Evolution Is Alive And Well In Hawaii

[cdowis]

Evolution of man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/

 

My policy on such posts is to ignore them.

 

If you have a point, then make it.  Cite relevant text, give your summary.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.

[halconero]

Your interpretation not his.

 

Again you are applying scientific interpretation to a religious concept.  The science club has rejected allowing any religious data to be considered therefor it is not honest to apply scientific naming to a religious concept. 

 

I don't care what either the anti-religious science, or the anti-science religious club say. I'm daring to apply scientific interpretation to religious concepts, and I'll apply religious concepts to scientific interpretations.

 

Example of the former: Applying the scientific classification of the animal body to the embodied nature of the God of LDS theology.

 

Example of the latter: Seeing the parameters which guide embryonic development as evidence of God's hand in creation.

 

Edit: The "science club" isn't some homogeneous organization. My osteology professor at UofT is an Anglican professor whose office hours have included talk the fusion of scientific and religious principles.

Edited June 3, 2014 by halconero

[ERayR]

I don't care what either the anti-religious science, or the anti-science religious club say. I'm daring to apply scientific interpretation to religious concepts, and I'll apply religious concepts to scientific interpretations.

 

Example of the former: Applying the scientific classification of the animal body to the embodied nature of the God of LDS theology.

 

Example of the latter: Seeing the parameters which guide embryonic development as evidence of God's hand in creation.

 

Edit: The "science club" isn't some homogeneous organization. My osteology professor at UofT is an Anglican professor whose office hours have included talk the fusion of scientific and religious principles.

 

I have hammered out my own position out in the middle of that no-mans land and it gets a bit lonely out here.  Note: Due to my own experience and study my interpretations do not align with yours.

 

Call it what you want it is semantics anyway.  Just do not expect others to agree to your view and give them the respect of their own semantics.

 

Embryonic development  is facinating.

 

Both the science club and the fundamental religious clubs are pretty tight knit groups.  It has been my observation that the fundamentalist science club, as a whole, tends to be less accepting of different opinions.

[halconero]

I have hammered out my own position out in the middle of that no-mans land and it gets a bit lonely out here. Note: Due to my own experience and study my interpretations do not align with yours.

Call it what you want it is semantics anyway. Just do not expect others to agree to your view and give them the respect of their own semantics.

Embryonic development is facinating.

Both the science club and the fundamental religious clubs are pretty tight knit groups. It has been my observation that the fundamentalist science club, as a whole, tends to be less accepting of different opinions.

Don't worry, you're not the only one out there. Even if we disagree.

I think semantics are vital to any communication or debate. Rob, myself, and everyone else has the right to their own views, just as much as we have the right to disagree. If he takes "God is an animal" to mean that other organisms are co-equal with God, then I agree, we are not animals. If he means that God is not a biological organism that shares characteristics with other biological organisms, then that's where I disagree and the semantics are of import.

Agreed, it's my favourite subject in med anthro aside from osteology.

Fundamentalists tends to be like that in any group, and they're usually more vocal than they are numerous. In my experience the actual number of hardcore fundamentalists among scientists (or the relgious) is not as large as the scientific apathetics, or even the scientifically relgious.

[Rob Osborn]

I have always had a problem with classifying man as an animal. When we speak generally, person to person the semantics of the word pretty much always mean the same thing. For instance, if we see a person on the side of the road we don't say "look at that animal". When we say "animal" we always mean an animal and not a human- not a person. God never calls us animals and even in our religious beliefs nowhere are we seen, viewed, or defined as animals. In fact, the only time we are referred to as animals is in biology classification terms. That is it! But, we are not animals in the typical way we use it in everyday language. In biology terms they use alll kind of made up words to define life. But, and its important to distinguish here, thee type of intelligence we have places us in a different class than the animals. We are far superior life forms and as such we should be classified differently. We are even viewed by God with different laws than animals. We are endowed with the ability of choosing right or wrong with eternal consequences for those actions. Animals on the other hand are not held to that law or standard. The entire gospel is for our salvation. Animals do not need the gospel nor need any obedience to laws pertaining to salvation. One can thus easily see that we are not animals in the way that man uses the word in everyday talk. You will never turn on the news and hear a reporter speak of what a person did and refer to him as an animal unless it is used in a symbolic manner to equate his or her actions with the animals.

[bcuzbcuz]

Pigeons are a good example.  There are many varieties from the very small to the very large with numerous traits but they are all still pigeons.

Pigeons:smidgeons. I said read what Darwin had to say about the breeding of pigeons, not what someone here thinks about pigeons. He wasn't talking about pigeons changing into some other animal, or no longer being pigeons, or turning into vultures or dogs. He was talking about selective breeding and how traits can be enhanced or extinguished.

Like I said, Read the book. Then state an opinion.

[bcuzbcuz]

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?

I've known people who could easily be listed in the "no soul" group. Devoid of morals, incapable of linking cause and effect, completely devoid of understanding of social interactions between fellow human beings. II've seen their school records from back to when they were in pre-school. Did they just get in the wrong line when god was handing out souls? Were they born that way or did their parents contribute?

[thesometimesaint]

Whether he is a sycophant of Ken Ham or not I couldn't say.  What I can say he is not the only one who has a tendency to make it up as they go.  

 

For medicine go to a doctor; for a problem with your home water go to a plumber; for science go to a scientist, for religion go to a church.

[cdowis]

Yes we do. [humans and apes have a common ancestor]

 

 

I do not find a way to reconcile this notion with my understanding of my religious beliefs.

 

I am happy that you apparently have done so.

[jkwilliams]

I do not find a way to reconcile this notion with my understanding of my religious beliefs.

I think that's the key: some people (myself included) have no problem seeing evolution as part of God's creative process; others can't reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs. It doesn't mean the evidence for evolutionary processes isn't out there.

[thesometimesaint]

I have always had a problem with classifying man as an animal. When we speak generally, person to person the semantics of the word pretty much always mean the same thing. For instance, if we see a person on the side of the road we don't say "look at that animal". When we say "animal" we always mean an animal and not a human- not a person. God never calls us animals and even in our religious beliefs nowhere are we seen, viewed, or defined as animals. In fact, the only time we are referred to as animals is in biology classification terms. That is it! But, we are not animals in the typical way we use it in everyday language. In biology terms they use alll kind of made up words to define life. But, and its important to distinguish here, thee type of intelligence we have places us in a different class than the animals. We are far superior life forms and as such we should be classified differently. We are even viewed by God with different laws than animals. We are endowed with the ability of choosing right or wrong with eternal consequences for those actions. Animals on the other hand are not held to that law or standard. The entire gospel is for our salvation. Animals do not need the gospel nor need any obedience to laws pertaining to salvation. One can thus easily see that we are not animals in the way that man uses the word in everyday talk. You will never turn on the news and hear a reporter speak of what a person did and refer to him as an animal unless it is used in a symbolic manner to equate his or her actions with the animals.

 

We are biologically animals. We are also the only animal that we know of that has morality.

 

Then why did God feel it necessary to baptize the entire globe?

[thesometimesaint]

I do not find a way to reconcile this notion with my understanding of my religious beliefs.

 

I am happy that you apparently have done so.

 

For me it isn't all that hard. We are not them They fulfill whatever purpose God has for them. Would the we also do.

[bcuzbcuz]

So question.....  I see a big flaw in this "study" unless it's been resolved in the details?

 

But, if Maggots were burowing in the backs of crickets, which is in fact where the wings attach and such, and then the crickets reproduce etc., wouldn't in fact the crickets not having wings or fully developed wings anymore likely in fact be caused by the maggots interferring with the natural genetics of the critic, that it's NOT caused by them being "targets" of flies who then give them maggots, thus the crickets developed something so they could hide like the study claims?

 

So, I think they made an utterly false conclusion from the study.  Still evolution to a degree, but simply evolution caused by environmental changes.  For example, we know humans used to be stronger, and have slightly less intelligence, but our changes in environment from hunter gatherers to more domestic caused our bodies to be weaker and our minds to be expanded more.  BTW, this doesn't mean we went from "Ape" to human.... which is what the church has always been against.  We have always been our "unique" selves (unless there are possibly two species, the pre-adamites and the chosen people (which could potentially indicate some of the human race "evolved" from an omeba in the ocean, but not necessarily).

Maggots burrowing into crickets backs don't genetically change anything. One could probably ask why, or what, a parasite gains from killing off its host, but a cricket can't avoid making cricket sounds by genetically shortening its wings. No matter what the threat.

If I was to lose a finger in an industrial accident, it wouldn't mean that I'd genetically pass the missing finger onto my children. Think circumcision. So far, after thousands of years, boys are not genetically inclined to avoid the painful operation.

Your second point about environmental changes is exactly why evolution works. Survival of those best fitted, in an environment, to gain an advantage from a certain characteristic.

[cdowis]

For me it isn't all that hard. We are not them They fulfill whatever purpose God has for them. Would the we also do.

 

Huh?  Who is "them".  I was talking about the notion that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  According to the doctrine of evolution, there is no Adam or Eve -- no first parents at all, which to my way of thinking, defies common sense.  But quantum mechanics may somehow be involved.

[thesometimesaint]

Huh?  Who is "them".  I was talking about the notion that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  According to the doctrine of evolution, there is no Adam or Eve -- no first parents at all, which to my way of thinking, defies common sense.  But quantum mechanics may somehow be involved.

 

That pre-humans served whatever purposed God had for them.

 

Incorrect. Evolution dictates that there was an Adam and Eve. The first of their species. What it can't do is prove that the Adam and Eve of the LDS Scriptures are that Adam and Eve.

 

Common Sense isn't very common. IE; It wasn't very long ago that so called common sense said that man would never be in space let alone go to the moon. Science had other idea's.

 

A&E were alive, and they could not die. So QM may have been involved. SEE Schrodinger's Cat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[Rob Osborn]

We are biologically animals. We are also the only animal that we know of that has morality.

 

Then why did God feel it necessary to baptize the entire globe?

Biologically we are humans.

[thesometimesaint]

Biologically we are humans.

 

No one is denying that.

[Rob Osborn]

No one is denying that.

Let me ask- when they dissect dead people in the lab do they say- "today we are going to dissect these animals"? No.

[ERayR]

Pigeons:smidgeons. I said read what Darwin had to say about the breeding of pigeons, not what someone here thinks about pigeons. He wasn't talking about pigeons changing into some other animal, or no longer being pigeons, or turning into vultures or dogs. He was talking about selective breeding and how traits can be enhanced or extinguished.

Like I said, Read the book. Then state an opinion.

 

I do not question micro-evolution (selective breeding).  As an old farmer/rancher this concept is used to breed better livestock.  At one time I raised and flew a few roller pigeons and used it to breed for the desired traits.  What I question is the extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro-evolution.  It is a very large leap of faith.

[ERayR]

For medicine go to a doctor; for a problem with your home water go to a plumber; for science go to a scientist, for religion go to a church.

 

And never the twain shall meet.  As long as the science club and the religious club take positions that are polar opposites and refuse to consider anything else they will continue to talk past each other.

[jkwilliams]

And never the twain shall meet.  As long as the science club and the religious club take positions that are polar opposites and refuse to consider anything else they will continue to talk past each other.

That's like saying that the Anime club takes a position that is the polar opposite of the French club. They're not talking about the same subject at all.

Edited June 3, 2014 by jkwilliams

[ERayR]

Huh?  Who is "them".  I was talking about the notion that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  According to the doctrine of evolution, there is no Adam or Eve -- no first parents at all, which to my way of thinking, defies common sense.  But quantum mechanics may somehow be involved.

 

Right and no Adam and Eve then no fall.  No fall then no atonement.

[ERayR]

That's like saying that the Anime club takes a position that is the polar opposite of the French club. They're not talking about the same subject at all.

 

Then why do they argue about the answer to the same question?

[jkwilliams]

Right and no Adam and Eve then no fall.  No fall then no atonement.

That was Joseph Fielding Smith's logic, as I recall. I don't see evolution as eliminating either Adam and Eve or the fall. Is there some reason I should?

[jkwilliams]

Then why do they argue about the answer to the same question?

They don't, as far as I can tell. Science is agnostic as to the existence of a creator or higher power or God or whatever you want to call him. God is not something that can be demonstrated by experiment, which is why He exists outside of the realm of science.

Where I see science conflicting with faith is when people insist on dogma that conflicts with physical evidence, such as when Galileo's model of the universe met with vehement opposition from the Catholic Church. He was right, and the church was wrong. Nowadays we don't see any conflict between the scriptures and a non geocentric universe, but for them it was blasphemy.

I have no problem discussing evidence for or against a particular scientific theory, but too often the evidence is someone's interpretation of the scriptures. That doesn't work for me.