wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Yes, I think so [that human beings were a chance happening] Are you speaking of the physical human body alone, or does this apply to the spirit body as well (assuming you, as LDS, believe in such--correct me if I am wrong)? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 So, Does Russel M. Nelson count? He is a renowned cardiac surgeon and has a phD. He doesnt believe in evolution. 2
Rain Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 What? Didn't you see the list? and it is only a list from MormonScholarsTestify. There are plenty of Mormons that have a PhD in Biology and related fields. Now, almost all religious scientists that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, Genetics, and other related fields believe in Evolution. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html "engineers, lawyers or MDs then it might work"Lawyer and Engineers? So if you are sick, do you go to the medical doctor or a lawyer?Sorry, but nobody cares what lawyers and engineers have to say about Biology, it is not their field.MDs are not the best experts in Biology. Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Sciencehttp://www.nas.edu/evolution/StatementsScience.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html In your first post you stated, "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." I don't know the people you listed. Those are the people YOU know, not me. So to challenge me to disprove your theory would be ineffective since I don't know any mormon biolgists etc. no matter what they believe. I suspect that there are quite a few of us who don't know one unless you happen to live in an area with a strong work force in those subjects, are one yourself or are well read in the subject area. I could count on one hand the number of non-mormon biologists etc. I know. But if you were to challenge me to find a mormon engineer, MD or lawyer who doesn't believe in _________ then we might get somewhere because I know many mormon engineers, MDs and lawyers.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 So, Does Russel M. Nelson count? He is a renowned cardiac surgeon and has a phD. He doesnt believe in evolution. But not in the relevant field. In the April 2012 General Conference, Elder Nelson stated: “Anyone who studies the workings of the human body has surely ‘seen God moving in his majesty and power.’(D&C 88:47) Because the body is governed by divine law, any healing comes by obedience to the law upon which that blessing is predicated. “Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, ‘Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?’ The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!” Evolution isn't about God, chance, the Big Bang, or explosions in printing shops.SEE Watchmakers Analogyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 But not in the relevant field. In the April 2012 General Conference, Elder Nelson stated: “Anyone who studies the workings of the human body has surely ‘seen God moving in his majesty and power.’(D&C 88:47) Because the body is governed by divine law, any healing comes by obedience to the law upon which that blessing is predicated. “Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, ‘Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?’ The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!” Evolution isn't about God, chance, the Big Bang, or explosions in printing shops.SEE Watchmakers Analogyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It’s interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.Forum: Why is that?Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.
Hamilton Porter Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 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. That depends who you ask. Richard Dawkins, Simon Conway Conway Morris, Francis Collins, all disagree with you. So do the numerous creatures from different lineages that converged on the same solution from different evolutionary paths.
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Are you speaking of the physical human body alone, or does this apply to the spirit body as well (assuming you, as LDS, believe in such--correct me if I am wrong)? Thanks, -Wade Englund- I don't have any particular beliefs about spirits, or whether or not there is an afterlife. I simply don't know.
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 That depends who you ask. Richard Dawkins, Simon Conway Conway Morris, Francis Collins, all disagree with you. So do the numerous creatures from different lineages that converged on the same solution from different evolutionary paths. I don't know all those names, but I don't think it would be common for any evolutionary biologist to think that there are any inevitable outcomes in evolution (as in, this species of fish will necessarily evolve into a homo sapiens in 2 billion years)
Ahab Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Double posted by glitch. Deleted. See next post. Edited June 5, 2014 by Ahab
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) 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. You certainly have a problem with comprehension. Your own post was calling for Mormon biologists not biologists in general. I merely ask what what you had proven. Just because they accept the same interpretations as you proves what? And what relevance has aids to the topic at hand? Edited June 5, 2014 by ERayR
Ahab Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Micro-Evolution is the exact same thing as Macro-Evolution.Let's say you have several one cell organisms which scientists would classify as the same species, or same kind of being, and one of those eventually becomes a dog and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes an elephant and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes a gnat and amother one of those same cell organisms becomes a bird and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes a whale and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes one of us, etc, etc.That is what is called macro evolution, and there is nothing which proves that actually happens. It is just an assumption that is based on the fact that if one species of a particular kind of being can become another species of that same kind of being, then given enough time that kind of being can become another kind of being, like the same one cell organism becoming both a dog and an elephant and a bird and a whale and a person like us, etc. But there is no proof of that in reality.There no scientific definition of kind.Then you guys should get busy and come up with one to reflect what guys like me are talking about, otherwise people could get the idea that you guys think dogs and elephants and whales and birds and gnats and people like us are the same kind of being. And that doesn't sound right at all. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 But not in the relevant field. In the April 2012 General Conference, Elder Nelson stated: “Anyone who studies the workings of the human body has surely ‘seen God moving in his majesty and power.’(D&C 88:47) Because the body is governed by divine law, any healing comes by obedience to the law upon which that blessing is predicated. “Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, ‘Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?’ The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!” Evolution isn't about God, chance, the Big Bang, or explosions in printing shops.SEE Watchmakers Analogyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It’s interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.Forum: Why is that?Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works. Man has always been man. No one is disputing that. But what to call an organism that looks, acts, reproduces like man, that died out thousands of years ago, but isn't man? Science calls us Homo Sapiens Sapiens(Wise Wise Man). Genetic studies have show us to have successfully mated with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis(Neanderthals). We today still carry some of their genes.
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 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. Being able to reject the questions you can't answer as being outside the realm sure makes it easy to win the debate. Don't answer the question just refuse to acknowledge it exists in your realm. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 No. We are the result of millions of years of evolution IE; Change with descent. Yep that's what I thought you said. Certain mutations just happen and by chance find a niche that better suits them to survive and it just by chance happens for other mutations for mufti-millions of years. And just by chance some of them develop into human beings. Gotcha. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Yep that's what I thought you said. Certain mutations just happen and by chance find a niche that better suits them to survive and it just by chance happens for other mutations for mufti-millions of years. And just by chance some of them develop into human beings. Gotcha. Mutations happen by chance, but it's not chance that determines survivability. I suspect that may be the major source of our disagreement.
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Let's say you have several one cell organisms which scientists would classify as the same species, or same kind of being, and one of those eventually becomes a dog and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes an elephant and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes a gnat and amother one of those same cell organisms becomes a bird and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes a whale and another one of those same one cell organisms becomes one of us, etc, etc.That is what is called macro evolution, and there is nothing which proves that actually happens. It is just an assumption that is based on the fact that if one species of a particular kind of being can become another species of that same kind of being, then given enough time that kind of being can become another kind of being, like the same one cell organism becoming both a dog and an elephant and a bird and a whale and a person like us, etc. But there is no proof of that in reality. Not that your description of "macro evolution" is accurate, but it is amply demonstrated by genetic and fossil evidence.
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I don't have any particular beliefs about spirits, or whether or not there is an afterlife. I simply don't know. That is a valued response--I love the humility of admitted ignorance. However, my question was more germane to mortal life than the afterlife (or preexistence). I was asking about your beliefs about the make-up of humans about which you spoke--i.e. those living on earth, such as yourself. Just curious. You must admit that if humans are dualistic--i.e. comprised of a physical and spirit body, it could add significant meaning to issues like evolution and the alleged happenstance of humans, though perhaps in ways that extend beyond the purview of science. Correct? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 That is a valued response--I love the humility of admitted ignorance. However, my question was more germane to mortal life than the afterlife (or preexistence). I was asking about your beliefs about the make-up of humans about which you spoke--i.e. those living on earth, such as yourself. Just curious. You must admit that if humans are dualistic--i.e. comprised of a physical and spirit body, it could add significant meaning to issues like evolution and the alleged happenstance of humans, though perhaps in ways that extend beyond the purview of science. Correct? Thanks, -Wade Englund- I guess that's what I don't understand. If a spirit is introduced into a mortal body, what difference does it make if the body is the product of evolution or creation?
DJBrown Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 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. " The PEW organization has interesting data on religious belief on evolution. I think it is fascinating that, according to their research, members of the church are near the bottom among religious groups in their belief in human evolution. At the same time, active LDS are among the most highly educated of religious demographics. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Micro-Evolution is the exact same thing as Macro-Evolution. tss your bald faced assertions do not make it so. If you are going to make this assertion please back it up.
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Dear Mormon Free Thinker: Your boss wants to see you in his office about your productivity. But in any case, evolution is the official science taught at BYU. Hunting for Mormon biologists who believe in evolution is like hunting for Canadians in Canada. Dear Mormon Free Thinker: Your boss wants to see you in his office about your productivity. But in any case, evolution is the official science taught at BYU. Hunting for Mormon biologists who believe in evolution is like hunting for Canadians in Canada. True but when you have found them all you have proven is that there are a whole bunch of Mormon PHD's who believe in evolution.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Yep that's what I thought you said. Certain mutations just happen and by chance find a niche that better suits them to survive and it just by chance happens for other mutations for mufti-millions of years. And just by chance some of them develop into human beings. Gotcha. Please read for understanding next time. Mutations happen all the time. Most are neutral on the survivability of that individual organism. Some are detrimental in that the organism dies. A few confirm (Selected for) an advantage to that individual that gets passed down to their offspring. When those individuals are genetically isolated from the parent population for long enough. When the selected for advantage appears in enough individuals that is evolution.SEE http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The PEW organization has interesting data on religious belief on evolution. I think it is fascinating that, according to their research, members of the church are near the bottom among religious groups in their belief in human evolution. At the same time, active LDS are among the most highly educated of religious demographics. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/ The question was asked in such a way as to exclude Theistic Evolution. A common LDS belief. The question read: Evolution is best answer for the development of life. God was not involved. A better Gallup poll is found here.http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I guess that's what I don't understand. If a spirit is introduced into a mortal body, what difference does it make if the body is the product of evolution or creation? The difference that is relevant to Gray's and my interaction, isn't so much regarding the means of production (though it can be a factor), but whether the product was a function of happenstance or by design. It raises the question whether the presumed spirits of man waited around for eons on the off-chance that happenstance would produce a human bodies into which they may be introduced? Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Please read for understanding next time. Mutations happen all the time. Most are neutral on the survivability of that individual organism. Some are detrimental in that the organism dies. A few confirm (Selected for) an advantage to that individual that gets passed down to their offspring. When those individuals are genetically isolated from the parent population for long enough. When the selected for advantage appears in enough individuals that is evolution.SEE http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html Please read for understanding next time. Mutations happen all the time. Most are neutral on the survivability of that individual organism. Some are detrimental in that the organism dies. A few confirm (Selected for) an advantage to that individual that gets passed down to their offspring. When those individuals are genetically isolated from the parent population for long enough. When the selected for advantage appears in enough individuals that is evolution.SEE http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html Will you please read for comprehension? I said that humans came by chance per macro-evolution. Either the mutations are planned or they come by chance. You have adamantly rejected planned mutations (directed evolution) as outside the realm of science in this area. Therefore if directed evolution is beyond the realm of science it leaves chance mutations as the only way. Therefore humans happened by chance. I got it.
Recommended Posts