Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Uncle Dale]

Brother WW Phelps seemed to think the time for this system was 2,555,000 years. 

 

Yea! William Wines!

 

 

I'd say he died being the most lucid and deep-thinking Saint

of his era -- a literary and psychological wunderkind.

 

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[ERayR]

Yea! William Wines!

 

 

I'd say he died being the most lucid and deep-thinking Saint

of his era -- a literary and psychological wunderkind.

 

UD

 

I sometimes think what an experience it would have been to sit in on some of their priesthood meetings. 

[Uncle Dale]

I sometimes think what an experience it would have been to sit in on some of their priesthood meetings. 

 

I was being a little flippant, I must admit. Most historical sources

note that Bro. Phelps died insane.

 

Not long after the initial migration to The Valley, Phelps gave a

discourse to picnickers high up along the slopes of the Wasatch,

and it was thereafter referred to as Phelps' "sermon on the mount."

They say it made the ladies blush...

 

 

 

 

Too bad Phelps wasn't given the reins of the Deseret News -- the

Saints would have been treated to color cartoons a half-century

before Buster Brown and Little Nemo.

 

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[ERayR]

I was being a little flippant, I must admit. Most historical sources

note that Bro. Phelps died insane.

 

Not long after the initial migration to The Valley, Phelps gave a

discourse to picnickers high up along the slopes of the Wasatch,

and it was thereafter referred to as Phelps' "sermon on the mount."

They say it made the ladies blush...

 

 

 

 

Too bad Phelps wasn't given the reins of the Deseret News -- the

Saints would have been treated to color cartoons a half-century

before Buster Brown and Little Nemo.

 

UD

 

I was speaking of the early meetings.  I do not know history as you do but is certainly sad that his mind failed him. 

[pogi]

I was being a little flippant, I must admit.

 

You?  Flippant?  Nooooo!

[Uncle Dale]

You?  Flippant?  Nooooo!

 

You, a trustworthy judge of flippancy?

 

 

UD

 

"Now, Jethro, that was a mighty disrespectful thing

to say to Mr. Drysdale..."

[pogi]

You, a trustworthy judge of flippancy?

 

 

UD

 

"Now, Jethro, that was a mighty disrespectful thing

to say to Mr. Drysdale..."

 

You have a very playful and teasing sarcasm about you, I didn't mean any disrespect. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 Macro-evolution is neither observable nor falsifiable.  

 

It is like saying that Dinosaurs never lived because we have not seen them alive. 

 

You and Rob don't seem to be open minded, you had that conclusion before you looked at the evidence. 

Edited February 22, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[changed]

There are some interesting things within the temple that I have not decided how to interpret yet...  I think this much is ok to talk about, which is just part of Genesis - Everything is in place except Adam and Eve, and God ask an interesting question "Is man found on the earth?" .... what would be the purpose of this question?  was there any chance that mankind would already be found on the earth?  perhaps in our case we needed extra help or something? 

[Stargazer]

With just observation we are no better than Chimps with overly large brains.

 

I'm not scoffing at them. But they were clearly wrong. No doubt we are standing on the shoulders of giants, and even lesser men. I'm no Luddite. To claim we know nothing is as fatal a conceit as to claim we know everything.

 

Who says we have "just" observation?  Observation is the basis, experiment is the extension.  We can observe and make deductions and inductions, but without experimentation and observation of the results of experimentation there is no science.

 

What do you mean about the claim to know nothing vs know everything? 

Edited February 22, 2015 by Stargazer

[SmileyMcGee]

Wrong, It is nothing more than biased extrapolation which is neither observable nor falsifiable.

Hmmm...i believe you mean inference not extrapolation. And evolution is falsifiable. Every scientific study on evolution attempts to falsify it (think null hypothesis).

Edited February 23, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Stargazer]

 

What kind of ID theory are you talking about? There are many, for example 

1. Young Earth ID

2. Progressive Creationism ID 

3. Theistic Evolution ID

4. Deist ID 

 

Mike Behe is a very famous ID theorist, but he believes that humans and chimp share a common ancestor.

 

I agree with Behe.  And I am not a Young Earth Creationist.  I would not characterize Young Earth as Intelligent Design.  YE Creationism is for me a matter of magic.

 

That being said, if a YE Creationist were to say that God created the earth exactly as we see it, with current geologic processes, fossils, and apparent evidence of long prehistory (i.e. radiocarbon and other dating evidence), and He did it 6,000 years ago, how would you disprove it? 

 

In other words, the YEC is saying that the fossil evidence was manufactured by God in order to make it look billions of years old.  But it really isn't.

 

You can't disprove this.  It is non-falsifiable.  And so is the claim that God created it that way.  In short, it's not science.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Wrong. The claims of evolution have been proven. You are no exactly like either one of your parents. You have traits of both. That is by definition evolution.

You're kidding, right?

 

Evolution is not random

Of course evolution isn't random. Certain elements of evolution are random, however, or at least so they appear. A cosmic ray that modifies the DNA sequence of an organism is definitely random. Unless you want to posit that the Designer sends the cosmic ray to just the right place to cause a mutation which will eventually give rise to a new characteristic. That's not random.

 

It is deterministic.

 

Science is Agnostic. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

Of course it is. So what?

 

ID has been falsified.

I've seen Miller's little screed before. He doesn't falsify it, because it can't be falsified.

Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is a Designer working behind the scenes to direct the evolutionary process to achieve the desired results. The Designer cannot be discerned, at least not with the tools we have available.

I am convinced that God created the Universe. I don't know how. I am also convinced that God created us, and I believe that He used the evolutionary process to achieve this result. If you want to argue that He didn't, fine. You can't prove that he didn't, any more than I can prove he did.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On a 6000 year old planet, with an interruption in development caused by Noah's flood, it should be easily observable that all species now present on the earth branch and spread out from the touch down point of Noah's ark. The levels of salt in the ocean waters are used by some as evience of minerals being flushed from the soil to deposit in the oceans.

But try developing that thesis when looking at the Baikal lake in the south east of Russia, just north of Mongolia. The Baikal lake is the deepest freshwater lake in the world, isolated and with a minimum of influences from human population around its shores. The lake water is very cold and very clear due to poor nutrient levels in-flow. The plants and sea life of the lake have over a thousand endemic species, not found anywhere else. It has black sea sponges and a huge variety of shrimp with strange and weird armour plated shells, sprouting horns, tags and spiny ridges. The fish are almost all endemic.

The deepest lake in the world, but the water is sweet, not salt. There has been no connection to salt water sources in human history. The inflow keeps the water levels high, but these same inflows do not leave stores of salt in the water. If Noah's flood covered the earth, with an assumable mixture of salt and fresh water, how come this great lake only has fresh water? If Noah's flood killed off thousands and thousands of creatures both from land and sea, how come the plants and creatures in the Baikal not only survived but are only found there? How did they get, either from the ark or managed to survive the salt water and flush all the salt water out of the lake?

Very interesting information! Thanks for that.

It strongly suggests that the flood was not worldwide. I can live with that.

But I thought this thread was about evolution, not the Noachian Flood?

[Uncle Dale]

Very interesting information! Thanks for that.

It strongly suggests that the flood was not worldwide. I can live with that.

But I thought this thread was about evolution, not the Noachian Flood?

 

 

No doubt there were terrible, memorable floods throughout

pre-history, which were not world-wide.

 

But it makes little sense to load up a boat full of animals,

to save them from extinction -- when the great flood wasn't

going to kill them all off, without Father Noah's salvation.

 

Maybe just the animals round and about the ark required

such saving, and the critters on the other side of the planet

were not endangered. If the ark came down more or less in

the same region from which it embarked upon the waters,

that explanation might sound workable.

 

But no -- if the waters of the deep -- plus the waters of the

firmament -- were unleashed for forty days and forty night,

the resulting flood would have been very widespread.

 

Then again, perhaps no animals (save for Noah's pets and

farm creatures) were ever loaded into any prehistoric ark.

And maybe no great boat ever floated from South Carolina

to Mesopotamia.

 

I could live with that explanation of things.

And it would allow for a great deal of biological evolution

after the "big rain" -- and maybe even a little thereafter.

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

It is like saying that Dinosaurs never lived because we have not seen them alive. 

 

You and Rob don't seem to be open minded, you had that conclusion before you looked at the evidence. 

 

We have the living descendents of dinosaurs today. We just call them fried chicken.

[thesometimesaint]

Who says we have "just" observation?  Observation is the basis, experiment is the extension.  We can observe and make deductions and inductions, but without experimentation and observation of the results of experimentation there is no science.

 

What do you mean about the claim to know nothing vs know everything? 

 

Observation is just a small but important part of the Scientific Method. IE; Ptolemy observed the night sky. The explanations he gave for what he saw gave sway for thousands of years. Giordano Bruno got burned up over it. Galileo was house bound for his observations, and thoughts concerning them. Without either there can be no science.

 

It is self defeating to claim to know nothing. We are more than just dust under the feet of the Gods. By the same token it is hubris to the max to claim to know everything. There is much more to learn. The glory of God is intelligence.

[Uncle Dale]

We have the living descendents of dinosaurs today. We just call them fried chicken.

 

Probably the creature closest to a dinosaur that we humans have encountered

during the last million years would have been a New Zealand moa.

 

..

 

Their ancestors would have been smaller, flying birds -- but (if evolutionists

can be trusted) some of those ancient little birds developed into larger,

flightless monsters which filled a niche in the animal kingdom once

occupied by the big-old-meano-saurs.

 

Then again, the creation scientists have gone out into the world, performed 

observations, gathered information, carried out tests, reported the results

of their experiments and examinations, and their peer-reviewed, respected

scientific journals thus can inform * us that the moa was created about 8,000

years ago, with precisely the physiology shown in remains of their skeletons.

 

UD

 

* At least I suppose that creation science reports must originate by this

sort of objective analysis, and it is simply a wonderful coincidence that they

prove the Christian bible to be true...

Edited February 23, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

You're kidding, right?

 

Of course evolution isn't random. Certain elements of evolution are random, however, or at least so they appear. A cosmic ray that modifies the DNA sequence of an organism is definitely random. Unless you want to posit that the Designer sends the cosmic ray to just the right place to cause a mutation which will eventually give rise to a new characteristic. That's not random.

 

Of course it is. So what?

 

I've seen Miller's little screed before. He doesn't falsify it, because it can't be falsified.

Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is a Designer working behind the scenes to direct the evolutionary process to achieve the desired results. The Designer cannot be discerned, at least not with the tools we have available.

I am convinced that God created the Universe. I don't know how. I am also convinced that God created us, and I believe that He used the evolutionary process to achieve this result. If you want to argue that He didn't, fine. You can't prove that he didn't, any more than I can prove he did.

 

So you are exactly like both of your parents? We all have similar traits to both our parents. That's all that evolution says. Also that over long generations we take on less and less similarities to our parents until some future generation will be different enough to no longer be able to reproduce with our parents species.

 

I don't have a problem with either hypothesis when used in general terms. IE; When I mix sulfuric acid with iron fillings. I don't need to know when each and every chemical reaction at the atomic level takes place. Just that the result is Ferrous Sulfate and water. Of course living things are a bit more complex than that.

 

ID has been falsified.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

I don't have a problem with God. Further some 40% of all American scientists including Dr. Kenneth Miller, and I, believe in a personal God. What I object to is the imposition of any God or Godlike force onto science. IMNTBHO anytime you must insert God into science to make it work it is many things but science it ain't.

 

I too also believe God created the universe, of which we, and our world, are a part of. Exactly how he did it I don't know, but we are seeking. To me science is seeking for the answers as to how he did do it.

[bcuzbcuz]

I certainly never said anything about a 6000 year old planet.  What does a 6000 year old planet and or a global flood have to do with the validity of macro-evolution?  Macro-evolution is neither observable nor falsifiable.  Please at least hold it to the scientific rigor you profess and demand for other theories.

My "6000 year old planet" may be off base. Is 10,000 better? Or 25,000? I've read many of your posts. If you're not wlling to pin down a specific number of years, that's ok, are you willing to establish that you believe in a "young" earth? By "young earth" I mean a world less than 1,000,000 years old. You have written that you believe in the flood of Noah. According to the "young earth" interpretation of the Bible, that flood would have occured less than 25,000 years ago.

A flood that covered the entire planet, whether 4,000, 6,000, 10,000, 25,000, or 100,000 years ago would have left all lakes tainted with a certain percentage salt water. Lakes usually have relatively equal in- and out-flow, they reach a point of equilibrity. Lakes that do not have an outflow that equals the inflow will usually increase in salt levels. The Dead Sea has no outflow at all, and considerable amounts of water dissipate by evaporation. The salt levels of the Dead Sea are and have been increasing for a million years, since its sinking below outflow possibilities.

Compare that to the Baikal Lake, the deepest of all lakes of the whole earth. It has 544 rivers that feed into it, 1 (one) river provides outflow. It has (had) (read http://www.bww.irk.ru/baikalwater/budget.html) a level of equilibrium but the deepest waters were left untouched. These waters should be very salty. They're not.

The fish, shellfish, corals, sponges are all fresh water types. They are also endemic, that means you're not going to find any close relatives anywhere else. Take a look at the types of shrimp. They look like armoured trucks.

But what does endemic mean? It means that they exist ONLY at this one site. It is peculiar to this lake.

How do endemic species become endemic? How do animals, fish, sponges that are endemic get from a common source to a specific site and that that species does not exist anywhere else? Were they delivered to that specific site?

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

A flood that covered the entire planet, whether 4,000, 6,000, 10,000, 25,000, or 100,000 years ago would have left all lakes tainted...

 

The world-wide biblical flood, championed by some modern teachers

and preachers, would have also worked havoc with the Antarctic and 

Greenland ice sheets (not to mention all of the planet's mountain glaciers).

 

Ice, being lighter than liquid water, rises and floats in the oceans of

the world. Great hunks of the south polar and Greenland ice layers

would have been stripped away by natural flotation processes, leaving

whatever was left clinging to bedrock, exposed to the above-freezing

flood waters. Probably the ice of the entire world would have melted.

 

Leaving creation scientists (?) with a problem. Drilling down into the

preserved ice layers, we see that evidences of annual accumulation

stretch back far more than 5000 years, 6000 years, or even 10,000

years. A disturbing thought.

 

Question for young-earthers: Did Noah's flood melt the Antarctic ice? 

And, if it did, then how do you account for its re-appearance, with

eons-old annual layers? And, no, looking to Peleg and a supposed

rapid separation of the continents will not help you...

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

I agree. There is however one easy way to resolve the problem. Keep Noah a Prophet of God, building boat, saving what he could, and accurately recording what he saw, a massive albeit regional flood.

[Uncle Dale]

I agree. There is however one easy way to resolve the problem. Keep Noah a Prophet of God, building boat, saving what he could, and accurately recording what he saw, a massive albeit regional flood.

 

Maybe I should just go with Scientology and what its

adherents tell me about Lord Xenu. -- At some point the

unbelievability of all convoluted explanations approaches 

that of epicycles, and it's time for a Copernicus to go

back to the cosmic drawing board and to come up with

better explanations for what we see in the world about us.

 

UD

Edited February 23, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

Lord Xenu would approve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#mediaviewer/File:Xenu_BBC_Panorama.jpg

 

For me the question is how do I maintain my faith, and still know the science. Maybe someday I'll have the answer to that question. But for right now I simply choose to believe.

[ERayR]

My "6000 year old planet" may be off base. Is 10,000 better? Or 25,000? I've read many of your posts. If you're not wlling to pin down a specific number of years, that's ok, are you willing to establish that you believe in a "young" earth? By "young earth" I mean a world less than 1,000,000 years old. You have written that you believe in the flood of Noah. According to the "young earth" interpretation of the Bible, that flood would have occured less than 25,000 years ago.

 

I have state before I am NOT a young earth proponent.