thesometimesaint Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Can someone explain to me Elder Nelson doesn't qualify as being in a "related field" to "biology"? Other than the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution, of course. So while we're on the subject...can you name one LDS General Authority who does believe in Evolution? How about an emeritus one? No one's denying that there are a lot of LDS scientists who believe in Evolution. What's interesting is how LDS doctrines and teachings relate to Evolution, and on that subject it's the LDS leaders who we need to listen to. I don't believe the Theory of Evolution either. I accept it as the best explanation of how life changed once it got here. Whether anyone believes a fact is irrelevant to that fact. Why? Joseph Fielding Smith didn't believe man would ever be in space or on the moon. God would prevent it. Scientists had other idea's. IE; I can look up into the nights sky and see the I.S.S., and do you really doubt that we landed 12 men on the moon?
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) I am a surgeon and my undergrad degree was biochemistry and molecular biology. I personally do not believe in evolution as taught. There are too many unrecognized assumptions built into the theory and analysis of data. I imagine that I am biased by my own experience trying to engage the topic with molecular biology professors. I cannot imagine more dogmatic and condescending responses to simple questions that should permeate any such field. The most common response I received to specific questions regarding the evidence for the theory was essentially, "don't worry about it- everybody knows evolution is true." gray- why do you say that physicians are not scientists? My astronomy professor said that when he received in undergraduate degree in Physics, he thought he knew everything.When he worked towards is masters, he was impressed at the amount of stuff he had to learn, he knew nothing. So your undergraduate degree is not a PhD, you are not an expert in molecular biology. Most medical Doctors don't compare the DNA of humans and animals, and they are not experts in animal life and fossils.It makes sense that the best experts are PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists. Edited June 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 The scientific method does not claim to seek truth; only knowledge. What good is knowledge without truth? 1
ERayR Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I suppose a few fringe elements believe that. But why do you slime me with their craziness? Just because I say evolution does not have the last word? Careful, you are hyperventilating. You dare to believe differently than the herd. 1
Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 A scientific theory is significantly more robust than the colloquial meaning of the word theory.It's still just a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, though, and it still isn't necessarily true. Some people don't seem to realize that fact, thinking that if a theory can be supported by the evidence they accept, as they interpret that evidence, then that means that theory is true. Like how some people think that if their interpretation of the Bible can be supported by a reasonable interpretation of the Bible then that means their reasonable interpretation of the Bible is true.It's not as simple as that, though, considering there are other reasonable interpretations of the Bible and evidence associated with the Bible, just as there are other reasonable interpretations of the evidence associated with evolution. And it's not as if the opinion of the majority is an indication of which interpretation is true, either.And one more thing. A college degree doesn't determine what a person believes, either, even though they had to answer questions on tests they took in college with an acceptable answer to earn a passing grade on the tests and be able to move on to earn their college degree. I know and have known many people who got a college degree with a focus on science who don't believe in evolution, on the macro level. They just accept it as a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available, as I do, while still not believing things happened that way.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 My astronomy professor said that when he received in undergraduate degree in Physics, he thought he knew everything.When he worked towards is masters, he was impressed at the amount of stuff he had to learn, he knew nothing. So your undergraduate degree is not a PhD, you are not an expert in molecular biology. Most medical Doctors don't compare the DNA of humans and animals, and they are not experts in animal life and fossils.It makes sense that the best experts are PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists.Do you have a PhD in bilogy, genetics or paleontology?
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Do you have a PhD in bilogy, genetics or paleontology? Just out of curiosity, what's your educational background? I readily admit that I have no expertise in biology, genetics, or paleontology. I have a BA in English, a BA in Latin American Studies, and an MA in English.
cinepro Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Elder Nelson "His professional work included the positions of research professor of surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Residency at the University of Utah and chairman of the Division of Thoracic Surgery at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City"https://www.lds.org/church/leader/russell-m-nelson It doesn't say that his professional work included the study of animal life, fossils, or genetics. "can you name one LDS General Authority who does believe in Evolution?"The church has no official position on Evolution, so it is unlikely that a General Authority would talk about it. "Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931]. President Gordon B. Hinckley was quoted as saying, "What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635177399/Beliefs-on-Darwins-evolution-vary-from-religion-to-religion.html His statement created room for Evolution. FAIRMORMON "Other Church authorities and members have seen much of value in evolutionary theory, even if they have not endorsed every aspect of it. Examples include James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and LDS chemist Henry Eyring" Just so we're clear, I cited two quotes from an official Church publication stating that the Church did have "official teachings" and a "doctrinal position" on evolution, and now you're responding with unpublished minutes from a First Presidency meeting from 1931, a Deseret News article that quoted President Hinckley (i.e. a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion), and the FAIRMORMON website? I would point out that if an anti-Mormon tried to establish a claim against the Church using unpublished meeting notes, a Deseret News article, and a non-Church website, they would get laughed off this board. But I guess we all dig as deep as we have to. I would also point out that so far, I think you went one for three when you picked out your user name... Edited June 6, 2014 by cinepro
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Just out of curiosity, what's your educational background? I readily admit that I have no expertise in biology, genetics, or paleontology. I have a BA in English, a BA in Latin American Studies, and an MA in English.I readily admit that I also do not have no expertise in the fields of biology, genetics or palentology. I have an automotive schooling background (engineering, fabrication, etc). I am curious though what MormonFreeThinker's bacground is for him to make all these claims
cinepro Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 So your undergraduate degree is not a PhD, you are not an expert in molecular biology. Sheldon, is that you? 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Sheldon, is that you? If you need surgery, do you go to a MD or an undergraduate student? Elder Nelson is not an expert on the fossil record, Genetics (He probably hasn't compared the DNA of different species), and life in General. For example, a meteorologist is not a climatologist.A climatologist is a climate expert. A meteorologist is a weather expert. Evolution happens to a system, not to an individual. This is what happens when people don't listen to the scientific communityhttp://www.houseofnumbers.com/site2/People start to believe in pseudoscience. Edited June 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker 1
DJBrown Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 My astronomy professor said that when he received in undergraduate degree in Physics, he thought he knew everything.When he worked towards is masters, he was impressed at the amount of stuff he had to learn, he knew nothing. So your undergraduate degree is not a PhD, you are not an expert in molecular biology. Most medical Doctors don't compare the DNA of humans and animals, and they are not experts in animal life and fossils.It makes sense that the best experts are PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists. This is interesting. I never claimed any expertise in anything. I have spent 4 years in a basic science lab designing, conducting, and analyzing experiments involving DNA, proteins, etc. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the biology involved in the theory of evolution as well as the science. And of course my undergraduate degree is not a PhD- that is not possible. A note on the "experts." I respect science and scientists. But it is important to recognize that any particular field has its limitations. A PhD in biology has probably the same level of expertise and training that I have in biology. But the PhD process involves a tremendous degree of specialization- some PhDs in biology are going to know a heck of a lot about the North Atlantic ..... fish population. That does not inherently involve much hands-on expertise with investigating evolution. And I am not sure why you think a physicist would have more weight in opining on evolution than an orthopedic surgeon or some other professional with a significant amount of education in the physical sciences. For whatever it is worth, I have a fair amount of experience in basic sciences and have interacted a significant amount with researchers in the field of evolutionary biology. I have serious doubts and problems with evolution as it is taught- and I am not just talking about the idea of life arising as a result of random events, but the methods and extend of natural selection and the evolution of species. Maybe more important than any specific classes or degrees is the understanding and experience in the culture of University biological research. Most folks do not understand the limitations and shortcomings of this environment and process. There are tremendous positives in scientific research. But there are also a huge number of invalid conclusions being made all the time. 1
Gray Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 It's still just a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, though, and it still isn't necessarily true. Some people don't seem to realize that fact, thinking that if a theory can be supported by the evidence they accept, as they interpret that evidence, then that means that theory is true. Like how some people think that if their interpretation of the Bible can be supported by a reasonable interpretation of the Bible then that means their reasonable interpretation of the Bible is true.It's not as simple as that, though, considering there are other reasonable interpretations of the Bible and evidence associated with the Bible, just as there are other reasonable interpretations of the evidence associated with evolution. And it's not as if the opinion of the majority is an indication of which interpretation is true, either.And one more thing. A college degree doesn't determine what a person believes, either, even though they had to answer questions on tests they took in college with an acceptable answer to earn a passing grade on the tests and be able to move on to earn their college degree. I know and have known many people who got a college degree with a focus on science who don't believe in evolution, on the macro level. They just accept it as a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available, as I do, while still not believing things happened that way. Scientific theories are much more rigorous than just a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 This is interesting. I never claimed any expertise in anything. I have spent 4 years in a basic science lab designing, conducting, and analyzing experiments involving DNA, proteins, etc. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the biology involved in the theory of evolution as well as the science. And of course my undergraduate degree is not a PhD- that is not possible. Do you agree that DNA proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Do you agree the Cro-Magnon is not a modern human? Elder Talmage believed that the Cro-Magnon was not a modern humanhttp://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/Earth_and_Man Do you agree the chihuahua, the fox, and the wolf share a common ancestor? Even AnswersInGensis agrees that they do. Do you agree with Dr. Heath Ogden? He said, "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"
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) I found this of special note by LDS retired professor, author- Frank Salisbury who has a PhD in biology It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment. (Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971).) Frank Salisbury also belives in many tennets of the Intelligent design theory and has written a book about it showing how purely naturalistic Darwinian evolution does not add up.- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-case-for-divine-design-frank-b-salisbury/1007964402?ean=9781555179007 Edited June 6, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Scientific theories are much more rigorous than just a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.The things scientists will do to develop a reasonable interpretation of the evidence can be said to be rigorous but in the final analysis that's really all that any of their theories are... just reasonable interpretations of the evidence they have examined.
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I found this of special not by LDS retired professor, author- Frank Salisbury who has a PhD in biology It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment. (Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971).) You do realize that this is citation is almost as old as I am, don't you? One of the great things about science is that a lot is known now that was not known in 1971.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 You do realize that this is citation is almost as old as I am, don't you? One of the great things about science is that a lot is known now that was not known in 1971.Alway a reason to back out. I did find a LDS PhD biologist who doesnt believe in darwinian evolution.
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 The things scientists will do to develop a reasonable interpretation of the evidence can be said to be rigorous but in the final analysis that's really all that any of their theories are... just reasonable interpretations of the evidence they have examined. Yep, and with more confirming evidence, the interpretation is that much more reasonable. Hence, the theory of gravity is still a theory, but no one seriously doubts it. Where I have an issue is what I see in this thread and others: rejecting theories not because they don't fit the evidence but because they conflict with a personal belief or ideology. What would you do if there were proof of evolution? Would you throw out the scriptures or simply adjust your approach to the scriptures to accommodate proven facts?
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Alway a reason to back out. I did find a LDS PhD biologist who doesnt believe in darwinian evolution. No, no reason to back out. I just thought it was funny that you had to go back to 1971 to find a source. I'm not surprised that you were able to find someone like him, as I know there are creationist and ID-believing biologists out there.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) I found this of special note by LDS retired professor, author- Frank Salisbury who has a PhD in biology It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment. (Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971).) Frank Salisbury also belives in many tennets of the Intelligent design theory and has written a book about it showing how purely naturalistic Darwinian evolution does not add up.- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-case-for-divine-design-frank-b-salisbury/1007964402?ean=9781555179007 CONGRATULATIONS, Finally someone tried to name a PhD Biologist, but he has a PhD in plant physiology and geochemistry. http://mormonscholarstestify.org/645/frank-b-salisbury But no doubt that he knows more about biology than me, but most of his peers disagree with him. September 1971? That is out of date, that was before DNA conclusively proved Evolution. It seems that Dr. Salisbury also believes in UFO pseudoscience, but I am not sure he believes that. But Dr. Salisbury wrote, "The fossils in the earth's sedimentary rocks are the remains of organisms that lived and died on the earth. If there were no death of any organisms until after the fall, all of these fossils must have been produced in the Noachian flood—and that is what some people during the Middle Ages believed. This idea can be found now among the young-earth creationists. This would mean that all those organisms—for example, dinosaurs and humans—were living on earth at the same time. The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust just does not fit this picture. No traces of humans have ever been found in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example. I see large quantities of the remains of living organisms that testify to an ancient earth: coal, limestones, dolomites, and diatomaceous earth represent such remains. The diatomaceous earth, for example, consists of microscopic shells of diatoms laid down one cell at a time, a process that would require millions of years to produce the known strata thicknesses"http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf and Dr. Salisbury also wrote, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf Edited June 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Gray Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 The things scientists will do to develop a reasonable interpretation of the evidence can be said to be rigorous but in the final analysis that's really all that any of their theories are... just reasonable interpretations of the evidence they have examined. More than reasonable - it's almost an inevitable interpretation. And there are no competing reasonable interpretations of the evidence in this matter.
Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Yep, and with more confirming evidence, the interpretation is that much more reasonable. Hence, the theory of gravity is still a theory, but no one seriously doubts it. Where I have an issue is what I see in this thread and others: rejecting theories not because they don't fit the evidence but because they conflict with a personal belief or ideology.... a personal belief or ideaology that is also based on a reasonable interpretation of available evidence shouldn't be a problem for you, though, even if it does not involve evolution.And clearly it is much more reasonable to believe as I do that evolution is not even necessary for each kind of being to reproduce after their own kind, just as is mentioned in the Holy Bible.What would you do if there were proof of evolution?Of the macro order, you mean? Well, for one thing, I would actually SEE one kind of being becoming another kind of being, and I'm not talking about seeing a cricket become just another kind if cricket, or a bat just becoming another kind of bat. And I would also be PLEASED to be seeing something more than just speculation and false assumptions. Edited June 6, 2014 by Ahab
Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 More than reasonable - it's almost an inevitable interpretation. And there are no competing reasonable interpretations of the evidence in this matter.You need to study some more books if you are writing that with a straight face.The most reasonable explanation for how life developed on this planet, if there wasn't always life on this planet and of the various kinds there are right now minus those that are now extinct here, is that somebody transported them here and then they each reproduced after their own kind, just as we can see them doing today.It's at least a little far fetched to think that all of the kinds of beings there are now somehow "evolved" fron only one kind of being, although only one kind of being could have brought them all here.
Gray Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 You need to study some more books if you are writing that with a straight face.The most reasonable explanation for how life developed on this planet, if there wasn't always life on this planet and of the various kinds there are right now minus those that are now extinct here, is that somebody transported them here and then they each reproduced after their own kind, just as we can see them doing today.It's at least a little far fetched to think that all of the kinds of beings there are now somehow "evolved" fron only one kind of being, although only one kind of being could have brought them all here. The explanation you give is based on no evidence at all, only supposition. It's a non-scientific hypothesis. Evolution is consistent with all evidence gathered to date. No competing competing falsifiable explanations are consistent with known evidence.
Recommended Posts