Evidence For Human Evolution (Simple)

[Shadrak]

Are you claiming that your interpretation of the 1909 statement is the only correct one?

Is there another interpretation that fits the currently available evidence?

[Rob Osborn]

Listen to The Nehor and don't add to the interpretation of the 1909 statement you're own dogma.  It makes no claims to evolution (because even then they realized the significance of evolution to biology and had to stop dogmatic divisions), including how the "primal parent" Adam got to be in the divine form of God, who was the first man.  Whether he was made of dust in an instant or through evolution over time, the end result was the same: modern day man.  The "first man of all men" God chose to communicate with was called Adam, that is all the church claims.

The 1909 doctrine states very clearly that Adam was the first man and there was no man on the earth before him. It also states that Adam is not the result of evolution from a lower animal species. Furter, it states that man is the direct lineal offspring of God. Those three points are very clear.

[Rob Osborn]

Willfull ignorance is a sin.

Well then, repent I tell you, repent.

[ERayR]

I'm not a cell biologist so there is plenty I don't know about evolution. That being said all evolution is is change over time.

 

So all things change over time (micro-evolution).  No argument.  Radical change over time (Macro-evolution).  Some serious faults especially when one considers the ramifications to the fall and the atonement of  Christ.

[ERayR]

Man is only formed in the image of God.  Adam was not a literal, lineal, direct offspring of God (in the flesh), Jesus was the only claimed, literal offspring of God. Man may be the direct "image of God" but was formed physically as man and not birthed as offspring.  How was he formed? Certainly not in way explained in scripture or in any church statement. Again, you read too much into the statement.

 

What a sad philosopy.

[ERayR]

Worm bait he may be. But he was buried in Westminster Abbey.

 

What's so great about Westminster Abby?

[halconero]

Huge cartoon deleted. Do not post copyrighted material :-)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

My mind is not made up either way...I am pointing out that every living creature...even bugs have DNA...does not mean I am a bug. Wait, so believe I am...bad example.

[MormonFreeThinker]

My mind is not made up either way...I am pointing out that every living creature...even bugs have DNA...does not mean I am a bug. Wait, so believe I am...bad example.

 

No, but humans and bugs share a common ancestor. In Biology, all known life is related. 

Please watch the video, he is a Catholic scientist. Someone should try to refute this video

Edited April 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Shadrak]

The 1909 doctrine states very clearly that Adam was the first man and there was no man on the earth before him. It also states that Adam is not the result of evolution from a lower animal species. Furter, it states that man is the direct lineal offspring of God. Those three points are very clear.

Yes, correct, whatever was before man (homo sapiens) was not man. Once man, homo sapiens, came into existence that was man.  And he was not Adam until God breathed the breath of life into him, whatever that was.  Before man, there was either dust, or some other organic form that became man. These pre-man forms (dust or another thing) were a lower life form than man which wasn't man. How those pre-man forms became man is unexplained by the 1909 statement.  Evolution is a nice explanation though.  And we are only spirit offspring, not physical only Jesus was the only begotten in the flesh, that point is very clear.

[Shadrak]

What a sad philosopy.

So you think God had sex, or however he impregnated Mary, with all women throughout out all time and we are all his fleshly, begotten children? Perhaps you should follow a pagan religion where gods do come to earth and couple with humans.

 

Be respectful of religion on this board.

[The Nehor]

Are you claiming that your interpretation of the 1909 statement is the only correct one?

All I did was restrict it to what it was actually saying. You can believe anything else you want just do not cite the statement as support.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, correct, whatever was before man (homo sapiens) was not man. Once man, homo sapiens, came into existence that was man.  And he was not Adam until God breathed the breath of life into him, whatever that was.  Before man, there was either dust, or some other organic form that became man. These pre-man forms (dust or another thing) were a lower life form than man which wasn't man. How those pre-man forms became man is unexplained by the 1909 statement.  Evolution is a nice explanation though.  And we are only spirit offspring, not physical only Jesus was the only begotten in the flesh, that point is very clear.

There was no "man" that evolved from the animals that made the body for Adam, Thats the whole point of the 1909 statement. Jesus was the only begotten son in mortality. Adam was born into immortality.

[VideoGameJunkie]

As long as we go to heaven when we die, I don't care how we came about from the world.

[MormonFreeThinker]

As long as we go to heaven when we die, I don't care how we came about from the world.

 

Science doesn't affect salvation, and you have the right not to care, but that attitude stops scientific progress. We members of the true church should like science

 

Elder Oaks said,  "The work of science has made innumerable improvements in our lives...I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method, which begins with faith in God and relies on scriptures, inspired teaching and personal revelation. There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge gained by these different methods because God, our omnipotent Eternal Father, knows all truth and beckons us to learn by them both."

Edited April 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Helen47]

Mr Osbourn, you  might find a book by Peter Enns helpful called the Evolution of Adam. Enns is an Evangelical christian. On the back cover we find this evaluation ""The question of the historical Adam is an urgent issue in biblical interpretation and theology today. Recent developments in biology have indicated with impressive evidence that humanity does not go back to a single human couple. Does that mean that the Bible is wrong or that science is wrong? Or perhaps, as Peter Enns argues, we have been misreading the Bible. While not everyone, including myself, agrees with everything that Enns suggests, his book is an important contribution to the discussion concerning Genesis 1-2 and science."

--Tremper Longman III, Westmont College

 

also Mr Osbourn your views are being discussed elsewhere.  Also read the book by two Israeli archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. The exodus and conquest according to them did not happen. 

[thesometimesaint]

So all things change over time (micro-evolution).  No argument.  Radical change over time (Macro-evolution).  Some serious faults especially when one considers the ramifications to the fall and the atonement of  Christ.

 

Incorrect. ANY change in allele frequency no matter how large bellow the species level is micro-evolution. ANY change in allele frequency no matter how small above the speciation level is macro-evolution.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

 

I have no problem with the fall or the atonement of Christ. Just your interpretation of them.

[Rob Osborn]

Mr Osbourn, you  might find a book by Peter Enns helpful called the Evolution of Adam. Enns is an Evangelical christian. On the back cover we find this evaluation ""The question of the historical Adam is an urgent issue in biblical interpretation and theology today. Recent developments in biology have indicated with impressive evidence that humanity does not go back to a single human couple. Does that mean that the Bible is wrong or that science is wrong? Or perhaps, as Peter Enns argues, we have been misreading the Bible. While not everyone, including myself, agrees with everything that Enns suggests, his book is an important contribution to the discussion concerning Genesis 1-2 and science."

--Tremper Longman III, Westmont College

 

also Mr Osbourn your views are being discussed elsewhere.  Also read the book by two Israeli archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. The exodus and conquest according to them did not happen. 

I agree with our scriptures that Adam was the first man on this earth and that the whole of humanity traces back directly to Noah and from Noah to Adam and from Adam directly to God. We are of divine heritage and as such have the blessings given to his children.

[The Nehor]

There was no "man" that evolved from the animals that made the body for Adam, Thats the whole point of the 1909 statement.

 

Then it is somewhat surprising that the statement does not actually say that.

[Rob Osborn]

Then it is somewhat surprising that the statement does not actually say that.

Are you reading the same 1909 statement? It specifically states that Adam did not come from a lower order of the animal kingdom.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Are you reading the same 1909 statement? It specifically states that Adam did not come from a lower order of the animal kingdom.

 

You have a different interpretation of the 1909 statement, so let's agree to disagree. 

But, is it very clear that the 1909 statement does not talk about animal evolution or animal death before the fall. 

You have no reason to deny that the Earth is Old, that animal Evolution happens, and that there was animal death before the Fall. 

 

Elder Talmage 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 

[strappinglad]

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.

Most Armani suits are custom tailored. Just because there were significant differences in appearance does not make them ancestral. The Great Dane, Bulldog , and Chihuahua are all dogs. They have a much more different look from each other than the human species breeds do. I have personally met men who could pass for Neanderthals, or were so hirsute that they must have had some gorilla genes.

Edited April 27, 2014 by strappinglad

[strappinglad]

In Richard Lenski's 50,000 generation E-coli experiment, there were only a handful of beneficial mutations. Even those could be shown to also have a deleterious effect in other survival aspects. Random mutations , even ones that aid in some fitness benefit, do so by breaking a gene not building a better one.

"Evolution of increased cell size in all twelve populations[edit]

All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape.[6] This change was partly the result of a mutation that changed the expression of a gene for a penicillin binding protein, which allowed the mutant bacteria to outcompete ancestral bacteria under the conditions in the long-term evolution experiment. However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures.[6] "

Edited April 28, 2014 by strappinglad

[Rob Osborn]

You have a different interpretation of the 1909 statement, so let's agree to disagree. 

But, is it very clear that the 1909 statement does not talk about animal evolution or animal death before the fall. 

You have no reason to deny that the Earth is Old, that animal Evolution happens, and that there was animal death before the Fall. 

 

Elder Talmage 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 

It seems pretty straightforward that there was no evolution of man from the 1909 statement. If one cant get that then they are not reading the text right. The earth as far as the matter goes is who knows and who really cares how old. The only part that really matters is how long the temporal age of the earth is (how long death has been occurring). We are told that the temporal age of the earth will be 7,000 years. That means that before 7,000 years ago, there was no death whatsoever on the earth. Using this God givenn knowledge I can thus ascertain that when such and such says this animal lived so many millions of years ago I can automatically discard it. The same for human habitation- if it goues beyond the 7,000 years then it too is discarded. Its that simple.

[The Nehor]

It seems pretty straightforward that there was no evolution of man from the 1909 statement. If one cant get that then they are not reading the text right. The earth as far as the matter goes is who knows and who really cares how old. The only part that really matters is how long the temporal age of the earth is (how long death has been occurring). We are told that the temporal age of the earth will be 7,000 years. That means that before 7,000 years ago, there was no death whatsoever on the earth. Using this God givenn knowledge I can thus ascertain that when such and such says this animal lived so many millions of years ago I can automatically discard it. The same for human habitation- if it goues beyond the 7,000 years then it too is discarded. Its that simple.

 

I disrespectfully disagree.