Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Teancum]

That means you missed out on the explanation of bone and embryo development that shows how some fish developed that way. Plus you missed the discovery of the molecular signal that tells which cells to develop into what type of body part and to what extent.  You also missed how scientists can now manipulate that molecule to create interesting effects.  And if they can do it, God can do it, either directly or indirectly via natural selection.

 

That fact remains that there is nothing about Evolution that precludes the existence of God or the fact that we are created in His image.

 

 

If God is omnipotent why would he need to use evolution to create which is extremely random and could have a myriad of outcomes?

[Teancum]

Hum...Pretty sure the scriptures say that God created man after his own image and that Adam was the literal son of God. Not sure how one could put "fish" in their lineage?

 

 

Because the scripture you are relying on is likely the fantasy.

[Teancum]

Yes, this seems to be one of the most difficult concepts for a Creationist to understand, that Evolution teaches like produces like and everything after it's own kind. Even Russel M. Nelson didn't understand it as illustrated by his Pew research comments when he said in erroneous criticism of Evolution:

 

"Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works."

 

How this can be in Evolution is illustrated at about the 5:55 mark in the link in my siggy.

 

 

Oh please go correct an apostle and see where that gets you.

[Teancum]

Omnipotent being in traditional Christianity =/= Omnipotent being in Latter-day Saint theology. God in Latter-day Saint thought is bound by the natural laws of physics, biology, chemistry and the like. If it turns out that evolution is the process whereby Homo sapien sapien came to be then it means that God was bound to operate within the laws of natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, etc.

 

So the LDS God is not omnipotent?

[Uncle Dale]

 

... There is simply no evidence of one species evolving into another,

....

 

 

As I recall, back during my college years, the entire concept of

a "species" was being questioned. Probably that debate has

evolved to the point that the term is used for some narrower

definition than many of us "laypeople" might suppose.

 

A horse and a donkey are not of the same "species," and yet

they can mate and produce offspring (infertile of course).

 

If somebody discovered two different "species" of birds, rather

different in physiology, but still able to produce offspring, what

additional factor would keep their two respective groups listed

under different "species" headings in the scientific texts? If a

viable offspring did occasional result from their matings, the

two sets of birds would automatically become one "species."

At least that was one argument I used to hear, back when the

old fashioned definitions of "species" were still in vogue.

 

We might look to the e Coli long term evolution experiment, and

other similar studies. Such observed changes, happening over

the span of thousands of "generations" of the microbes DO

demonstrate at least one aspect of evolution -- something more

basic and important than wolves being bred into dogs, etc.

 

What parallel experiment would have to be conducted, using

sexually-reproducing simple organisms, to show that one "species"

can diverge from another?

 

If scientists could begin with a known, well-described flatworm

and monitor its reproduction activities over, say, a thousand

years -- and thus arrive at what they (the lab guys) said was

a NEW species -- how would we test their allegation?

 

If the new, somewhat different bunch of flatworms could interbreed

among themselves (asexually and sexually, as is their wont) but

COULD NOT interbreed with the old, original lineage of worms?

 

I fear that the evolution-deniers would simply say that our

bombarding the poor critters with radiation, interfering with 

their natural lives and environment, had produced a MONSTER

lineage, whose origins had absolutely nothing to do with the

normal processes found in nature.

 

While I wait for that eventual development (hmmmm... better cut

back on my thousand years timeline) -- I'm content to look at

whale fossil remains and see what appears to be "missing-link"

after "missing link," each specimen exhibiting some remarkable

addition (or deletion) of the physiology of whales living at an

earlier period, and buried deeper in the accumulated rock strata.

 

UD

[Grudunza]

1911: BYU fires several professors (or they resign) for teaching evolution. It is not taught there again for 60 years.

2010: Current BYU biology professor Steven Peck says: "Evolution by natural selection is the most important scientific discovery of modern times (I am stoically unapologetic about the lack of equivocation in that statement). The evidences for it are staggeringly abundant, detailed, and scientifically undeniable." (emphasis mine)

So are we going by 1910's understanding, or 2015's? Do we accept further light and knowledge or not? IMO, evolution is further light and knowledge and truth about God's creation, and we should not only accept it, but celebrate that we now have that knowledge. The truth of how life came to develop on Earth may look different than what we imagined prior to Darwin, but if it is indeed the truth (staggeringly abundant, scientifically undeniable and all that), then we must adjust our understanding of theology to that, not try to force-fit science into our particular interpretation of theology. We as Mormons are uniquely positioned to accept and embrace that new information and adopt and adapt accordingly, but unfortunately evolution became a boogeyman in the 1900's as some of our leaders (esp. JFS and BRM) joined with fundamentalist Christians to oppose it, and so unfortunately the vast majority of Mormons still view evolution as wrong and continue to demonize it.

The way I view the creation story now is as a temple ceremony (and apparently the ancient Hebrews understood it that way). We don't take the temple ceremony literally... there is a LOT of symbolic and poetic meaning to it... we put ourselves in the places of Adam and Eve and it is meant to be a figurative story to relay the relationship of God to His creation, to work poetically and spiritually for generations of mankind as they make their covenants with God. And it also makes a great parallel for the plan of salvation, with the Garden akin to heaven in the premortal existence. There is no sin or death, Lucifer/Satan is there, etc., and we choose to partake of the fruit (to come to Earth) where we will procreate and toil in this lone and dreary world and learn knowledge of good and evil and also surely die. The fall becomes something both universal and personal, as with the atonement. There may have been a literal Adam and Eve, but the point is that we are all Adam ("man" in Hebrew) and Eve ("life").

Edited February 20, 2015 by Grudunza

[Uncle Dale]

 

... apparently the ancient Hebrews understood it that way

...

 

I asked my wife about this.

 

She hasn't attended Temple or Synagogue since we moved

here to Hawaii, but still recalls what things were like in the

past, among "her people."

 

Her answer is that most of the Orthodox (and ultra-Orthodox)

view the Torah as a unit -- a whole -- which cannot be taken

apart, and accepted, here a piece and there a piece.

 

However, even the Orthodox rabbis admit that the important

part of those first five books is The Covenant, and all else

stands in support of it. Some things are symbolic, but all

things there are "true" (in their own way).

 

Conservative, Reformed and Reconstructionist Jews are

more likely to try and determine how their ancestors viewed

the Genesis and Exodus stories -- and thus, not focus so

much upon truth/falsehood, as upon importance in tradition

and identification of a "peculiar people."

 

Which boils down to the fact that a modern Jew can accept

a great deal of scientific teaching, without fear of being cast

out and shunned. Among the Orthodox.... you take your chances.

 

UD

Edited February 20, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Grudunza]

 

Which boils down to the fact that a modern Jew can accept

a great deal of scientific teaching, without fear of being cast

out and shunned. Among the Orthodox.... you take your chances.

According to a poll referenced here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/

Jews are near the top in terms of religions that accept evolution (only Buddhists and HIndus are higher), and Mormons are second last (only Jehovah's Witnesses are lower).

And indeed, figurative scripture can still be very "true," for the spiritual value it has.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Jews are near the top in terms of religions that accept evolution (only Buddhists and HIndus are higher), and Mormons are second last (only Jehovah's Witnesses are lower).

 

 

No wonder, that I feel as though I'm beating my head against a

brick wall here on this message board -- whenever I touch upon

the subjects of the age of the earth and the historical timeline

for Adam, Enoch, Noah's flood, Peleg, etc...

 

Oh well...

 

UD

[Calm]

According to a poll referenced here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/

Jews are near the top in terms of religions that accept evolution (only Buddhists and HIndus are higher), and Mormons are second last (only Jehovah's Witnesses are lower).

And indeed, figurative scripture can still be very "true," for the spiritual value it has.

I believe the poll ask specifically about human evolution as opposed to other species.

[danielwoods]

Ah it is tough when facts conflict with fantasy isn't it?

 

Facts are funny things. Please cite a fact that demonstrates that fish evolved into a land creature? 

Edited February 20, 2015 by danielwoods

[Stargazer]

In my personal research on the topic of evolution I have found no evidence of Darwins theory other than his vivid imagination. There is simply no evidence of one species evolving into another, ie. macro evolution. We see micro evolution, that is evolution within a species or probably more appropatly adaptation. The fosill record shows no evidence of one species evolving into another such as a half reptile half bird. For years scientists were searching for the so called missing link between Neandertal and Cro-Magnon. Well come to find out Neandertal DNA is alive and well in modern humans. Simply because species share DNA to me does not support evolution but only suggests perhaps a common sorce materal. I read somewhere we share 50% of our DNA with a bannanna. Does that make me a fruit? I don't think so. Modern science has revealed DNA can be minupilated and life can be created. Given that the master of the universe probably has more knowledge than modern man I am quite comfortable with creationism as my paradigm. We now have a new idea reffered to as intelegent design that is used so scientists don't have to acknowledge God as creator. The Glory of God is Intellegence.

Well, I don't know about you, but I am not a banana. I am a PEACH!

And, Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman.

So, since we're digging back into the morass again, here's my two cents.

It is easy enough to see micro-evolution, or what is described as micro-evolution (that is, things like those white moths turning black and then white again, in step with air pollution), but that's not evolution. Both characteristics exist simultaneously in the same species and are expressed differently depending upon local and temporary conditions.

Micro-evolution, as such, does not exist, in my humble opinion. As far as macro-evolution is concerned, it would occur so very slowly that we are not in a position to observe it directly. We can see that there are three extant species of Zebra, but we have not observed how these evolved out of a single, founding species of Zebra, since if it happened at all, it happened over hundreds of thousands of years, out of our sight.

The evolutionist infers that it happened because fossil bones of non-identical but similar extinct Zebras have been discovered, and out of logic presumes (and why not?) that macro-evolution has taken place. You anti-evolutionists say "I haven't seen it happen, therefore it hasn't happened and further cannot happen." When you combine this with anti-intelligent insistences such as the conviction that the earth is only 6,000 years old (and creation occurred on some January morning in 4004 BC), despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, and how the heck do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I happen to be a believer in Intelligent Design, meaning that I accept that the Universe is 13.5 billion years old, and that evolution is a fact, but that I accept the non-provable hypothesis that the Creator has been guiding its continual creation from the very beginning, and that what we see is nothing more nor less than what He intended. And that He deliberately makes His hand hard to see in all.

Those who do believe in a random genesis of the universe have every reason to believe it, and I think that God will cut them some slack on the matter, simply because He made His impact hard to see, and did so for a reason.

Edited to remove spelling and grammar Nazi rant

Edited February 20, 2015 by Stargazer

[Grudunza]

Facts are funny things. Please cite a fact that demonstrates that fish evolved into a land creature?

See: tiktaalik and bichir

Fossils are very strong evidence and paint a clear and consistent picture of evolution. Or do you need video footage from several hundred million years ago in order to believe?

Edited February 20, 2015 by Grudunza

[Stargazer]

So the LDS God is not omnipotent?

Say, T, did you notice that you're responding to ancient posts?

[Levi951]

I know this is way off topic but I am preparing a Sunday school lesson and I want to come up with some good quotes on the life of Christ and thought this would be a great place to hear some suggestions if you have any.

[Stargazer]

If God is omnipotent why would he need to use evolution to create which is extremely random and could have a myriad of outcomes?

For all you know, He directed things minutely according to His plan to make you, Teancum, think that it looked too random to be anything else other than undirected and without a guiding Creator.

The other possibility is The Matrix. What if everything we see and experience is a grand data construct that only seems real to us, but really isn't? That would be far easier for God to pull off than creating an entire actual Universe to try and test us against, wouldn't it? It would be by far the simplest case, wouldn't it? So, by Occam's Razor (which is, "...among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."), my Matrix hypothesis wins.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I know this is way off topic but I am preparing a Sunday school lesson and I want to come up with some good quotes on the life of Christ and thought this would be a great place to hear some suggestions if you have any.

 

Uh, you'd be better off taking this request to the Social Hall (newbies can start topics there, unlike here).  Your off-topic request kinda violates board rules (something honored a lot in the breach, but nevertheless) and is really not going to get any traction amongst THIS raging topic.  Evolution is one of those Category 5 Tornado topics and nobody is going to notice your request in the all the turmoil. 

Edited February 20, 2015 by Stargazer

[Levi951]

haha sorry 

[Calm]

I know this is way off topic but I am preparing a Sunday school lesson and I want to come up with some good quotes on the life of Christ and thought this would be a great place to hear some suggestions if you have any.

Four more posts and you can start your own thread here or go to Social hall to start one right now and no debate will be allowed there.

 

(added some words so this made sense, I was tired last night it would seem)

Edited February 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

No wonder, that I feel as though I'm beating my head against a

brick wall here on this message board -- whenever I touch upon

the subjects of the age of the earth and the historical timeline

for Adam, Enoch, Noah's flood, Peleg, etc...

 

Oh well...

 

UD

I get the same feeling. *Don't bother me with facts, I'm going to see if I can buy a pet dinosaur on line.*

[Stargazer]

I get the same feeling. *Don't bother me with facts, I'm going to see if I can buy a pet dinosaur on line.*

 

But facts are, in some circumstances, a lot less important and love, forbearance, tolerance, and understanding.

 

It doesn't hurt me that some people prefer to believe that which is fairy tale, if that tale gives them comfort.  It's not as if believing in a 6,000 year old earth is going to get them killed, as long as they remain convinced that the law of gravity remains in play and the cliffs of Dover are too high up for them to try to jump off of unaided.

 

I know that God lives, and that He loves me and wishes for me to have joy, and that I love my fellow being.  What is then a paltry misguided failure to recognize scientific fact?  The world still goes on, after all.

[danielwoods]

See: tiktaalik and bichir

Fossils are very strong evidence and paint a clear and consistent picture of evolution. Or do you need video footage from several hundred million years ago in order to believe?

 

The claim I was responding to was that Facts are the basis for this theory. When in fact (pun intended), facts have to be interpreted in order to be seen as demonstrating evolution over vast amounts of time. 

 

For example, your fossils. The facts are that we find fossils at different locations and levels, so interpretations are necessary, and as a result the extrapolations are not factual. We have no demonstrable way to connect them to each other. They may or may not be related to each other, just as finding bones that washed up together on the shore after a storm. They may or may not be related to each other. 

[thesometimesaint]

The claim I was responding to was that Facts are the basis for this theory. When in fact (pun intended), facts have to be interpreted in order to be seen as demonstrating evolution over vast amounts of time. 

 

For example, your fossils. The facts are that we find fossils at different locations and levels, so interpretations are necessary, and as a result the extrapolations are not factual. We have no demonstrable way to connect them to each other. They may or may not be related to each other, just as finding bones that washed up together on the shore after a storm. They may or may not be related to each other. 

 

No relationship at all.

SEE https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyeiYudUyWEASUYnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0MzkwOG5yBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwNF8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&va=fossil+bird&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

[bcuzbcuz]

The claim I was responding to was that Facts are the basis for this theory. When in fact (pun intended), facts have to be interpreted in order to be seen as demonstrating evolution over vast amounts of time. 

 

For example, your fossils. The facts are that we find fossils at different locations and levels, so interpretations are necessary, and as a result the extrapolations are not factual. We have no demonstrable way to connect them to each other. They may or may not be related to each other, just as finding bones that washed up together on the shore after a storm. They may or may not be related to each other.

I don't know how many fossils you've looked at, nor how many complete fossil skeletons you've seen, but as far as the fossil record is concerned, all that is necessary to throw all fossils and the assumptions that those fossils have generated, is to find one single skeleton from undisturbed ground that doesn't fit in the level and layer to the established age of that layer. In other words, find a rabbit skeleton among dinosaur fossils and the whole idea of an ancient earth gets thrown out the window.

Now, that doesn't soud too hard, does it? Just one modern skeleton mixed amongst ancient fossils and Darwin and the whole idea of evolution comes crashing down. And believe me, there are many people looking for any such evidence.

Until someone finds a modern skeleton amongst fossils, I'll section off my belief in Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny or a 6000 year old earth to fantasy tales. They're just cute kiddy stories that at an appropriate age should be tossed out.

[Uncle Dale]

The claim I was responding to was that Facts are the basis for this theory. When in fact (pun intended), facts have to be interpreted in order to be seen as demonstrating evolution over vast amounts of time. 

 

For example, your fossils. The facts are that we find fossils at different locations and levels, so interpretations are necessary, and as a result the extrapolations are not factual. We have no demonstrable way to connect them to each other. They may or may not be related to each other, just as finding bones that washed up together on the shore after a storm. They may or may not be related to each other.

Ok, then let me put it this way. If we start at the top rim of the Grand Canyon,

moving downward, past each of many horizontal, layered rock strata, will we

EVER discover the fossil of a lifeform more advanced, more complex, more

suited to its ancient environment, than what is to be found in all the layers

situated above that discovery?

If, at a certain level in all of that revealed age-old rock strata, we discover

remains of animals having backbones, will there likely be a sedimentary

rock layer ABOVE. (and thus more recent in time) without Chordata?

As for fossils found in diverse places being unrelated to one another,

suppose that I locate a rock layer in that same Grand Canyon, and

discover that it typically preserves a certain kind of trilobite -- If I

then trace the same stratum around the canyon, traveling a hundred

miles away from my initial discovery, and there, in that distant

location, discover again the exact same kind of trilobites, must I

conclude that they are unrelated to the first found bunch, because

the second collection of the dead critters was found 100 miles away?

I do not suppose you advanced very far in your Geology grad studies.

UD