thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 OK, if you wish. My lawnmower engine has many things in common with a jet engine so they are both "engines". But man and ape do not have a common ancestor. Evolution of man.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 We dont go to prison for killing animals, only for killing humans. You will go to prison for killing an ape.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Duncan seriously. You are more intelligent than this. Do some cursory reading on evolutionary theory and then come back to the table with some basic information. I never gave evolution much thought when I was a believer. As a teenager and missionary, I stumbled across Joseph Fielding Smith's "Doctrines of Salvation" and accepted his logic in rejecting evolution. Later, as a student at BYU, I learned that most LDS biologists accept the basic premises of evolutionary theory, and based on a few classes, I adjusted my beliefs to accommodate that. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that I did some more in-depth study of the theory and the evidence for it. Based on that study, I think there's just way too much evidence from a lot of overlapping sources to reject evolution. I respect people who don't accept organic evolution, but speaking for myself, I don't see any reason to reject it. I am a little surprised to see so many people here rejecting evolution, as most of my LDS friends and family have no problem accepting it. This once again tells me that the posters here do not necessarily reflect the membership at large of the LDS church.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 why do squirrels still exist and people have peanut allergies?! there would have to be millions of squirrel to human evolutions, why doesn't God just have a squirrel a squirrel and evolve within it's own species rather (which is what I am saying) then wait billions of year waiting for a human to appear? We and squirrels are on separate evolutionary tracts.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 We and squirrels are on separate evolutionary tracts. You mean tracts like this one? http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Duncan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Duncan seriously. You are more intelligent than this. Do some cursory reading on evolutionary theory and then come back to the table with some basic information. ah! for sure! science is not my strong suit, it just never clicked for me when I was in school Edited June 2, 2014 by Duncan
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 You mean tracts like this one? http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Just now trying to wake up, my fingers haven't caught up with my brain.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 ah! for sure! science is not my strong suit, it just never clicked for me when I was in school Science, particularly chemistry, was always fun for me. I didn't join the Church until I was 20 years old and in college.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Science, particularly chemistry, was always fun for me. I didn't join the Church until I was 20 years old and in college. My degrees are in the humanities (BA and MA in English) and social sciences (BA in Latin American Studies), so science was never my focus, though I've always found it interesting. The thing is, the evidence for evolution isn't that difficult to grasp, even for someone like me.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 My degrees are in the humanities (BA and MA in English) and social sciences (BA in Latin American Studies), so science was never my focus, though I've always found it interesting. The thing is, the evidence for evolution isn't that difficult to grasp, even for someone like me. I started out in Chemistry but in my second year took a psychology class and fell in love with how the human mind works. My sister is the research Chemist.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I started out in Chemistry but in my second year took a psychology class and fell in love with how the human mind works. My sister is the research Chemist. My sister teaches chemical engineering at a large university, so she's the one in hard sciences. Incidentally, she is very much an active, believing Latter-day Saint, and she accepts organic evolution.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 My sister teaches chemical engineering at a large university, so she's the one in hard sciences. Incidentally, she is very much an active, believing Latter-day Saint, and she accepts organic evolution. My sister works at a Ivy League university, but not as a teacher. Her main field of expertise is ocean/sea pollution. She spends half her time in the lab and half somewhere out on the oceans and seas all over the world. She not a member of the church, and has no real interest in any religion.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 all good stuff! I just wonder if these crickets or other insects will eventually evolve into I dunno a platypus or elephant or budgie or something, like are there half cricket half something else remains buried somewhere?If a cricket suddenly had an elephhant baby, then a new evolutionary theory would need to be developed. The current theory neither states anything such has happened nor could happen. These chirpless crickets may evolve into flightless crickets or maybe capable of eating the flies that parasite on them,, but crickets turning into a budgie...ain't gonna happen. That's not how evolution works. 1
Tacenda Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Some of my best friends are ex-Mo's. You're in for it now.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 You're in for it now. Sometimes I swear I'm a glutton for punishment.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Sometimes I swear I'm a glutton for punishment. I must be a bit of a masochist, or why else would I show up here again?
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I must be a bit of a masochist, or why else would I show up here again? True.
seriously honestly Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I think crickets losing their voice in order to avoid killer flies is a better example of adaptation than evolution 1
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I think crickets losing their voice in order to avoid killer flies is a better example of adaptation than evolutionThat's what evolution is. Adaptions that get passed on. 1
seriously honestly Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Katherine (or anyone who believes man descended from apes), At which point in the evolutionary line do you believe God started providing souls/spirits to our ancestors? 1
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I think crickets losing their voice in order to avoid killer flies is a better example of adaptation than evolution Just out of curiosity, how do you distinguish between adaptation and evolution? Let me give you another example. As I mentioned earlier, a colony of bedbugs has been maintained in the lab since about 1970. In the US, aggressive pesticide use was very successful in killing off a lot of bedbugs, but then about 10-15 years ago, it was found that most bedbugs in the US were resistant to those pesticides. When compared to the lab colony, which was not exposed to pesticides, the pesticides in the wild were genetically different. In short, they hadn't just adapted, but natural selection had killed off the bedbugs that didn't have that genetic mutation, whereas the ones with the mutation survived. Do you consider that adaptation, or evolution? What would count as evolution to you?
bcuzbcuz Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 This isn't proof of evolution, of one species evolving into another completely different species.This is merely Natural Selection within a population of crickets.There had already existed among these australian crickets, which arrived in Hawai'i, crickets with mutated wings which didn't sing before the North American flies arrived and started munching and killing their singing brothers killing them off allowing the mutated non-singing crickets to increase in population. That's not Evolution. It's natural selection.Darwin claimed in the First Edition of his "Origin of Species:"––———"In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."Darwin omitted this story in other editions, but regretted his revision.I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits" ("More Letters of Charles Darwin," 1903, page 162). JOHN L. GITTLEMAN Associate Professor of Zoology, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tenn., May 3, 1994 "–––————http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/16/opinion/l-darwin-saw-the-whale-in-the-black-bear-097454.htmlThere isn't an Evolutionary Biologist today who believes Charles Darwin's claim that a North American Black Bear could evolve into a Whale through the means of that bear naturally selecting to open its mouth to catch water-borne insects. But the same will hypocritically claim Darwin's theory is fact.The theory of evolution is total nonsense. Starting first with Charles Darwin as the evidence of that nonsense.You quote Darwin but I'm not convinceed you actually read his work. If you have read "Origin of Species" I suggest you read it again, starting with Darwin's work with pigeons. Or have you just cut and pasted from other sites that reflect the opinion you started with? 1
ERayR Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 If God has the physical features of a human being, then yes, he can be classified as an ape. Is there something wrong with saying that? Just wondering where your coming from.
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Katherine (or anyone who believes man descended from apes),At which point in the evolutionary line do you believe God started providing souls/spirits to our ancestors?No clue. Considering that Latter-day Saint theology is non-dualistic, materialistic, and that every organism has a spirit, there was never a time when a living being didn't have a spirit. If your question is when God began providing spirits made in his image to our ancestors, I'd say that it was when there were bodies around that were in the image of God. I personally subscribe to Adamic doctrine, in that Adam was the first being we could consider a "Homo sapien." But that's just me. 1
ERayR Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Here's the definition of an animal:If you think that doesn't apply to you, then I don't know what to say to you. I have the right to say I'm a 1963 E Type Jaguar, but it doesn't make it so. I can't figure out why anyone would find it wrong/evil/offensive to say that humans are animals. I'm trying to be respectful, but I don't understand what the big deal is. It is simple and as such a bit telling about your mindset. He is saying he is a child of God and he doesn't consider God to be an animal.
Recommended Posts