MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Author Posted June 9, 2014 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!" Yes, there are a lot of unknowns and different opinions about Evolution, but Biologists agree that life is related, and that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. "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" - Mormon Dr. Heath Ogden (PhD in integrative biology)Dr. Ogden knows the fact and unknowns about Evolution, so is he lying? Mormon Dr. Laura Clarke Bridgewater (Ph.D. in genetics)"In fact, we do share something like 97% of our genes with chimpanzees." "On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in science, there are more evidences for Evolution than there are for the theory of the solar system.
longview Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 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. What a relief! Then why did you add this link to http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lamarckism ? Why did you have me waste my time reading this crackpot theory of Lamarckism? What was the point?
longview Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in science, there are more evidences for Evolution than there are for the theory of the solar system. You keep saying this. This is an irrational statement. There are thousands of scientific theories far more successful than evolution, such as gravitation, electrical, mathematics, etc. Evolution is 90% guesswork, projection, speculation, and extrapolation. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 What a relief! Then why did you add this link to http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lamarckism ? Why did you have me waste my time reading this crackpot theory of Lamarckism? What was the point? You asked; Do you have an example where "common sense" was not helpful in biological or evolutionary research?Some found common sense in the ideas of Lamarck. Now-a-days not so much.
Gray Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Maybe you didn't see earlier but I made it clear that I have no problem with micro evolution, such as new species of crickets from other crickets. I just don't agree and don't believe it is true that one kind of being can become another kind of being, like an ape becoming a man, or a one cell anything of the same kind becoming both an ape and a man or whatever else such a thing of the same kind is thought to produce.But the most basic form of an ape becoming the most complex form of an ape, and yet still not a man of any kind? Yes, I believe that is possible. Then how do you account for the continuous emergence of brand new "kinds"? Every kind that we have now has not always existed.
Gray Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 A funny thing about facts is that they can be interpreted in different ways. That's true. But however you interpret it, evolution happened.
Gray Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) For me the deal breaker is how organs in male and female species evolved. How exactly do you get female and male sex organs to co-evolve? Logic would tell me that you couldnt have the one without the other. You would have to have them evolve relatively at the same time and somehow, by some amazing miracle, only work because of the opposite sex accompanying it to work. There is absolutely no way that you are going to go from a single sex and asexual reproduction to all of a sudden having two opposing sexes that evolve at the same exact time that were no longer capable of asexual reporoduction in one generation to be feasible. So, pretty much in one generation you go from asexual reproduction and one sex to two sexes dependent on each other for sexual reproduction. There also is no evidence whatsoever of this amazing feat taking place. All the evidence points to no ability of species to do this. Easier to understand how it could have happened when you consider that it emerged in primitive eukaryotic organisms. Edited June 9, 2014 by Gray
Tiki Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Easier to understand how it could have happened when you consider that it emerged in primitive eukaryotic organisms.No. It happens because Charles Darwin was a philosopher, not a scientist. Evolution is a [false] philosophy.It's those who are deceived who believe evolution is a science.Your statement above is philosophical, not scientific. Edited June 9, 2014 by Tiki
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 No. It happens because Charles Darwin was a philosopher, not a scientist. Evolution is a [false] philosophy.It's those who are deceived who believe evolution is a science.Your statement above is philosophical, not scientific. Charles Darwin was a scientist. Specifically a Naturalist, a field Biologist.
Gray Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 No. It happens because Charles Darwin was a philosopher, not a scientist. Evolution is a [false] philosophy.It's those who are deceived who believe evolution is a science.Your statement above is philosophical, not scientific. Maybe you're think of a different Charles. Charles Derwin? Maybe I'm thinking of Bewitched
longview Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 You asked; Do you have an example where "common sense" was not helpful in biological or evolutionary research?Some found common sense in the ideas of Lamarck. Now-a-days not so much.I don't get it. You think external stimulus or the creature's effort will somehow effect a "reprogramming" of the internal DNA be considered "common sense"? NO way in "heck". Just very wacky. Again, why waste time on this link? Can you or MormonFreeThinker or anyone else come up with a current day, straight forward, eminently reasonable example of "common sense" that was proved not to be valid in biology? 1
Gray Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I don't get it. You think external stimulus or the creature's effort will somehow effect a "reprogramming" of the internal DNA be considered "common sense"? NO way in "heck". Just very wacky. Again, why waste time on this link? Can you or MormonFreeThinker or anyone else come up with a current day, straight forward, eminently reasonable example of "common sense" that was proved not to be valid in biology? For an easy example of why common sense isn't necessarily correct when applied to science, consider time dilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I don't get it. You think external stimulus or the creature's effort will somehow effect a "reprogramming" of the internal DNA be considered "common sense"? NO way in "heck". Just very wacky. Again, why waste time on this link? Can you or MormonFreeThinker or anyone else come up with a current day, straight forward, eminently reasonable example of "common sense" that was proved not to be valid in biology? That is a different question than the one you originally proposed. I don't know of any current day, straight forward, eminently reasonable example of "common sense" that was proved not to be valid in biology. However that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere doesn't hold such opinions. IE; 1 in 4 adult Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth, and only 60% accept the Theory of Evolution.
ERayR Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 That's true. But however you interpret it, evolution happened. Micro or macro?
cinepro Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) While it's understandable that this thread would transition to a discussion of evolution in general, did we ever figure out what the premise of the OP was? As far as I can tell, MFT challenged us to name a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution but said they don't believe in evolution. He was able to cite several Mormon scientists who believe in evolution and said they believe in evolution, and there was one possible Mormon who said they might not believe in evolution, but they didn't meet MFT's criteria of being a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution, so he probably doesn't count. And possibly a Mormon scientist who doesn't believe in evolution and said he doesn't believe in evolution, but also didn't meet MFT's criteria of being a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution. Is that about it? Edited June 9, 2014 by cinepro 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 While it's understandable that this thread would transition to a discussion of evolution in general, did we ever figure out what the premise of the OP was?As far as I can tell, MFT challenged us to name a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution but said they don't believe in evolution. He was able to cite several Mormon scientists who believe in evolution and said they believe in evolution, and there was one possible Mormon who said they might not believe in evolution, but they didn't meet MFT's criteria of being a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution, so he probably doesn't count. And possibly a Mormon scientist who doesn't believe in evolution and said he doesn't believe in evolution, but also didn't meet MFT's criteria of being a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution.Is that about it? I fully recognize that those are independent variables. The difficultly comes in when saying any particular person believes "x" but does "Y".
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Author Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) While it's understandable that this thread would transition to a discussion of evolution in general, did we ever figure out what the premise of the OP was?As far as I can tell, MFT challenged us to name a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution but said they don't believe in evolution. He was able to cite several Mormon scientists who believe in evolution and said they believe in evolution, and there was one possible Mormon who said they might not believe in evolution, They only named one Mormon Biologist that didn't believe in Evolution, but you guys are now back to zero.It seems that Dr. Salisbury now believes in Evolution, or at least admits that the evidences are strong. Dr. Salisbury wrote in his review of the book Evolution and Mormonism "they present strong arguments for evolution as the mechanism of creation, including humans as well as all other living things... as I got into the volume, my attitude toward it became increasingly positive. This is not to say that I agree with everything they say, but the book presents a strong case for evolution in creation...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."http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=15 Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Gray Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Micro or macro? Both. Species is an artificial construct, like a national border. There is nothing to prevent a species from becoming a different species over time
ERayR Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 While it's understandable that this thread would transition to a discussion of evolution in general, did we ever figure out what the premise of the OP was?As far as I can tell, MFT challenged us to name a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution but said they don't believe in evolution. He was able to cite several Mormon scientists who believe in evolution and said they believe in evolution, and there was one possible Mormon who said they might not believe in evolution, but they didn't meet MFT's criteria of being a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution, so he probably doesn't count. And possibly a Mormon scientist who doesn't believe in evolution and said he doesn't believe in evolution, but also didn't meet MFT's criteria of being a Mormon scientist who believes in evolution.Is that about it? About right
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) About right but back to zero, Dr. Salisbury now believes that the evidences for Evolution are strong. Dr. Salisbury wrote,"they present strong arguments for evolution as the mechanism of creation, including humans as well as all other living things... as I got into the volume, my attitude toward it became increasingly positive. This is not to say that I agree with everything they say, but the book presents a strong case for evolution in creation...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...Because of the amazing progress of science during the past thirty years, if I were writing my 1976 book now, it would come much closer to the book written by Stephens and Meldrum"http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=15 So he admits that his 1976 book is out of date, and he is clearly not just talking about micro-evolution. So can you name a Mormon PhD Biologist that doesn't believe in Evolution? Not from the 1970s please. Edited June 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 Someone please name Mormon PhD Biologist (including a botanist) that doesn't believe in Evolution. OR Someone please cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected Journal that challenges Macro-Evolution. Nature Journal? Science Journal? "Because of the amazing progress of science during the past thirty years, if I were writing my 1976 book now, it would come much closer to the book written by Stephens and Meldrum" - Dr. Salisbury
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Someone please name Mormon PhD Biologist (including a botanist) that doesn't believe in Evolution. OR Someone please cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected Journal that challenges Macro-Evolution. Nature Journal? Science Journal? "Because of the amazing progress of science during the past thirty years, if I were writing my 1976 book now, it would come much closer to the book written by Stephens and Meldrum" - Dr. Salisbury One small quibble. It isn't necessary to believe in Evolution in order to be a Biologist of any faith. Just as long as they accept it as the best scientific explanation for it.
Judd Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Someone please name Mormon PhD Biologist (including a botanist) that doesn't believe in Evolution. ORSomeone please cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected Journal that challenges Macro-Evolution. Nature Journal? Science Journal? "Because of the amazing progress of science during the past thirty years, if I were writing my 1976 book now, it would come much closer to the book written by Stephens and Meldrum" - Dr. Salisbury1. You keep using the phrase "believe in evolution." Could you please clarify what you mean, rather than generalities regarding micro and macro evolution? The phrase is too vague to have any meaning. 2. Has anyone implied that there are LDS biologists who deny the whole of the theory of evolution?3. Is anyone making the argumet that the scientific community doesn't accept macro evolution? 1
Rob Osborn Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 The problem with trying to find LDS biologists who disbelieve in evolution is that I am not aware of any structured lists of them stating such. I am not quite sure how one would go about the task besides asking each one his or her personal beliefs on the matter. Besides that, there is no difference between someone who is LDS and someone who is not LDS. They all receive the same schooling. That said, there are plenty of scientists who disbelieve Darwinian evolution so whats the point?
Recommended Posts