List Of Mormon Biologists That Believe In Evolution From Mormonscholarstestify

[ERayR]

Macro-Evolution is the exact same thing as Micro-Evolution.

 

I've got stocks in a gold mine to sell you if you believe in very ancient technological advanced civilizations.

 

 

Not so macro is an extrapolation fro evidences of micro.

 

SOP ridicule and derision.   Will you never change. 

[thesometimesaint]

Not so macro is an extrapolation fro evidences of micro.

 

SOP ridicule and derision.   Will you never change. 

 

I've presented direct evidence of Macro-Evolution.

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U5NL6yi9Ztg

SEE http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

SEE

SEE

 

SOP make ridiculous statements and then whine when your called on it. Will you never change?

[longview]

Very nice, Alex Jones is a war veteran and he fights immorality too, but all the stuff he says is just not true. 

Anyways, Horowitz is not a climate scientist, and the topic is Evolution. 

Just because Horowitz fights immorality, doesn't mean that his arguments are right. 

 

Faithful Mormon biologists believe in Evolution (and talked about it in their testimony) because the evidence is strong, not because their parents taught them to believe in Evolution. 

You are doing another typical squirting off into a different tangent.   I gave you David Horowitz and Adrian Vance to satisfy your demand for a CFR concerning the prevalence of professorial intolerance in today's universities.  Which was also a response to your repeated demand for somebody to name a LDS doctor who did not believe evolution is a "fact".

[cinepro]

 

Of course there was death on earth before the fall.  Adam and Eve introduced death into the Garden of Eden and so were expelled from said garden.  The Garden of Eden was a Celestial interface(part) of the Celestial Realms.

 

 

 

Not to be nitpicky, but the Garden of Eden was terrestrial, not celestial.

[MormonFreeThinker]

You are doing another typical squirting off into a different tangent.   I gave you David Horowitz and Adrian Vance to satisfy your demand for a CFR concerning the prevalence of professorial intolerance in today's universities.  Which was also a response to your repeated demand for somebody to name a LDS doctor who did not believe evolution is a "fact".

 

"I gave you David Horowitz and Adrian Vance"

 

It is extremely easy to make up conspiracy theories, but I will check the websites later, but like most conspiracy theory websites, they never have real evidence. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

"raining and vocation is based on critical thinking skills"

Common sense is sometimes not useful in scientific research.  

 

I can see your problem.  Common sense is useful in all things.  I might agree that in some interpretations in the macro-evolutionary science it seems in short supply.  Thanks for admitting it makes no sense.

 

 

Obviously you don't understand science, when doing research, your common sense is not always useful, and legit scientists agree with me. 

 

No, I trust the scientific consensus, only few Evangelical scientist deny Evolution because their parents and Sunday school teachers told them that Evolution is a lie. 

 

I can cite many respected scientific peer-reviewed papers that prove Macro-Evolution, but you can't cite papers that disprove Evlution, maybe only from Evangelical websites. 

Edited June 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

How about a Super Debate? Better than the Bill Nye and Ham debate. 

 

Michael Behe (Biochemist, Old Earth Intelligent Design proponent) VS Ken Miller (Biologist and Theistic Evolutionist) 

 

 

I haven't seen it, but I am sure it was a great debate. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Ken Miller completely demolished Michael Behe on a number of scientific grounds. Including the central tenet of Creationism(Irreducible Complexity).

[rodheadlee]

Mormon Free Thinker why did you ignore Judd's post #206?

[longview]

"I gave you David Horowitz and Adrian Vance"

 

It is extremely easy to make up conspiracy theories, but I will check the websites later, but like most conspiracy theory websites, they never have real evidence.

David Horowotz has an excellent organization complete with history of various radocal movements, review and assessments of academic freedom in universities, and many other important issues.

[longview]

Common sense is sometimes not useful in scientific research.  

 

Do you have an example where "common sense" was not helpful in biological or evolutionary research?

 

It is true that there were counter-intuitive surprises in gravitational and cosmological fields.

[thesometimesaint]

Do you have an example where "common sense" was not helpful in biological or evolutionary research?

 

It is true that there were counter-intuitive surprises in gravitational and cosmological fields.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

 

The thing is that surprises are part and parcel of any science.  LePlace surprised Newton; Einstein surprised LePlace; Quantum Mechanics surprised Einstein; and not one of them overturned the Theory of Gravity. If you disagree with the Theory of Evolution go prove it wrong. Go find a modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. It should be real easy if the conspiracy theorists like David Horowitz  are right.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Do you have an example where "common sense" was not helpful in biological or evolutionary research?

 

 

Yes, it doesn't make any sense that humans and trees share a common ancestor. 

It doesn't make any sense that our observable universe was once smaller than a atom. 

Quantum Mechanics doesn't make any sense, a particle can be in two places at the same time. 

But it's all true. 

 

As for your conspiracy theories, here is a video that explains what is going on, See after 2:50 to 4:45 that responds to your claims. It has sources. 

 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Earlier, you alluded numerous times to a "PhD in biology," which is such an incredibly broad umbrella of subjects and sub-disciplines. Later, you discounted someone for being a plant biologist; however, among the people you listed in the original post, you included a plant biologist (as well as a marine biologist). I'm not really too particularly concerned about arguing who's qualified for what, but I'm curious what your criteria is. Moreover, I'm curious what your point is.

 

He has impressive credentials in Biology, but he is not one of the best experts in Genetics and animal life, he an expert in plant life. It seems that he now believes in Evolution anyways (or at least admits that the evidences are strong) Dr. Frank B. Salisbury said, "they present strong arguments for evolution as the mechanism of creation, including humans as well as all other living things...I agree with the authors that the case for evolution is so strong that many aspects are now well established...it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth's surface."  - Creation by Evolution (2006, not the 1970s) 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=15

 

Now let me give an example, Richard Carrier is a Historian, but he is not a new testament scholar.

Richard doesn't believe in the historical Jesus, but he is not an authority in the New Testament in my opinion.

Another example, a Near East archaeologist in not a Mayan archaeologist, and many Book of Mormon critics do not understand that. 

 

"when confronted with questions that we may not yet have full answers for, say "I don't know... but I believe in the evolutionary model."

 

There are many things scientists don't know, but it doesn't mean that what they already know it's false. 

There are some unanswered questions about Evolution, but it doesn't mean Evolution is false, scientists are looking for answers. There are some things that scientists didn't know 20 years ago, but they now have the answers.

 

Creationists have not refuted the evidences. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

When used inappropriately science is always a question in search of an answer, and religion is always an answer in search of a question.

[thesometimesaint]

He has impressive credentials in Biology, but he is not one of the best experts in Genetics and animal life, he an expert in plant life. It seems that he now believes in Evolution anyways (or at least admits that the evidences are strong) Dr. Frank B. Salisbury said, "they present strong arguments for evolution as the mechanism of creation, including humans as well as all other living things...I agree with the authors that the case for evolution is so strong that many aspects are now well established...it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth's surface."  - Creation by Evolution (2006, not the 1970s) 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=15

 

Now let me give an example, Richard Carrier is a Historian, but he is not a new testament scholar.

Richard doesn't believe in the historical Jesus, but he is not an authority in the New Testament in my opinion.

Another example, an Egyptologist in not a Mayan archaeologist. 

 

"when confronted with questions that we may not yet have full answers for, say "I don't know... but I believe in the evolutionary model."

 

There are many things scientists don't know, but it doesn't mean that what they already know it's false. 

There are some unanswered questions about Evolution, but it doesn't mean Evolution is false, scientists are looking for answers. There are some things that scientists didn't know 20 years ago, but they now have the answers.

 

Creationists have not refuted the evidences. 

 

We are going the way of the Adam and Eve riding, coconut eating T-Rex, and don't even know it.

http://www.alternet.org/education/results-are-america-dumb-and-road-getting-dumber?akid=11892.312752.R581nw&rd=1&src=newsletter1000331&t=3&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

[ERayR]

Yes, it doesn't make any sense that humans and trees share a common ancestor. 

It doesn't make any sense that our observable universe was once smaller than a atom. 

Quantum Mechanics doesn't make any sense, a particle can be in two places at the same time. 

But it's all true. 

 

As for your conspiracy theories, here is a video that explains what is going on, See after 2:50 to 4:45 that responds to your claims. It has sources. 

 

 

Hey I have this neat bridge that spans the Snake River Canyon that I will sell you.  I know that doesn't make sense but then who needs common sense with a deal like this?

[thesometimesaint]

Hey I have this neat bridge that spans the Snake River Canyon that I will sell you.  I know that doesn't make sense but then who needs common sense with a deal like this?

 

Another Golden Crockaduck Award winner.

[Judd]

He has impressive credentials in Biology, but he is not one of the best experts in Genetics and animal life, he an expert in plant life. It seems that he now believes in Evolution anyways (or at least admits that the evidences are strong) Dr. Frank B. Salisbury said, "they present strong arguments for evolution as the mechanism of creation, including humans as well as all other living things...I agree with the authors that the case for evolution is so strong that many aspects are now well established...it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth's surface."  - Creation by Evolution (2006, not the 1970s) 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=15

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I don't really know much about Salisbury. I can't say I agree, disagree, or a neutral on the subject of his writings as I honestly have not read them. What I was responding to was the fact that you've dismissed him (again, emphasizing that this isn't me endorsing him [nor criticizing him]) because he was a plant biologist. You're wanting opinions that presumably conflict with those in the OP (andagain I'd like to reemphasize that evolution is a large, broad, complex subject that can't be summed up by saying "evolution" any more than assuming medical science can be summed up simply and presuming that someone testifying of an appendectomy would likewise endorse the use of vaccinations). You rejected one such person presented for being a plant biologist, stating that it wasn't relevant. I'm not here to debate the relevance of his background or the validity of his argument, but I'm interested to know why you included a plantbiologist in your OP only to later reject one for the same.

 

"when confronted with questions that we may not yet have full answers for, say "I don't know... but I believe in the evolutionary model."

 

There are many things scientists don't know, but it doesn't mean that what they already know it's false. 

There are some unanswered questions about Evolution, but it doesn't mean Evolution is false, scientists are looking for answers. There are some things that scientists didn't know 20 years ago, but they now have the answers.

 

Creationists have not refuted the evidences.

 

The point I was making is that, in general, as people gain more experience and training in scientific fields, they get more comfortable with realizing there's not an easy answer for everything and, typically, are so impassioned to feel obliged to give an answer for everything that may not be consistent with what they believe. The same holds true as people get more comfortable with their own theology. Obviously, there are many exceptions to this as some people who have lots of experience on either side can still seek to advance their agenda. 

 

However, evolution is one of a few areas where, culturally, it appears that offering up a calm endorsement of "well, I'm not certain about that, but I believe in evolutionary theory" isn't really acceptable. My argument is that the defensiveness of over a hundred years continues to haunt the discussion, and demands people respond with absolutes and extends the subject more leeway than would be the scientific norm (as a side note I'd like to point out that I'm not disputing evolutionary theory, though I'd assume that, because of the very real defensiveness ingrained in our cultural regarding evolution, people may read this as being critical or dismissive of it [heretical, if you will]).

 

In a more simple way, I'd state it this way:

 

When evolution was first a hotly-debated item, those who weren't religious saw this as evidence against religious belief upon which "the creation" wrests. The creation, then, was a test for falsifying the claims of religion. Those who were religious saw this as a conflict with their belief and felt it threatening. The debate escalated and was fueled way too long. Unfortunately, the premise of the entire debate was based on inaccurate and faulty conclusions of theology and inaccurate and faulty conclusions of science, of which we now recognize. Unfortunately, we haven't really been able to stamp out the belief in this mutual exclusivity of both sides and have inherited a war of thought that is based upon very invalidated beliefs. 

 

So here we are, continuing to elevate evolution above just about any other issue in a broad world of academics, simply because of a mindless need to continue to perpetuate cultural warfare.

To play devil's advocate, let's say that all LDS PhD biologists, geneticists and paleontologists 'believe in evolution' (pretending for a moment that it's a yes/no). Ok, all of them believe in it, all. We've now gone 13 pages or so. What point are you making?

Edited June 8, 2014 by Judd

[MormonFreeThinker]

Hey I have this neat bridge that spans the Snake River Canyon that I will sell you.  I know that doesn't make sense but then who needs common sense with a deal like this?

 

don't worry, we know you don't understand the evidence and science. 

Common sense is not always useful in science, and we know you don't understand why. 

 

Believe what you want. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

You rejected one such person presented for being a plant biologist, stating that it wasn't relevant. I'm not here to debate the relevance of his background or the validity of his argument, but I'm interested to know why you included a plantbiologist in your OP only to later reject one for the same.

 

I didn't say he didn't understand Evolution (like most ID creationist and ERayR), I said he knows more about Biology than me, and I simply just said that he is not the best expert in animals life and Genetics. Rob linked to an article that was almost 40 years old, before DNA conclusively proved Evolution.  

 

So Salisbury knows a lot about Biology, but I just simply said he is not the best expert in Genetics and animal life, I didn't say he is ignorant. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

To play devil's advocate, let's say that all LDS PhD biologists, geneticists and paleontologists 'believe in evolution' (pretending for a moment that it's a yes/no). Ok, all of them believe in it, all. We've now gone 13 pages or so. What point are you making?

 

Simple, if all PhD Biologist believe in Evolution, it is not because they like it, it is because the evidences are strong. 

The few scientists that reject Evolution is because their parents and pastors told them that Evolution is a lie, and they simply couldn't give up that belief. 

 

So, do you agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? 

Do you agree that life is related? 

 

That is Evolution, life shares a common ancestor.  What do you think about this video? 

 

 

"The point I was making is that, in general, as people gain more experience and training in scientific fields, they get more comfortable with realizing there's not an easy answer for everything"

 

I agree, but some ID creationists don't understand that. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[longview]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

 

The thing is that surprises are part and parcel of any science.  LePlace surprised Newton; Einstein surprised LePlace; Quantum Mechanics surprised Einstein; and not one of them overturned the Theory of Gravity. If you disagree with the Theory of Evolution go prove it wrong. Go find a modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. It should be real easy if the conspiracy theorists like David Horowitz  are right.

I read the link.  Seems to have something to do with "use and disuse inheritance".  It provided the giraffe as an example:

 

Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance").

Do you believe this is a viable example of micro-evolution?

In order for the giraffe to be able to pass on this so-called "improved capability", somehow its DNA would have to become "aware" of this effort. AND somehow the DNA would have to change or "add" the "programming subroutine" within the genetic strands. AND somehow all the cells in the giraffe's body would have to be alerted or simultaneously updated so that the sperm or the egg would have this capability available for the moment of conception. BEHOLD a new CREATURE arises ! ! !   (flash over to Dr. Frankenstein screaming maniacally:   It's alive!  It's ALIVE ! ! !)

[thesometimesaint]

I read the link.  Seems to have something to do with "use and disuse inheritance".  It provided the giraffe as an example:

 

Do you believe this is a viable example of micro-evolution?

In order for the giraffe to be able to pass on this so-called "improved capability", somehow its DNA would have to become "aware" of this effort. AND somehow the DNA would have to change or "add" the "programming subroutine" within the genetic strands. AND somehow all the cells in the giraffe's body would have to be alerted or simultaneously updated so that the sperm or the egg would have this capability available for the moment of conception. BEHOLD a new CREATURE arises ! ! !   (flash over to Dr. Frankenstein screaming maniacally:   It's alive!  It's ALIVE ! ! !)

 

No I don't for a variety of reasons. We Humans have just as many vertebra in our necks as a Giraffe. Life really doesn't start over from scratch each time a new species comes into being. It simply modifies the structures in succeeding generations needed for that species to best survive in that environment. The sperm and egg don't care. Just as long as the resulting cell survives long enough to reproduce its mission is complete.

[Judd]

I didn't say he didn't understand Evolution (like most ID creationist and ERayR), I said he knows more about Biology than me, and I simply just said that he is not the best expert in animals life and Genetics. Rob linked to an article that was almost 40 years old, before DNA conclusively proved Evolution.  

 

So Salisbury knows a lot about Biology, but I just simply said he is not the best expert in Genetics and animal life, I didn't say he is ignorant. 

 

I don't know anything about Salisbury. I've never heard his name before this thread. And, quite frankly, I didn't really read what he had said that was quoted in this thread. I don't know his qualifications on evolution. The point I'm making is that you specifically dismissed him as being a plant biologist and not being relevant to the subject matter at hand. That's fine. I don't really care. However, among the people you listed in the opening post of this thread, you included Larry St. Clair, who appears to be a plant biologist by background.

 

Simple, if all PhD Biologist believe in Evolution, it is not because they like it, it is because the evidences are strong. 

The few scientists that reject Evolution is because their parents and pastors told them that Evolution is a lie, and they simply couldn't give up that belief. 

 

That's an awfully simplistic generalization. And since we're talking about it, it's pretty poor logic from a scientific point of view (the argument itself). I think it may also be important to really get at what you mean when you say evolution. I think every PhD is going to believe in evolution (though I feel you may misunderstand what I'm saying), but as I've stated, this is a broad topic. You seem to be viewing it as an all-or-nothing proposition. Even amongst the opinions from the original post, they all seem to express differing views on evolution.

 

I read one of those Buzzfeed articles recently (or some other similar website) that was titled something like "25 famous people you didn't know were republicans." It was a funny list, because they listed numerous people (among them quite a few liberal democrats) and gave some quotes on a particular social issue that they may agree with. For instance, they quoted Brad Pitt where he basically stated that he likes guns and feels comfortable with them. From this they obviously conflated that he was a republican/conservative. It's really not that simple. Also, defining liberal/conservative and democrat/republican goes well beyond a few issues. It seems you may be characterizing it this way, that you either believe all life is traced back to one source or you don't. It's just not that simple. Evolution is broad. A lot is unknown. Some components and aspects are very well known. Just like the above example, there are a lot of pieces to this pie. It goes well beyond "evolution is true!" or "evolution is false!"