ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Mutations happen by chance, but it's not chance that determines survivability. I suspect that may be the major source of our disagreement. 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.
ERayR 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? To me it has significant ramifications when it comes to the fall and atonement.
Gray 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- Yes, if humans are dualistic, then that does raise some questions about our bodies. From a scientific perspective there was nothing inevitable about the evolution of the human physical form. There could have arisen a sentient species from non-apes, like reptiles or fish or sea-going mammals. Or, circumstances might not have been right for sentient species to emerge at all (or if they emerged, to survive long enough to develop anything like culture, philosophy, science, etc). If we have spirits and those spirits are in the form of our bodies, then how could spirits in the form of homo sapiens existed long before the not inevitable development of homo sapiens as a species? Or perhaps, if we are dualistic, our spirits have no real form, and could occupy a body capable of sentience regardless of species. There are many possibilities. In any case, I don't know the answer. I don't know if we are dualistic or not. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 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. Directed Evolution is well established science. We simply call it plant and animal husbandry. It is when some posit their concept of God as the Director that problems arise for science.
Ahab Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Not that your description of "macro evolution" is accurate, but it is amply demonstrated by genetic and fossil evidence.Genetic and fossil evidence tells us only that many different species have particular things in common with other species, some more than others, but that doesn't really tell us anything about the origin of each species or kinds of beings.We can see that our kind, mankind, has a lot in common with apes, but less in common with birds, for example, but the fact that apes have a lot in common with us doesn't mean that our kind evolved from apes, even though it's a reasonable assumption based on the evidences we can see. 2
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Directed Evolution is well established science. We simply call it plant and animal husbandry. It is when some posit their concept of God as the Director that problems arise for science. Either human evolution was directed or it was by chance. If it is directed then who is the husbandman?
Ahab Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Either human evolution was directed or it was by chance. If it is directed then who is the husbandman?He's excluding someone directing our species from other species WE have created from other species, like how we can and have crossed various plant and animal species to make other species of plants and animals.He tries very hard to keep God out of the big picture, or even the little pictures, don't cha know. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 To me it has significant ramifications when it comes to the fall and atonement. Joseph Fielding Smith certainly thought it did. So did I, once upon a time.
DJBrown Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 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 The point is the relative high percentage of LDS who disagree with evolutionary theory. Is there any reason to believe LDS response would be different relative to other religious groups if the question included the concept of God-guided evolution?
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Either human evolution was directed or it was by chance. If it is directed then who is the husbandman? Human evolution like all evolution is not chance. It is the selected for traits that establish evolution. IE; You selected your mate not based on chance, but for the traits you wanted. Your children are not exact copies of either of you. You might select for a short person, or a tall one. It is the selection that determines the course of evolution. Also; We can usually articulate why we selected a certain person to mate with. However a Peahen usually doesn't articulate why she selected a particular Peacock to mate with.
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Genetic and fossil evidence tells us only that many different species have particular things in common with other species, some more than others, but that doesn't really tell us anything about the origin of each species or kinds of beings.We can see that our kind, mankind, has a lot in common with apes, but less in common with birds, for example, but the fact that apes have a lot in common with us doesn't mean that our kind evolved from apes, even though it's a reasonable assumption based on the evidences we can see. If that were true, we could never use a DNA test to establish paternity, only "similarity" Edited June 5, 2014 by Gray 1
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Human evolution like all evolution is not chance. It is the selected for traits that establish evolution. IE; You selected your mate not based on chance, but for the traits you wanted. Your children are not exact copies of either of you. You might select for a short person, or a tall one. It is the selection that determines the course of evolution. Also; We can usually articulate why we selected a certain person to mate with. However a Peahen usually doesn't articulate why she selected a particular Peacock to mate with. The mutation is a chance happening unless you are saying that someone directed that mutation. Selection of mates happens after the chance mutations. Again evolutions dictates that humans come about by chance unless you are advocating directed evolution (someone directing the mutations).
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 If that were true, we could never use a DNA test to establish paternity, only "similarity" DNA test results are based on probability. Probability results that are some times very high and some times not so much.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) 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? "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?" don't miss my point. Just because astronomers accept the "interpretation" of the solar system, what does that prove?Just because geologists accept the "interpretation" of plate tectonics, what does that prove?It is not my interpretation, it is the powerful evidence the causes Mormon biologists to believe in Evolution. "And what relevance has aids to the topic at hand?" Don't accuse me of having a comprehension problem. I linked to a video of people that deny the existence of AIDS, some people died because they rejected medical science. My point is that it is not good to reject science, and I gave an example to explain why. Edited June 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
cinepro Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I'm still mystified by the premise of this thread. Has anyone on this board ever claimed that there are "Mormons that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics" and do not believe in Evolution? I can't imagine such a person existing, since I would presume a belief in evolution is a prerequisite for advancing in those fields, so those who don't believe in it would find something else to study. But most discussions on this board focus on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the teachings and doctrines of the Church are expressed and established by the leaders of the Church in official Church publications. So while there might be a variety of views about evolution held by different members of the Church, shouldn't we be looking to the leaders for the teachings and doctrines? What am I missing? 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) I can't imagine such a person existing, since I would presume a belief in evolution is a prerequisite for advancing in those fields, so those who don't believe in it would find something else to study. There are some Biologists that don't believe in Evolution, but very few. There is an astrophysicist that believes the universe is only thousands of years old, and doesn't believe in the Big Bang Theory, his name is Dr. Jason Lisle. Dr. Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology, he believes the Earth is only thousands of years old, he wrote, "if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate" The reason why they believe the Earth and Universe are young, is because they just simply couldn't give up what they been taught in their childhoods. The reason why Mormon PhD biologists (and almost all Biologists) believe in Evolution, is because the evidence is strong. "So while there might be a variety of views about evolution held by different members of the Church, shouldn't we be looking to the leaders for the teachings and doctrines?" The Church does not have an official position on Evolution, but some members claim that Evolution contradicts the church, but it doesn't. Just like the theory of the solar system, Evolution is a fact. Edited June 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 DNA test results are based on probability. Probability results that are some times very high and some times not so much. The same science that gives us that data also confirms evolutionary theory. Independently confirmatory lines of evidence make the theory very, very strong
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 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-godBut God directed evolution is intelligent design. Darwinists dont want anything to do with that.
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 But God directed evolution is intelligent design. Darwinists dont want anything to do with that. God directed evolution is also unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 "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?" don't miss my point. Just because astronomers accept the "interpretation" of the solar system, what does that prove?Just because geologists accept the "interpretation" of plate tectonics, what does that prove?It is not my interpretation, it is the powerful evidence the causes Mormon biologists to believe in Evolution. "And what relevance has aids to the topic at hand?" Don't accuse me of having a comprehension problem. I linked to a video of people that deny the existence of AIDS, some people died because they rejected medical science. My point is that it is not good to reject science, and I gave an example to explain why. And you miss my point. Most scientific disciplines have had interpretations that were commonly accepted and later refuted and I have no doubt that many more commonly held beliefs will change. It is all about interpretation. Some works. Some does not but make no mistake it is all about interpretation. Don't accuse me of rejecting medical science or any other science. It is not science that I reject it is an understanding that today's interpretation are often discarded tomorrow.. It is not the science I have trouble with but the extrapolations in the gaps between micro and macro-evolution. 1
cinepro Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) The Church does not have an official position on Evolution, but some members claim that Evolution contradicts the church, but it doesn't. Just like the theory of the solar system, Evolution is a fact. It's weird how people insist the Church doesn't have an "official position on Evolution", but back in the February 2002 issue of the Ensign, in the helpful section called "Making the Most of This Issue" it says: Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26. We find on page 26 a reprint of the 1909 First Presidency Statement on Evolution, which says the following in the introduction: the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. So on the one hand, I've got an anonymous guy online who calls himself "MormonFreeThinker" saying the Church doesn't have an official position, but on the other hand I've got an editor of the Church's official magazine saying the Church has "official teachings" and a "doctrinal position" on evolution. I wonder whom I should believe...? Edited June 5, 2014 by cinepro 3
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The Church does not have an official position on Evolution, but some members claim that Evolution contradicts the church, but it doesn't. Just like the theory of the solar system, Evolution is a fact. It certainly presents some problematic areas for me. Just like the theory of the solar system, Micro-Evolution is a fact. The extrapolation to Macro-evolution becomes a bit more problematic.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 It's weird how people insist the Church doesn't have an "official position on Evolution", but back in the February 2002 issue of the Ensign, in the helpful section called "Making the Most of This Issue" it says: Not that debate again, we had a similar debate on the Flood. It is interesting that you ignore the evidence that proves that Evolution is true.
ERayR Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 God directed evolution is also unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. Macro-evolution faces the same hurdle.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 It certainly presents some problematic areas for me. Just like the theory of the solar system, Micro-Evolution is a fact. The extrapolation to Macro-evolution becomes a bit more problematic. but you cannot name a Mormon PhD Biologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, that agrees with you.
Recommended Posts