questions the existence of a god or supreme being in a quest for knowledge or enlightment. However when I've seen in-depth inter views with Michael Shermer (?) The Skeptic, his basic reasoning was someone close to him died a painfull death. I don't think ad hominem attacks or anecdotal eveindence are the best arguement, I have to state just about evry athiest I've met uses the old argument that if there's a God bad things wouldn't happen. They use the same unscientific arguement to scientifically make thier arguement.

[Stone holm]

I never found evolution to be incompatible with faith for many reason which I won't get into. I have found that many if not most athiests use the bible to support athiesim and use "God's a horrible sadist" arguement many times over. I can honestly respect one who questions the existence of a god or supreme being in a quest for knowledge or enlightment. However when I've seen in-depth inter views with Michael Shermer (?) The Skeptic, his basic reasoning was someone close to him died a painfull death. I don't think ad hominem attacks or anecdotal eveindence are the best arguement, I have to state just about evry athiest I've met uses the old argument that if there's a God bad things wouldn't happen. They use the same unscientific arguement to scientifically make thier arguement.

 

I too have never found evolution to be incompatible with faith, nor am I real big on metaphors.  Too often we spin things off as metaphors which were real events, and real events (stuff happens) recorded in the Scriptures as if it were a metaphor.  We all have to sift through the pile to determine what is sensible and true, and what is just spin and nonsense.  That sounds like an easy task, but it is not.  It doesn't help that some insist on turning this beautiful multi-colored world and universe into a black and white TV show.

[cinepro]

I never found evolution to be incompatible with faith for many reason which I won't get into. I have found that many if not most athiests use the bible to support athiesim and use "God's a horrible sadist" arguement many times over. I can honestly respect one who questions the existence of a god or supreme being in a quest for knowledge or enlightment. However when I've seen in-depth inter views with Michael Shermer (?) The Skeptic, his basic reasoning was someone close to him died a painfull death. I don't think ad hominem attacks or anecdotal eveindence are the best arguement, I have to state just about evry athiest I've met uses the old argument that if there's a God bad things wouldn't happen. They use the same unscientific arguement to scientifically make thier arguement.

 

I'm not an atheist, but every atheist I've known has expressed their lack of a belief in God as being based on a lack of evidence (or the perceived weakness of the arguments and evidence believers present in support of their belief).

 

They also usually point out that there is no "argument" (anecdotal, ad hominem or otherwise) against the existence of a god.  Obviously, anyone's idea of what a god is or isn't can be easily changed to accommodate whatever situation arises (sick relative, holocaust, happy evil people, etc.)  So there is no way to prove a god (or anything else) doesn't exist.  They can only look at the claims and evidence presented and judge whether or not it is sufficient for the claim.

 

So you might believe you have listened to "many if not most" atheists, but I suspect your level of comprehension has been quite low if that is what you think they were saying.