MormonFreeThinker Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) I am not an expert, I am not qualified to challenge the scientific consensus. I haven't done the research myself, and I don't have the tools to study DNA. The reason why I believe that Evolution is true is very simple. If there were no evidences that Evolution happened, no Mormon scientist would believe it. But all Mormons that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics do believe in Evolution, all. I have challenged many to name just one Mormon Biologist, Paleontologist, or Geneticist that doesn't believe in Evolution, but so far no one has answered my question. Common sense tells me that the public doesn't understand the evidence, only scientists (in relevant fields) understand it. That is why it is extremely easy to make ID creationism appear scientific. It is okay to believe in direct creationism, but it is not science, and I hope creationist admit that. If you disagree, name Mormon Biologists that don't believe in Evolution. Here is a list, there are more Geneticists and Biologists that do believe in Evolution, but they didn't mention "Evolution" in their testimonies, such as Dr. Ugo A. Perego) Dr. Laura Clarke Bridgewater (Ph.D. in genetics) "In fact, we do share something like 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. Not only that, but at the genetic level we are also remarkably similar to mice, fruit flies, and brewer’s yeast. Information we learn about genetic function by studying these organisms is often directly relevant to humans and provides great benefits in our understanding of human health and disease." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2600/laura-clarke-bridgewater Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) "From an early age I knew that my grandpa, who also served as an LDS bishop at one time, believed in evolution. He even authored a pamphlet called Evolution and the Bible in which he argued that the Bible tells us why the world was created, and evolution tells us how. This taught me that one need not “choose sides,” although I’m aware that certain scriptures can be interpreted to deny the possibility of “theistic evolution.” However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner Dr. Heath Ogden (PhD in integrative biology) "I do not know when Adam and Eve lived on this Earth. However, I accept that their physical bodies are united to all other life on this planet in a great tree of life. In other words, all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification. The evidences that support this idea are astounding" http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden Dr. Angela Robertson (Ph.D from the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology)"Among biologists, the idea of God “creating” life and mankind often generates an impatient, condescending tone. I do not claim to know how evolution and God interact, but I believe that they do, and I see no conflict between biology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1897/angela-m-berg-robertson Dr. Larry St. Clair (professor of integrative biology at BYU)"The facts as to the age of the earth and the processes of creation are not described in sufficient detail in the scriptures to prove or discount evolution as a mechanism for the origin and diversification of life on earth." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/437/larry-st-clair Dr. Craig M. Young (Ph.D. in Zoology) "It is clear to me as a scientist that much of what we have learned about biology, including evolution, is correct and true." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1699/craig-m-young Dr. Wade E. Miller (PhD in Paleontology)"For many years I have personally studied evidences that show evolution has taken place throughout the history of life on earth"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller Definitions http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us Zoology - "The scientific study of the behavior, structure, physiology, classification, and distribution of animals" Paleontology - "The branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants." Biology - "The study of living organisms" Genetics - "The study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics. " Edited June 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker 1
Buzzard Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 So, what's the problem? I don't know all the details, but have no issue with whatever method life and humanity came to be. I expect to find out more details shortly. 2
cinepro Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) If there were no evidences that Evolution happened, no Mormon scientist would believe it. But all Mormons that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics do believe in Evolution, all. What an odd line of reasoning. But not original. Edited June 4, 2014 by cinepro
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 What an odd line of reasoning. But not original. and you commited the Red Herring fallacy.Don't dodge my question, can you name one Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics that doesn't believe in Evolution? Just one, if you can't, the debate is over.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 What an odd line of reasoning. But not original. Not really applicable. If you need open heart surgery it is better to go to a physician than to a house plumber. Even if it is just plumbing.
Ahab Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Lay it out simply and briefly so all of us can understand exactly what you believe.Which form of life got the ball rolling, and then which one came next, and at which point would you say that our form of life, humanity, stepped into the picture? Or if you prefer to look at us in reverse, which form of life begat the first human on this planet, and what was that form of life before it got to be our progenitor?If you believe humans are just a more advanced or even the most advanced form of ape on this planet, for example, then tell us what form of life gave rise to the first kind of ape, and then what came before that, going all the way back to the very first form of life on this planet.You might also want to consider the fact that most people, both scientists and non-scientists, think there is a very big difference between macro and micro evolution, with most accepting micro but not macro evolution theories.
Gray Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 You might also want to consider the fact that most people, both scientists and non-scientists, think there is a very big difference between macro and micro evolution, with most accepting micro but not macro evolution theories. The only difference between the two is time. The idea of species is a human construct, like national borders 2
Ahab Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 The only difference between the two is time.The idea of species is a human construct, like national bordersSo you believe that with enough time a gnat will become one of us, even glorified like our Father in heaven?I believe a gnat may eventually become the best kind of gnat among all gnats in existence, but that a gnat will never become one of us even if it continued to live on into eternity.
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 So you believe that with enough time a gnat will become one of us, even glorified like our Father in heaven? I believe a gnat may eventually become the best kind of gnat among all gnats in existence, but that a gnat will never become one of us even if it continued to live on into eternity. Is that how you see evolution? As life forms evolving towards being human?
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Lay it out simply and briefly so all of us can understand exactly what you believe.Which form of life got the ball rolling, and then which one came next, and at which point would you say that our form of life, humanity, stepped into the picture?Or if you prefer to look at us in reverse, which form of life begat the first human on this planet, and what was that form of life before it got to be our progenitor?If you believe humans are just a more advanced or even the most advanced form of ape on this planet, for example, then tell us what form of life gave rise to the first kind of ape, and then what came before that, going all the way back to the very first form of life on this planet.You might also want to consider the fact that most people, both scientists and non-scientists, think there is a very big difference between macro and micro evolution, with most accepting micro but not macro evolution theories. We don't know the first life form that got the ball rolling. In all probability it was even more simple than the amoeba. We don't know the exact species sequence that gave rise to our species. The fossil record seems to indicate that primates diverged from other mammals some 55 million years ago. That the first true hominid the australopithecines are from some 5,300,000 years ago. We don't know the exact sequence of descent back to the earliest life forms. and probably won't in this life. But what we do know is that change with descent is the mechanism for it. A phylogenetic tree will show you the relationships that we know of. To scientists there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Gray Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) So you believe that with enough time a gnat will become one of us, even glorified like our Father in heaven?I believe a gnat may eventually become the best kind of gnat among all gnats in existence, but that a gnat will never become one of us even if it continued to live on into eternity. There is no inevitable course of evolution for any species. They evolve in unpredictable ways in response to changes in environment, predators, etc. Some species end up changing very little for millions of years. Others evolve rapidly. Evolution is not goal oriented. The genes that get passed on are those from animals that live long enough to reproduce. Edited June 4, 2014 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 So you believe that with enough time a gnat will become one of us, even glorified like our Father in heaven?I believe a gnat may eventually become the best kind of gnat among all gnats in existence, but that a gnat will never become one of us even if it continued to live on into eternity. No! A gnat will never become a human. The observance of such would repudiate evolution. At some point in the distant past we have a Common Ancestor to the gnat. Questions about God are not in the realm of science.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 Is there a Mormon Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that has a PhD and does not believe in Evolution?Someone please answer my question.
ERayR Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I am not an expert, I am not qualified to challenge the scientific consensus. I haven't done the research myself, and I don't have the tools to study DNA. The reason why I believe that Evolution is true is very simple. If there were no evidences that Evolution happened, no Mormon scientist would believe it. But all Mormons that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics do believe in Evolution, all. I have challenged many to name just one Mormon Biologist, Paleontologist, or Geneticist that doesn't believe in Evolution, but so far no one has answered my question. Common sense tells me that the public doesn't understand the evidence, only scientists (in relevant fields) understand it. That is why it is extremely easy to make ID creationism appear scientific. It is okay to believe in direct creationism, but it is not science, and I hope creationist admit that. If you disagree, name Mormon Biologists that don't believe in Evolution. Here is a list, there are more Geneticists and Biologists that do believe in Evolution, but they didn't mention "Evolution" in their testimonies, such as Dr. Ugo A. Perego) Dr. Laura Clarke Bridgewater (Ph.D. in genetics) "In fact, we do share something like 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. Not only that, but at the genetic level we are also remarkably similar to mice, fruit flies, and brewer’s yeast. Information we learn about genetic function by studying these organisms is often directly relevant to humans and provides great benefits in our understanding of human health and disease." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2600/laura-clarke-bridgewater Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) "From an early age I knew that my grandpa, who also served as an LDS bishop at one time, believed in evolution. He even authored a pamphlet called Evolution and the Bible in which he argued that the Bible tells us why the world was created, and evolution tells us how. This taught me that one need not “choose sides,” although I’m aware that certain scriptures can be interpreted to deny the possibility of “theistic evolution.” However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner Dr. Heath Ogden (PhD in integrative biology) "I do not know when Adam and Eve lived on this Earth. However, I accept that their physical bodies are united to all other life on this planet in a great tree of life. In other words, all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification. The evidences that support this idea are astounding" http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden Dr. Angela Robertson (Ph.D from the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology)"Among biologists, the idea of God “creating” life and mankind often generates an impatient, condescending tone. I do not claim to know how evolution and God interact, but I believe that they do, and I see no conflict between biology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1897/angela-m-berg-robertson Dr. Larry St. Clair (professor of integrative biology at BYU)"The facts as to the age of the earth and the processes of creation are not described in sufficient detail in the scriptures to prove or discount evolution as a mechanism for the origin and diversification of life on earth." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/437/larry-st-clair Dr. Craig M. Young (Ph.D. in Zoology) "It is clear to me as a scientist that much of what we have learned about biology, including evolution, is correct and true." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1699/craig-m-young Dr. Wade E. Miller (PhD in Paleontology)"For many years I have personally studied evidences that show evolution has taken place throughout the history of life on earth"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller Definitions http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us Zoology - "The scientific study of the behavior, structure, physiology, classification, and distribution of animals" Paleontology - "The branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants." Biology - "The study of living organisms" Genetics - "The study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics. " So there are Mormon biologist who believe in macro-evolution. What have you proven?
ERayR Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Is there a Mormon Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that has a PhD and does not believe in Evolution?Someone please answer my question. See above post.
ERayR Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There is no inevitable course of evolution for any species. They evolve in unpredictable ways in response to changes in environment, predators, etc. Some species end up changing very little for millions of years. Others evolve rapidly. Evolution is not goal oriented. The genes that get passed on are those from animals that live long enough to reproduce. So human beings was a chance happening?
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 So there are Mormon biologist who believe in macro-evolution. What have you proven? Why can't you name a Mormon Biologist that doesn't believe in macro-evolution? Astronomers believe in the solar system, what does that prove?Medical doctors believe in AIDS, what does that prove? The sad reality is that there are people that don't believe AIDS is real. People have died because they don't listen to the scientists, they rather listen to stupid Youtube videos like this one.
JDave Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Oh My Gosh. Not another one........ If you would rather have the topic be about the Flood, it is pretty likely that making any statement about the Flood could grant that request.
Ahab Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 OhMyGosh.Not another one........ Please stop beating on that horse. It is not really dead.
Ahab Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 We don't know the first life form that got the ball rolling. In all probability it was even more simple than the amoeba.So you believe something very simple, maybe even more simple than the amoeba, eventually became a gnat while another one of those very same things, whatever it was, became one of us. And then somehow there were 2 of each species, or what we call species, with 2 being able to begat others of their same species, with 2 gnats begetting more gnats and 2 people begetting more people, and so forth, including every kind of species that has ever existed on this planet.Is that about right, as far as your thinking goes, with something very simple yet living starting it all for each kind of species that eventually followed?I once thought that maybe God started it all by taking only some portion of his living essence to make each kind of lesser being, or at least a lot of them, and later used all of his essence when he created us as his children. But I suppose a true scientist would not even entertain that possibility. 1
Walden Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 So you believe something very simple, maybe even more simple than the amoeba, eventually became a gnat while another one of those very same things, whatever it was, became one of us. And then somehow there were 2 of each species, or what we call species, with 2 being able to begat others of their same species, with 2 gnats begetting more gnats and 2 people begetting more people, and so forth, including every kind of species that has ever existed on this planet.Is that about right, as far as your thinking goes, with something very simple yet living starting it all for each kind of species that eventually followed?I once thought that maybe God started it all by taking only some portion of his living essence to make each kind of lesser being, or at least a lot of them, and later used all of his essence when he created us as his children. But I suppose a true scientist would not even entertain that possibility. If a scientist could perform or even design an experiment to either prove or disprove this "hypothesis" that you present regarding the origin of species, than I can assure you that a "true scientist" would "entertain that possibility." Given the impossibility of such a thing, your "hypothesis" falls outside the realm of science.
Ahab Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 If a scientist could perform or even design an experiment to either prove or disprove this "hypothesis" that you present regarding the origin of species, than I can assure you that a "true scientist" would "entertain that possibility." Given the impossibility of such a thing, your "hypothesis" falls outside the realm of science.There's nothing impossible about it. Once we're resurrected and like our Father, or at least some of us, we can then see if we can create different kinds of living beings from our own DNA, or whatever you might want to call it, his living essence. I'm sure it would be much easier for us to just gather some different kinds of living beings and put them wherever we want them, though, rather than having to make new ones from scratch.But we could still see if we could do it the hard way. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There's nothing impossible about it. Once we're resurrected and like our Father, or at least some of us, we can then see if we can create different kinds of living beings from our own DNA, or whatever you might want to call it, his living essence.I'm sure it would be much easier for us to just gather some different kinds of living beings and put them wherever we want them, though, rather than having to make new ones from scratch.But we could still see if we could do it the hard way.I must say that's brilliant. We can have scientific proof of the afterlife and of God's existence--after we're dead. Can't argue with that.
Recommended Posts