Evolution Is Alive And Well In Hawaii

[ERayR]

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?

 

I don't remember reading that but if he did IMNSHO he is right on.

[jkwilliams]

I don't remember reading that but if he did IMNSHO he is right on.

I thought that logic was ironclad when I was a younger man, but as I've learned more, I've come to realize that reality doesn't have to conform to my reading of scripture. I'm happy to go where the evidence leads me, and if I have to adjust my understanding both of the world and of God, I just do it.

[ERayR]

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.

 

We have just had how many pages of posting arguing over some of these questions and you say that.  Oh I understand it is just some poor dogmatic souls that don't agree with your interpretation so they can be dismissed and that doesn't count.  OKaaaaaaay

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I do believe that someday they will meet. But that day probably isn't going to be today. 6/3/2014.

[ERayR]

I do believe that someday they will meet. But that day probably isn't going to be today. 6/3/2014.

 

The two opposing clubs are going to have to soften their hardline stance before that will happen.

[jkwilliams]

We have just had how many pages of posting arguing over some of these questions and you say that.  Oh I understand it is just some poor dogmatic souls that don't agree with your interpretation so they can be dismissed and that doesn't count.  OKaaaaaaay

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I don't consider interpretation of scripture to be valid evidence in a scientific discussion, just as I don't consider science to be applicable to matters of faith. As I said, science and religion are discussing different things, IMO.

[jkwilliams]

In fairness to ERayR, I would say exactly the same thing about a dogmatic existentialist who insists that the resurrection is impossible because it goes against the laws of science. I don't think a scientist has much helpful to say about the resurrection, just as I don't think that the scriptures tell us much about the mechanics of creation.

[halconero]

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

Coming from someone who has disected orangutans, chimpanzees, pigs, and tarsiers, we don't say "today we are going to dissect these animals either." We refer to the specific species we dissect. Be that human, orangutan, pig, dog, whatever.

Animal, or "animalia" is a specific term for an overarching category of living organisms. When we treat a patient at a hospital we don't refer to that person by their family name, but their first name to be more specific. Humanity, or Homo sapien, is the specific term we use for us. What we also recognize is that humanity shares some biological characteristics with other organisms. This includes being multicellular, eukaryotic, self-moving, and digestion relying on other beings. These form "animalia."

Where the concern may arise, which may be valid is that "animal" in colloquial terms has connotations which don't apply to God. This is a case where a word has multiple meanings. The scientific word "animal" has very different meaning than the common usage of the word.

If we are using the common usage of the word "animal" to describe humanity and the nature of God, I agree with you, God and us are not animals. If we are using the more specific term as defined in science, then the term applies.

[jkwilliams]

If we are using the common usage of the word "animal" to describe humanity and the nature of God, I agree with you, God and us are not animals. If we are using the more specific term as defined in science, then the term applies.

In all honesty, in nearly 50 years of life, I have never once considered that referring to humans as part of the animal kingdom is in any way offensive or blasphemous. I learn something new every day. But your explanation makes sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh goody another one of "these" threads.

[jkwilliams]

 

Oh goody another one of "these" threads.

Oh, goody, another one of "these" posts.

[Rob Osborn]

Coming from someone who has disected orangutans, chimpanzees, pigs, and tarsiers, we don't say "today we are going to dissect these animals either." We refer to the specific species we dissect. Be that human, orangutan, pig, dog, whatever.

Animal, or "animalia" is a specific term for an overarching category of living organisms. When we treat a patient at a hospital we don't refer to that person by their family name, but their first name to be more specific. Humanity, or Homo sapien, is the specific term we use for us. What we also recognize is that humanity shares some biological characteristics with other organisms. This includes being multicellular, eukaryotic, self-moving, and digestion relying on other beings. These form "animalia."

Where the concern may arise, which may be valid is that "animal" in colloquial terms has connotations which don't apply to God. This is a case where a word has multiple meanings. The scientific word "animal" has very different meaning than the common usage of the word.

If we are using the common usage of the word "animal" to describe humanity and the nature of God, I agree with you, God and us are not animals. If we are using the more specific term as defined in science, then the term applies.

But, we are not animals. we did not come from them. we may share many similarities but we are not animals.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Macro-micro? You question the extrapolation from the one to the other. I have a problem where you think the line is drawn between micro and macro. You accept breeding for better stock but draw a line when the thought occurs that such a process is a natural process.?

It would seem that you are too attached to your clock. You can imagine time divided into seconds and milliseconds but cannot fathom time over millenium, over millions of years. Your clock, your watch, your time keeper on your iPhone are the micro divisions of time that don't exist.. You can't show me a thousandth of a second, either in a blink of your eye or a snap of your fingers, but you believe it is a fact. I believe in millions of years but I have to dig in the ground to prove it. It's the evidence in the ground you don't accept.

Look beneath your feet. Open your eyes. Macro-evolution is just a word you've attached your belief to so your preconceptions don't get a shock. Breeding for desirable traits is a micro step from the natural process that occurs over millions of years. Same process, same result, different time scale.

[ERayR]

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I don't consider interpretation of scripture to be valid evidence in a scientific discussion, just as I don't consider science to be applicable to matters of faith. As I said, science and religion are discussing different things, IMO.

 

Only at the extremities.  I agree with tss on this.

[ERayR]

Macro-micro? You question the extrapolation from the one to the other. I have a problem where you think the line is drawn between micro and macro. You accept breeding for better stock but draw a line when the thought occurs that such a process is a natural process.?

It would seem that you are too attached to your clock. You can imagine time divided into seconds and milliseconds but cannot fathom time over millenium, over millions of years. Your clock, your watch, your time keeper on your iPhone are the micro divisions of time that don't exist.. You can't show me a thousandth of a second, either in a blink of your eye or a snap of your fingers, but you believe it is a fact. I believe in millions of years but I have to dig in the ground to prove it. It's the evidence in the ground you don't accept.

Look beneath your feet. Open your eyes. Macro-evolution is just a word you've attached your belief to so your preconceptions don't get a shock. Breeding for desirable traits is a micro step from the natural process that occurs over millions of years. Same process, same result, different time scale.

 

With all the well planned scientific use of micro-evolution in some of the best labs we still end up with a variation of what we started with.  Fairy tale - princess kisses frog, frog turns into a prince.  Science frog = millions of years.  Frog turns into prince.

 

I would say I fathom time as well or better than you.  I even have somewhat of a grasp of infinity or eternity.  No its not the evidence I don't accept it is your interpretation of the evidence.  I have other evidences that you discard that brings into question your interpretations.  I have told you I don't belong to the club.

 

Lift up your eyes look at evidences around you expand your knowledge beyond that which the clubs accept. 

 

Google micro and macro evolution you might find some enlightenment.

Edited June 3, 2014 by ERayR

[Brian 2.0]

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.

Thankfully it isn't a blind leap of faith. If macro-evolution actually happened then there would be certain things we should find... things we haven't seen but predict would be there. Like a fused chromosome in humans for example to explain the different # of chromosomes between humans and chimps. And thankfully we have found that chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome!

When scientific theories make predictions and those predictions end up being accurate time and time again then "large leaps of faith" can turn into simple logical next steps.

[halconero]

But, we are not animals. we did not come from them. we may share many similarities but we are not animals.

 

The scientific term animal does not discuss descent. It discusses physiological characteristics. I've asked this twice now, but I'll ask it again: Do you consider yourself a multicellular, eukaryotic, motic, hetertrophic organism?

 

[cdowis]

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

 

Of course.

 

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.

 

When using Adam and Eve, I am talking about the first mating pair of homo sapiens (no  relation to the Biblical account).  But this notion begs the question, if male and female evolved on separate tracks, how did the first mating pair "meet"?  The universal answer is that here were no "first" pairing, but .... well, I just don't understand the argument from there, but they are adamant that there was no first mating pair.

 

wiki -- "Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" – some 140,000 years later.^[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)^[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.^[35]" 

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

The scientific term animal does not discuss descent. It discusses physiological characteristics. I've asked this twice now, but I'll ask it again: Do you consider yourself a multicellular, eukaryotic, motic, hetertrophic organism?

I do not consider myself an animal at any level. The way biologists use it is one thing I guess. The problem is that words change over time and get associated with different things. I fear that scientists use the word "animal" a little too liberally in attempt to put us on a more equal plane with the animals in non-scientific jargon which, over time, has changed the use of the word. When you now watch evolution programs it is common for them to view and define us as animals and then say how we are just a little more evolved of the creatures. Its rather demeaning to me. When we view it this way we might as well just call God himself an animal. But that doesn;t sound so good does it? So why the great reverence for God not defined as an animal whereas we are? But we are created in Gods image. Is Gods image the image of an animal? No. So then why resort to defining his children as animals?

[bcuzbcuz]

With all the well planned scientific use of micro-evolution in some of the best labs we still end up with a variation of what we started with.  Fairy tale - princess kisses frog, frog turns into a prince.  Science frog = millions of years.  Frog turns into prince.

 

I would say I fathom time as well or better than you.  I even have somewhat of a grasp of infinity or eternity.  No its not the evidence I don't accept it is your interpretation of the evidence.  I have other evidences that you discard that brings into question your interpretations.  I have told you I don't belong to the club.

 

Lift up your eyes look at evidences around you expand your knowledge beyond that which the clubs accept. 

 

Google micro and macro evolution you might find some enlightenment.

I understand your point, but don't you find that with your gaze always fixed upwards that you trip over stuff that's just lying around on the ground?

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

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

[bcuzbcuz]

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

 

Of course.

 

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.

 

When using Adam and Eve, I am talking about the first mating pair of homo sapiens (no  relation to the Biblical account).  But this notion begs the question, if male and female evolved on separate tracks, how did the first mating pair "meet"?  The universal answer is that here were no "first" pairing, but .... well, I just don't understand the argument from there, but they are adamant that there was no first mating pair.

 

wiki -- "Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" – some 140,000 years later.^[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)^[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.^[35]" 

All your answer shows is that there is a lot of crap on Wikipedia.

It provides absolutely nothing substantial about whether Adam and Eve existed during the same time frame, or that Adam and Eve were two separate developments of evolution that finally pair up, somehow, somewhere. Or whether Adam and Eve were brother and sister from the same parent. Because trying to match a Biblical story to archaeological evidence is backwards adaptation. It's like trying to put a puzzle together by using scissors, glue and a hammar to make pieces fit into place. Whoever wrote the piece about mitochrondrial Eve was just blowing smoke.

[thesometimesaint]

 

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

 

Of course.

 

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.

 

When using Adam and Eve, I am talking about the first mating pair of homo sapiens (no  relation to the Biblical account).  But this notion begs the question, if male and female evolved on separate tracks, how did the first mating pair "meet"?  The universal answer is that here were no "first" pairing, but .... well, I just don't understand the argument from there, but they are adamant that there was no first mating pair.

 

wiki -- "Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" – some 140,000 years later.^[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)^[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.^[35]" 

 

 

 

 

In all animals there has to be a mating pair or reproduction doesn't take place. We have no clue as to whom that first mating pair was. But genetics, time requirements, and population dynamics put it at at least one pair of 40 genetically unrelated individuals of the same species somewhere in central Africa 200,000 to 250,000 years ago. Well outside the range of any Adam and Eve 7,000 years ago whether in the Middle East or America.

[thesometimesaint]

I do not consider myself an animal at any level. The way biologists use it is one thing I guess. The problem is that words change over time and get associated with different things. I fear that scientists use the word "animal" a little too liberally in attempt to put us on a more equal plane with the animals in non-scientific jargon which, over time, has changed the use of the word. When you now watch evolution programs it is common for them to view and define us as animals and then say how we are just a little more evolved of the creatures. Its rather demeaning to me. When we view it this way we might as well just call God himself an animal. But that doesn;t sound so good does it? So why the great reverence for God not defined as an animal whereas we are? But we are created in Gods image. Is Gods image the image of an animal? No. So then why resort to defining his children as animals?

 

Actually calling us animals is demeaning to the other animals. Tell me where does the term Rh factor in your blood come from. Hint it's not from people.

Edited June 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[halconero]

I do not consider myself an animal at any level. The way biologists use it is one thing I guess. The problem is that words change over time and get associated with different things. I fear that scientists use the word "animal" a little too liberally in attempt to put us on a more equal plane with the animals in non-scientific jargon which, over time, has changed the use of the word. When you now watch evolution programs it is common for them to view and define us as animals and then say how we are just a little more evolved of the creatures. Its rather demeaning to me. When we view it this way we might as well just call God himself an animal. But that doesn;t sound so good does it? So why the great reverence for God not defined as an animal whereas we are? But we are created in Gods image. Is Gods image the image of an animal? No. So then why resort to defining his children as animals?

 

I can meet you in the middle on that, and understand your position and reasoning. For me, the way biologists use it signifies an embodied God. The notion of a biological God, with a physical body of flesh and bone, multicellular, eukaryotic in nature is a glorious one. For me, the fact that I have a biological body with the same characteristics as that strengthens my belief that I am a son of God. That other organisms share some of these characteristics sets forth a pattern of God as the creator, but my testimony of the spiritual creation, and humanity's unique position of being not only the biological, but spiritual image of God grounds me.

 

So, all I would ask is understanding that when I say "animal" that term has a different meaning that does not put humanity on equal footing with lesser-beings. I understand your position, and actually agree with you that given the nature of semantics that how those less schooled in scientific terminology can view the use of the word "animal" with regards to human nature.