Evidence For Human Evolution (Simple)

[halconero]

A point when speciation occurs = a point when a species becomes another species. For example, the common ancestor of apes and humans becoming ape or human, when before that change it was another species.

I understand the theory. I just don't buy into it.

Do you buy into the idea that donkeys and horses once had a common ancestor?

Or that Europeans generally have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, but that we were on the edge of reproductive capability?

[saemo]

I still want to know if Neanderthals go to limbo or if they were before the fall, or if they are covered by baptism by desire. 

Just messin' wit cha!

They'll be in the terrestrial kingdom.

[Whiskeypete]

For those who hod to a strict interpretation of "no death before the fall," what medium do you propose the trees/plants in the garden were planted in? Soil ( as we understand it) is composed of sand, clay, and decomposed plant and animal matter.

Did the cells of the fruit that Adam and Eve ate die as they were passed through their bodies? Or did they pass through alive and undigested?

A strict no-death supposition seems to require a completely different biology than anything we know of now.

[mfbukowski]

They'll be in the terrestrial kingdom.

[mfbukowski]

For those who hod to a strict interpretation of "no death before the fall," what medium do you propose the trees/plants in the garden were planted in? Soil ( as we understand it) is composed of sand, clay, and decomposed plant and animal matter.

Did the cells of the fruit that Adam and Eve ate die as they were passed through their bodies? Or did they pass through alive and undigested?

A strict no-death supposition seems to require a completely different biology than anything we know of now.

I'm still trying to figure out what poor undead animal they had to skin to get their coats of skins!?!?

[katherine the great]

Scientists, after much debate have finally decided that if one were to take a Neanderthal male and dress him in an Armani suit and have him walk down Wall Street, he would look no different than all the other cave men there.

A Neanderthal would not fit in an Armani suit. It would have to be custom-made. They were much more robust then modern humans and had a flaring rib cage lacking the smaller waist that we moderns have. They also had significantly different shaped heads. Theirs from the side view were shaped very much like a football. They also had humongous eye orbits and bigger noses than we have. However they were genetically similar enough to us to be able to produce viable offspring apparently, and maybe our ancestors just didn't care about looks as much as we do but anyone who says that they wouldn't be recognized as very very different is just wrong.

Edited April 26, 2014 by katherine the great

[Rob Osborn]

Please do feel free to show forth what these teachings are. I would like to reference the 1931 First Presidency statement allowing for the existence of pre Adamite races of man and then the ongoing debate within the Church over the issue up to and including Russel M Nelson being corrected by his junior companion in a public interview and Russell's ongoing Conference remarks meant to attack evolution but missing the mark entirely.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/death-physical?lang=eng

"The fall brought mortality and death to the earth."

The 1931 statement is not the official Church teaching.The 1909 statement relayed again in 2002 is the official church teaching.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Its clear that Adam was the first man of all man and the first of our race and that there was not a pre-Adamite race before this-

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."

[Calm]

http://www.gondo.com/gyarari/photo/europe/germany/a3.jpg

[Rob Osborn]

Macro-evolution=micro-evolution over time.

..Or so the theory goes. If we were to just take truth we would properly state-

Variation within species=micro-evolution over time.

[saemo]

http://www.gondo.com/gyarari/photo/europe/germany/a3.jpg

Neanderthal version of Derek Zoolander?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Answers in Genesis website claims that Neanderthals are modern humans that descended from Adam, but Elder James E. Talmage did not believe that Neanderthals were modern humans. 

 

Elder James E Talmage wrote, 

"I do not regard Adam as related to -- certainly not as descended from -- the Neanderthal, the Cro-Magnon, the Peking or the Piltdown man" 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/Earth_and_Man

 

Elder Talmage also believed in death before the fall, he wrote, "The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation" 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/Earth_and_Man

 

Hugh Nibley (was admired by President Hinckley) wrote, "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation — for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared" 

 

Elder Talmage wrote Earth and Man before we had irrefutable DNA evidence. Microcondial DNA proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

We also all contain energy and atoms...so shared DNA, would not mean we are all the same. No more than wood, water,,or any other substance...though they do not have DNA.

[MormonFreeThinker]

We also all contain energy and atoms...so shared DNA, would not mean we are all the same. No more than wood, water,,or any other substance...though they do not have DNA.

 

What would change your mind? I am open, if there is evidence against Evolution, I will change my mind. In fact, I used to reject the theory of evolution. Today, I still don't like the Theory of Evolution, but the evidence points to it, so I can't reject it. 

I am open minded, what about you? 

Evidence

Elder Talmage believed in Death Before the Fall because of the powerful scientific evidence. 

AnswersinGenesis admits that evolution happened in the Family Level 

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instance"

http://blogs.answers...how-many-kinds/

 

So Old Earth + micro-Evolution + Death =  Macroevolution 

Just like 5280 feet = a mile   

 

All Mormons that have a PhD in Biology believe that Evolution happens, almost all religious biologist believe that Evolution happens. See Catholic Ken Miller present the evidence

Edited April 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

What I find strange about DNA similarities is things like percentages. They say we share about 50% similar DNA with the banana. But what does this 50% really mean? Its not as if a banana looks 50% like us or has 50% the intelligence as us. So what gives?

[The Nehor]

Its clear that Adam was the first man of all man and the first of our race and that there was not a pre-Adamite race before this-

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."

 

My Mission President broke that down for us:

 

"Adam was the first man of all men of the race of Adam."

 

I accept that without reservation.

[Ahab]

Do you buy into the idea that donkeys and horses once had a common ancestor?

Or that Europeans generally have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, but that we were on the edge of reproductive capability?

Yes, there are and were and always will be different species of the same kind of being, like horses and people. That's what I call micro-evolution, and when I'm talking about that kind of thing I call it micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is what I don't buy into, and that's what I think most people think of when simply saying evolution.

[Rob Osborn]

My Mission President broke that down for us:

 

"Adam was the first man of all men of the race of Adam."

 

I accept that without reservation.

Evolutionary theory demands that Adam's father, which would have lived some 6,000 years ago was also a man. The official teachings of the Church refute this by stating that Adam "was the first man" meaning that he did not come from a line of "man" preceding him through a sequence from a lower order of species.

[The Nehor]

Evolutionary theory demands that Adam's father, which would have lived some 6,000 years ago was also a man. The official teachings of the Church refute this by stating that Adam "was the first man" meaning that he did not come from a line of "man" preceding him through a sequence from a lower order of species.

 

It does not necessarily mean any such thing. He was the first man of all men and the parent of our race. Adam starts the story of our world. Worlds may have passed away on this planet before us and may go on after our world ends.

[Rob Osborn]

It does not necessarily mean any such thing. He was the first man of all men and the parent of our race. Adam starts the story of our world. Worlds may have passed away on this planet before us and may go on after our world ends.

It means that Adam (our race) did not come from any pre-adamite race.

[katherine the great]

http://www.gondo.com/gyarari/photo/europe/germany/a3.jpg

he looks like Barney Rubble!

[The Nehor]

It means that Adam (our race) did not come from any pre-adamite race.

 

No, it doesn't.

[Rob Osborn]

No, it doesn't.

Here is the exact wording stating the official position of the Church-

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race"

There is no wiggle room here, Adam did not come from a lower order of the animal creation. That is the official position of the Church.

[The Nehor]

Here is the exact wording stating the official position of the Church-

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race"

There is no wiggle room here, Adam did not come from a lower order of the animal creation. That is the official position of the Church.

 

There is plenty of wiggle room (by that I mean points not explictly stated not that I am wiggling away from what was actually said). It does make some powerful statements which I accept completely.

 

First, they talk about evolution. Then they say this is a theory of men (and refrain from commenting on whether it is true or false).

 

Then we are told he is the "first man of all men" and the parent of our race. Now it could be argued that he is the first child of God/man ever with the first bit but that does not work. God said many worlds have passed away and said his children were on them. So clearly this refers to only the "first man of all men" of our round of creation which we are told there are many of and this world may be one that has had other rounds. Then we are told he is the parent of our race (not any other rounds of creation) and he is our primal parent but it does not say where he came from.

Edited April 26, 2014 by The Nehor

[MormonFreeThinker]

It means that Adam (our race) did not come from any pre-adamite race.

 

"that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church" - Elder Talmage 

 

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest" -- Gordon B. Hinckley

 

Rod, what would change your mind? I will change my mind if there is evidence against Evolution. What about you? Nothing can change your mind? Please answer 

 

 

"Macro-evolution is what I don't buy into"

 

Ahab, micro-evolution is a small change. Many small changes in a long period of time = Macro-Evolution 

Edited April 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

There is plenty of wiggle room (by that I mean points not explictly stated not that I am wiggling away from what was actually said). It does make some powerful statements which I accept completely.

 

First, they talk about evolution. Then they say this is a theory of men (and refrain from commenting on whether it is true or false).

 

Then we are told he is the "first man of all men" and the parent of our race. Now it could be argued that he is the first child of God/man ever with the first bit but that does not work. God said many worlds have passed away and said his children were on them. So clearly this refers to only the "first man of all men" of our round of creation which we are told there are many of and this world may be one that has had other rounds. Then we are told he is the parent of our race (not any other rounds of creation) and he is our primal parent but it does not say where he came from.

I don't know how much more exact the wording could be to emphatically state that there was no race of the animal creation that led to Adam. Take it for what it is worth but it is the official position of our Church that Adam and Eve did not come from the evolution of the animal kingdom.

[Rob Osborn]

"that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church" - Elder Talmage 

 

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest" -- Gordon B. Hinckley

 

Rod, what would change your mind? I will change my mind if there is evidence against Evolution. What about you? Nothing can change your mind? Please answer 

 

 

"Macro-evolution is what I don't buy into"

 

Ahab, micro-evolution is a small change. Many small changes in a long period of time = Macro-Evolution 

I don't readily accept anything as truth without substantial evidence and there is no substancial evidence that Adam came from a lower order of the animal kingdom. Besides that, our church has already said and stated that Adam and Eve are not the product of evolution.