Adam And The Apes

[changed]

changed, on 07 Jan 2014 - 9:22 PM, said:

in other words. Joseph Smith was a fan of panspermia, I'm a fan of that too.

Here I thought that Adam and Eve were made out of the dust of the ground. Then God breathed into Adam the breath of life. But it was really that they were immortal space aliens who after being tempted by a talking snake into eating a special fruit changed to became mortal.

Don't knock panspermia - it's a better explanation of the Cambrian explosion than evolution is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-XWAXe4xJg

In any event, no one commented on my earlier quibble with the materialistic view of evolution... if it is not driven by a spirit/intelligence/free will - if is it a purely mechanical process, then what do they think the difference between living and non-living entities are?  Why don't rocks evolve?  A chunk of copper now has the exact same microstructure as a chunk of copper a billion years ago, and as a chunk in another billion years - nonliving things don't evolve.... (the interatomic potentials and bonding forces between atoms do not evolve, physical constants are well... constant... so the non-living structures they produce are also... well... constant...)  and here I thought "good" science was supposed to be repeatable... in the non-living world, we can view "repeatable" constant structures... so what's all this non-repeatable stuff going on? the atomic interaction potentials have not changed with time, so what has?

Edited January 11, 2014 by changed

[Rob Osborn]

The origins of life are a scientific concern. Just not a concern of evolution. Abiogenesis concerns itself with the chemistry of organic compounds that are not yet life as we know it. It does not consider any God or Godlike force, and can not by definition.

You keep saying that but yet every biology class, biology textbook, etc, that has to do with evolution goes into discussion on the origins of life. Think what you want but the origins of life very much is indeed a foundational aspect of evolutionary theory.

[Freedom]

But if God made the laws, then isn't that controlling every atom all the time?  Not just the origin of life, but the origin of the fine tuned laws of the universe, I think that is where you can start seeing God...

 

Well, God did not make the laws. They existed before he was God. But the point is, there is a difference between setting something in motion and controlling every movement. Mortal organisms develop through evolution. At least this is the method our God used. 

[Freedom]

You keep saying that but yet every biology class, biology textbook, etc, that has to do with evolution goes into discussion on the origins of life. Think what you want but the origins of life very much is indeed a foundational aspect of evolutionary theory.

 

Gosh you are suborn. My history teacher mentioned plants once, therefore he must be a biologist. My mother mentioned pluto once, therefore she must be from outer space. You have a serious flaw in your logic. Evolution starts after life begins. We do not know how life began because it cannot be observed. We know how evolution works because it can be observed. 

[Freedom]

Don't knock panspermia - it's a better explanation of the Cambrian explosion than evolution is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-XWAXe4xJg

In any event, no one commented on my earlier quibble with the materialistic view of evolution... if it is not driven by a spirit/intelligence/free will - if is it a purely mechanical process, then what do they think the difference between living and non-living entities are?  Why don't rocks evolve?  A chunk of copper now has the exact same microstructure as a chunk of copper a billion years ago, and as a chunk in another billion years - nonliving things don't evolve.... (the interatomic potentials and bonding forces between atoms do not evolve, physical constants are well... constant... so the non-living structures they produce are also... well... constant...)  and here I thought "good" science was supposed to be repeatable... in the non-living world, we can view "repeatable" constant structures... so what's all this non-repeatable stuff going on? the atomic interaction potentials have not changed with time, so what has?

last time I looked, copper does not have sex, therefore it does not produce offspring. There is also the whole issue of dna. organisms, which containt copper, do evolve.

[Rob Osborn]

-

Gosh you are suborn. My history teacher mentioned plants once, therefore he must be a biologist. My mother mentioned pluto once, therefore she must be from outer space. You have a serious flaw in your logic. Evolution starts after life begins. We do not know how life began because it cannot be observed. We know how evolution works because it can be observed.

I'm not stubborn, I am just trying to explain the truth. What is that truth? That evolution and how life first evolved are parts of the same theory covered by evolution. I don't see you calling the zoology department at Berkeley stubborn or stupid on the matter. So are they idiots too

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

Just answer me why they say that the origins of life is part of evolution if it is as you say not part of it. Who am I supposed to believe- you on this board or a very notable and prestigious university?

[changed]

last time I looked, copper does not have sex, therefore it does not produce offspring. There is also the whole issue of dna. organisms, which containt copper, do evolve.

I think you missed my point... DNA is created from atoms, just like anything else, atoms which interact with one another through constant interaction potentials, and therefore should produce a constant structure under a given pressure and temperature. 

 

 

Well, God did not make the laws. They existed before he was God. But the point is, there is a difference between setting something in motion and controlling every movement. Mortal organisms develop through evolution. At least this is the method our God used. 

 

How do you know God did not make the physical laws?  Cause and effect, setting something in motion is controlling every movement.... we have free agency because God did not "set us in motion", .. not created or made, here is the agency of man - DC 93:29-31

The universe has two basic building components:

1.) that which acts

2.) that which is acted upon

There is nothing wrong with making laws to dictate the behaviors of uninhabited matter imo.

 

Edited January 11, 2014 by changed

[Stone holm]

I think you missed my point... DNA is created from atoms, just like anything else, atoms which interact with one another through constant interaction potentials, and therefore should produce a constant structure under a given pressure and temperature. 

 

 

 

How do you know God did not make the physical laws?  Cause and effect, setting something in motion is controlling every movement.... we have free agency because God did not "set us in motion", .. not created or made, here is the agency of man - DC 93:29-31

The universe has two basic building components:

1.) that which acts

2.) that which is acted upon

There is nothing wrong with making laws to dictate the behaviors of uninhabited matter imo.

What is uninhabited matter? Are you saying that there is matter which does not have intelligence?

[cdowis]

So, even if life was transported here from somewhere else full formed evolution is still true? Is that what you are getting at?

 

It would not change the theory.  This has nothing to do with whether it is "true".

[cdowis]

You keep saying that but yet every biology class, biology textbook, etc, that has to do with evolution goes into discussion on the origins of life. Think what you want but the origins of life very much is indeed a foundational aspect of evolutionary theory.

 

May I suggest that you take a basic class in logic, with an emphasis on conclusions drawn on flawed logic.

 

Think about it ==>>

 

How would a change in abiogenesis effect a change in the process of evolution.  While they are related topics, they stand independent of each other.  Panspermia, for example, neither proves not disproves evolution.  It merely changes the narrative of evolution from one celled organisms to something else.

Edited January 11, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

 

Thank you.  I have been looking for this for many years, because it often describes the process of evolution.

 

Whenever I see an explanation on how something evolves, there is no step by step explanation, but there is often a gap (I call it the "quantum leap") in the process of evolution.  My feeling is that if there be a missing link in the chain of explanation, then it is pure speculation, or.... can I say it... faith or belief in the end result.

 

There are several threads on this point, but if you want to start another one on this, feel free.  I can easily give you examples.  You might start http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61312-dowis-refutes-dawkins/

Edited January 11, 2014 by cdowis

[halconero]

You keep saying that but yet every biology class, biology textbook, etc, that has to do with evolution goes into discussion on the origins of life. Think what you want but the origins of life very much is indeed a foundational aspect of evolutionary theory.

 

I don't enjoy tooting my own horn, but for the sake of this thread I'll say this:

 

As a 4.0 student in the top school in Canada (ranked 8th in the World for sciences) majoring in Biological Anthropology, with a minor in Immunology (the other is Religion: Early Christianity for interest's sake), as well as being a copious note taker, textbook analyzer, and lecturer listener I can assure you that 90% of my classes, and textbooks do not address the origin of life in the least bit. They discuss the processes of allele frequencies, causes of mutation, the selecting factors from environmental pressures, and the effects Mendelian traits and how they are expressed both phenotypically and genotypically. I'm not saying this to show you how utterly brilliant I am, but just to drive home the point that I've taken a LOT of classes on biology and evolution, and so far only one of that has discussed in the minutest detail the origins of life.

 

Evolution presents a framework for how genetics change from generation to generation, it does not address the origins of life or how the the first prokaryotic cells came into being.

 

The moment you said that EVERY biology class, textbook or topic that has to do with evolution discusses the origin of life demonstrates that you probably have a lack of recent experience with biology classes.

 

I guess I just have two examples for you:

 

1) Do you believe genetic material experiences mutation.

 

2) Do you believe that certain physical traits are more suited for particular environments?

Edited January 11, 2014 by halconero

[teddyaware]

I don't enjoy tooting my own horn, but for the sake of this thread I'll say this:

 

As a 4.0 student in the top school in Canada (ranked 8th in the World for sciences) majoring in Biological Anthropology, with a minor in Immunology (the other is Religion: Early Christianity for interest's sake), as well as being a copious note taker, textbook analyzer, and lecturer listener I can assure you that 90% of my classes, and textbooks do not address the origin of life in the least bit. They discuss the processes of allele frequencies, causes of mutation, the selecting factors from environmental pressures, and the effects Mendelian traits and how they are expressed both phenotypically and genotypically. I'm not saying this to show you how utterly brilliant I am, but just to drive home the point that I've taken a LOT of classes on biology and evolution, and so far only one of that has discussed in the minutest detail the origins of life.

 

Evolution presents a framework for how genetics change from generation to generation, it does not address the origins of life or how the the first prokaryotic cells came into being.

 

The moment you said that EVERY biology class, textbook or topic that has to do with evolution discusses the origin of life demonstrates that you probably have a lack of recent experience with biology classes.

 

I guess I just have two examples for you:

 

1) Do you believe genetic material experiences mutation.

 

2) Do you believe that certain physical traits are more suited for particular environments?

10% is not an inconsequential number.

[halconero]

Fair enough, let me go on blackboard and look at the exact number.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't enjoy tooting my own horn, but for the sake of this thread I'll say this:

 

As a 4.0 student in the top school in Canada (ranked 8th in the World for sciences) majoring in Biological Anthropology, with a minor in Immunology (the other is Religion: Early Christianity for interest's sake), as well as being a copious note taker, textbook analyzer, and lecturer listener I can assure you that 90% of my classes, and textbooks do not address the origin of life in the least bit. They discuss the processes of allele frequencies, causes of mutation, the selecting factors from environmental pressures, and the effects Mendelian traits and how they are expressed both phenotypically and genotypically. I'm not saying this to show you how utterly brilliant I am, but just to drive home the point that I've taken a LOT of classes on biology and evolution, and so far only one of that has discussed in the minutest detail the origins of life.

 

Evolution presents a framework for how genetics change from generation to generation, it does not address the origins of life or how the the first prokaryotic cells came into being.

 

The moment you said that EVERY biology class, textbook or topic that has to do with evolution discusses the origin of life demonstrates that you probably have a lack of recent experience with biology classes.

 

I guess I just have two examples for you:

 

1) Do you believe genetic material experiences mutation.

 

2) Do you believe that certain physical traits are more suited for particular environments?

I believe in variation in genes. I also believe in mutations leading to a loss or gain of traits most always of which is not better for a species.

The point I am making with abiogenesis is that it very much is a part of evolutionary biology. You cannot speak the introductions of evolution without discussing the origins of life and how life first evolved. Its all part of the evolutionary tree- at some point one must speak in detail the very foundational aspects of how life evolved.

[halconero]

Okay. So far in my university career I've taken 30 courses. 5 of those have been religion courses, the other 25 related to Biology. 

 

Out of those classes 1 specifically dealt with the origins of life. So...that leaves me with 4%...I'll probably guess that another 1 or 2 classes made passing mention  of it so I'll give a ~2% margin of error.

[Rob Osborn]

May I suggest that you take a basic class in logic, with an emphasis on conclusions drawn on flawed logic.

 

Think about it ==>>

 

How would a change in abiogenesis effect a change in the process of evolution.  While they are related topics, they stand independent of each other.  Panspermia, for example, neither proves not disproves evolution.  It merely changes the narrative of evolution from one celled organisms to something else.

What group of peer reviewed and accepted scientists agree with panspermia though? I find it also of equal interest that no Darwinian evolutionist believes it took a Creator for life to start on this planet. The issue really comes down to whether or not God should be accepted into science. Obviously, there are several posters here who believe that any mention of God in science to either explain something or in reference to something in science should be absolutely forbidden! What happens if we truly come to find out that it was God who transported life here? Does this then mean its no longer science? If we can come to accept that science can acknowledge God then perhaps we can have a more complete discussion on important topics like where we came from, where our species is going, and our relationship of intelligence with other creations.

[halconero]

I believe in variation in genes. I also believe in mutations leading to a loss or gain of traits most always of which is not better for a species.

The point I am making with abiogenesis is that it very much is a part of evolutionary biology. You cannot speak the introductions of evolution without discussing the origins of life and how life first evolved. Its all part of the evolutionary tree- at some point one must speak in detail the very foundational aspects of how life evolved.

 

Fair enough. Would I be wrong in saying that you believe those traits (negative or positive) being passed on to the next generation?

 

In my introduction to evolution we talked almost entirely about Galapagos finches and moths in Britain during the Industrial Revolution, and not at all about the origins of life. Any discussion about the origins of life has the professor usually saying something along the lines of "we have no theory concerning the origins of life on this planet, just hypothesis. It's very difficult to test for anything that far back."

 

I would also argue against the notion that evolutionary scientists and science is concerned with drawing a giant biological tree back to some common origin. That tree is termed a "Phylogenetic tree" and while a small, but still vocal minority of scientist are concerned with it, most of the field is currently dedicated to cladistics, a branch that isn't concerned at all with any origin.

 

Even Darwin's "Origin of Species" isn't so much concerned with an origin to biological life, but the biological origins of individual species.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay. So far in my university career I've taken 30 courses. 5 of those have been religion courses, the other 25 related to Biology. 

 

Out of those classes 1 specifically dealt with the origins of life. So...that leaves me with 4%...I'll probably guess that another 1 or 2 classes made passing mention  of it so I'll give a ~2% margin of error.

I have taken classes in engineering, business, welding and none of those classes ever mentioned the origins of life. Thats 0%. The point still stands that you cannot divorce the principle of lifes origins from evolutionary biology.

[Rob Osborn]

Fair enough. Would I be wrong in saying that you believe those traits (negative or positive) being passed on to the next generation?

 

In my introduction to evolution we talked almost entirely about Galapagos finches and moths in Britain during the Industrial Revolution, and not at all about the origins of life. Any discussion about the origins of life has the professor usually saying something along the lines of "we have no theory concerning the origins of life on this planet, just hypothesis. It's very difficult to test for anything that far back."

 

I would also argue against the notion that evolutionary scientists and science is concerned with drawing a giant biological tree back to some common origin. That tree is termed a "Phylogenetic tree" and while a small, but still vocal minority of scientist are concerned with it, most of the field is currently dedicated to cladistics, a branch that isn't concerned at all with any origin.

 

Even Darwin's "Origin of Species" isn't so much concerned with an origin to biological life, but the biological origins of individual species.

And herein lies the very problem. These "small changes" such as variations in finches beaks or the color of moth wings are then used as the firepower to state that these small changes add up to bigger and bigger changes over time (of which is NOT proven) and then this belief gets set in stone as "fact" (somehow?) and gets implied thus that life started out from non-life and using these small steps life slowly grew more and more complex nto what we now see. If evolutionary science relly were just concerned with the causes of variations within species such as beak sizes and the color of moth wings we wouldn't have any problem. The problem arises however when scientist begin to extrapolite from imagination how life may have come into existance based almost entirely off of opinion and conjecture and then gain enough consensus to then call it "fact". Thats a problem. Science breaks its own rules of observation and the scientific method.

[cdowis]

What group of peer reviewed and accepted scientists agree with panspermia though?

 

See my previous suggestion on becoming familiar with logical flaws.  

 

Anyway, do Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe count?

 

I find it also of equal interest that no Darwinian evolutionist believes it took a Creator for life to start on this planet.

 

Darwin?  Perhaps you could do a CFR on his views of a creator.

 

The issue really comes down to whether or not God should be accepted into science. Obviously, there are several posters here who believe that any mention of God in science to either explain something or in reference to something in science should be absolutely forbidden! What happens if we truly come to find out that it was God who transported life here?

 

Panspermia is neutral on that subject, as I understand it.  Some lean towards comets as the means of transport.

 

Does this then mean its no longer science? If we can come to accept that science can acknowledge God then perhaps we can have a more complete discussion on important topics like where we came from, where our species is going, and our relationship of intelligence with other creations.

 

Where exactly did I mention God in my post?

[cdowis]

 The point still stands that you cannot divorce the principle of lifes origins from evolutionary biology.

 

"Divorce" is such a messy term, but we have had many discussions on this forum on evolution without the need to discuss abiogenesis.  

 

Wiki states in the article on evolution "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago."  

Edited January 11, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Among the most important, if elementary, investigative scientific instruments are our five empirical senses. Without the senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell there wouldn't have been even a single scientific discovery.

With this in mind, I quote the following verses of scripture:

2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.

3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.

4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;

7 But he truly agave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. (3 Nephi 20)

 

The ancient Americans who participated in the above miraculous administration of the Sacrament used, as a matter of course, their five earthbound senses to discern what took place that day and they...

 

1 ... witnessed with their human eyes there was neither bread nor water present to employ as emblems of the Saviour's sacrificed body. The fact that these people were able to testify there was no bread and wine present was made possible primarily by the sense of sight.

 

2 ... witnessed with those same eyes that the Saviour was able to produce the needed bread and water seemingly out of thin air. They were also able to watch Him as He handled the bread and wine and by this the scientific instrument of sight demonstrated that the bread and wine were real. This is the first scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

3 If in close enough proximity to the Saviour, they may have very well heard the light crackling sound as He tore the loaves of bread and the sound of the wine being poured. By this they were able to discern the bread and wine were real. This is the second scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

4 The people so gathered were able to touch with their hands and/or feel with their mouths that bread and wine were real. This is the third scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

5. The people were able to taste the bread and the wine, and because of past experience in tasting bread and wine they were able to discern that the bread and wine were real. This is the fourth scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.  

 

5. These people were able smell the bread and wine as they partook of it, as smell is closely connected to taste. This is the fifth scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

So by using basic scientific method, these people were able to observe the very real phenomenon of bread and wine being miraculously produced by the Saviour. Though the people were likely unaware of just how the Lord used a certain scientific methodology to produce the bread and wine, the mere fact that they were able to observe what took place, through their empirical senses, was an experience in very real scientific method. And just because they likely didn't know how the Lord did what He did, they were able to observe what happened and testify to the very real reality of the miracle.

 

And as any scientist knows, one doesn't have to know the causation of an observation in order to know that something really did occur. Early scientists and physicians were able to observe that people very often got infections after surgeries, so they knew infection following surgery was a real and verifiable phenomenon. But until more powerful and sophisticated scientific instruments were discovered and employed, there was no way of knowing microscopic pathogens caused the infections.

 

So in this particular instance, science was very much dealing with religion. This is only one of a great many scriptural instances of science intersecting with religion in a very real way. I'm sure you'd never get the Nephites who witnesses this miracle with their five senses to say that what they observed wasn't real and that their method for discerning the miracle wasn't scientific.       

 

That isn't science. Any appeal to any God or Godlike force is by definition Supernatural and not within the bounds of science(The study of the Natural world/universe).

[thesometimesaint]

I believe there is scientific proof of the flood which validates the scriptures and helps us to understand that events in nature can be caused by God's wrath.

 

There is no scientific proof of a global flood. Any appeal to any God or Godlike force is by definition not science.

 

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[strappinglad]

Science, whether it wants to or not, whether it is aware of it or not, deals with the handiwork of God when it tries to understand the natural world. Many of the early scientists knew that . I present this quote :

After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork.... It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed. — James Prescott Joule (father of thermodynamics,) address to the British Association, 1873 - See more at: http://crev.info/2014/01/biomimetics-stories-showcase-natural-designs/#sthash.fuxj2gZb.dpuf