MormonFreeThinker Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Take a look you have implied that I wrote something I did not. That is false witness and I wish you would cease. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with you It has everything to do with you misrepresenting my posts. That is how I feel, remember? Do you remember that stuff you said?
Rob Osborn Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 If you have an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time, it will happen. We LDS believe the universe is infinite.Hardly, you cannot throw endless chances at something and solve the problem. No amount of mnkeys will ever be able type intelligent information.
Grudunza Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Hardly, you cannot throw endless chances at something and solve the problem. No amount of mnkeys will ever be able type intelligent information.This all has nothing to do with why that was a bad analogy, btw.
ERayR Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Either or.... Micro definitely but I do not find conclusive evidence that it extrapolates well into macro. 1
BCSpace Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Had a GA visit our stake conference this weekend. He was really great overall, but there was one segment where he bashed evolution and referenced a study that someone did trying to get monkeys to type Shakespeare as a point against the randomness of evolution. Whew. So many problems with that as an analogy... But I really feel like inasmuch as we dig in against evolution, the farther into a corner we're painting ourselves with the overwhelming science that supports it. Our theology doesn't need evolution to be the boogeyman that we've made it out to be for so long, but we're still waving the pitchforks and torches. So now everyone in my stake has been reinforced with a bad analogy that we can't embrace evolution, and we must hold tight to our old dogmatic ideas about it. Presumably this is going on around the world, and probably seen as some kind of righteous battle by those who persist, but increasingly as we fight that battle we're using rubber bands against nukes. It's only an Atheist conclusion about the 'randomness' of Evolution precluding God, that is on trial with statements like that, not Evolution itself. Randomness is a scientific principle that God can certainly understand and use and in no way precludes God if Evolution is the method of creation. The problem with these type of statements, so far and especially recently, whenever a GA, such as Nelson, tries to bash Evolution, it's not Evolution that gets bashed. For example: The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it “opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience.” It does not oppose removing a medical patient from “artificial means of life support.” Different denominations deal differently with questions about life’s origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic? 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. 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. Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don’t know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution. Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: “When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven.” So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won’t know until that day. http://www.pewforum.org/2007/05/16/in-focus-mormonism-in-modern-america/ Notice the argument against evolution that Nelson uses about dogs always being dogs etc. Evolution itself teaches, like the Church does, that like produces like. Evolution at no point implies that one species gives birth to another. See the link in my siggy about 5 minutes in to see how this is so. Now I think Nelson is a fine apostle, called of God, with the priesthood authority, etc. But he is scientifically illiterate on this subject despite his background. It's not really a problem when you understand that he is fighting back against the notion that God does not exist even though he is erroneously making Evolution the face of that notion. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Mormon - Book of Mormon Title Page
Rob Osborn Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 This all has nothing to do with why that was a bad analogy, btw. its a great analogy. i have always liked the monkey and typewriter shakespear analogy.
Grudunza Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 its a great analogy. i have always liked the monkey and typewriter shakespear analogy.A great analogy for what, though? Not evolution.
ERayR Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 A great analogy for what, though? Not evolution. That depends on your point of view on macro-evolution. I can see if you accept it then it wouldn't appeal to you but if you are of the opposite view it represents quite well the astronomical improbability of macro-evolution.
LOSTONE Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 No disrespect, but I am an ex-Catholic. So I don’t answer to “The Pope” nor pay any attention to their opinions or rules. I am a Christian and that is what I give to. So what ever he has said, has no impact on me or my life.
ERayR Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 No disrespect, but I am an ex-Catholic. So I don’t answer to “The Pope” nor pay any attention to their opinions or rules. I am a Christian and that is what I give to. So what ever he has said, has no impact on me or my life. To clear up a misunderstanding on my part. Did you mean to suggest the Pope was not Christian? I agree that if one is not Catholic what the Pope says is not relevant but I would not reject his Christianity.
LOSTONE Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 To clear up a misunderstanding on my part. Did you mean to suggest the Pope was not Christian? I agree that if one is not Catholic what the Pope says is not relevant but I would not reject his Christianity. Nope, I did not mean to imply that the Pope or Catholics aren’t Christian. I was just meaning that I follow a different version of the Christian faith than Catholic so there for, The Pope is not someone I consider other than basic humanity respect.
ERayR Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Nope, I did not mean to imply that the Pope or Catholics aren’t Christian. I was just meaning that I follow a different version of the Christian faith than Catholic so there for, The Pope is not someone I consider other than basic humanity respect. We are in agreement then.
thesometimesaint Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) If you have an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time, it will happen. We LDS believe the universe is infinite. I really dislike the million monkeys dismissal of evolution as if it were random events. IT IS NOT RANDOM. Evolution places a hold key on every variation that doesn't work. So a million monkeys would produce Shakespeare in about half an hour. SEE Edited November 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 I really dislike the million monkeys dismissal of evolution as if it were random events. IT IS NOT RANDOM. Evolution places a hold key on every variation that doesn't work. So a million monkeys would produce Shakespeare in about half an hour. SEE Bogus info. Mutations and genetic varriation are random events that must first happen and then be selected and not always is the best mutation selected. Even if we were to have another set of monkeys making corrections it still is mot capable of producibg intelligent information. Evolutionists just cant get this last part- the process of evolution is not an intelligentlt guided processwith an end design already in pkace. Its compketely random.
cdowis Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) I really dislike the million monkeys dismissal of evolution as if it were random events. IT IS NOT RANDOM. Evolution places a hold key on every variation that doesn't work. So a million monkeys would produce Shakespeare in about half an hour. Please help me understand something in this video. I understand why a dog may be selected based on speed, but at minute 1:40, natural selection selects only those male birds of paradise "with the most impressive plumage". I am puzzled how "impressive plumage" is a factor in the survival of the species. This also includes the most impressive mating dance. Thanks Edited November 10, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Please help me understand something in this video. I understand why a dog may be selected based on speed, but at minute 1:40, natural selection selects only those male birds of paradise "with the most impressive plumage". I am puzzled how "impressive plumage" is a factor in the survival of the species. Thanks You'll have to ask the female Bird of Paradise. Why did you select your mate, when clearly any fertile member of the opposite sex can be? But more seriously survival of any species is directly tied to those that reproduce. The dead ones can't reproduce. With the domesticated dogs it is us doing the selection, with other non-domestic animals factors such as size, coloration, availability of mates etc, etc, etc, come into play. IE; The female of most birds are far less conspicuous than the males do to factors other than human intervention.
cdowis Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) You'll have to ask the female Bird of Paradise. Why did you select your mate, when clearly any fertile member of the opposite sex can be? But more seriously survival of any species is directly tied to those that reproduce. The dead ones can't reproduce. With the domesticated dogs it is us doing the selection, with other non-domestic animals factors such as size, coloration, availability of mates etc, etc, etc, come into play. IE; The female of most birds are far less conspicuous than the males do to factors other than human intervention. OK, you agree natural selection does not explain how evolution works in many situations. Selection based on "impressive plumage" does not make sense as a survival factor. There are many questions that evolution simply is incapable of explanation. I have compared it to a motorcycle -- it can get you from one place to another but is incapable of hauling a ten ton trailer. Something else is necessary to handle the heavy load of some of the issue of the development of organisms. Edited November 10, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) OK, you agree natural selection does not explain how evolution works. Selection based on "impressive plumage" does not make sense as a survival factor. There are many questions that evolution simply is incapable of explanation. I have compared it to a motorcycle -- it can get you from one place to another but is incapable of hauling a ten ton trailer. Something else is necessary to handle the heavy load of some of the issue of the development of organisms. It may not make sense to you. But evidently to the female of most species of birds it makes perfect sense. Take away our awesome technology and man is a pretty feeble animal. We're far from the fastest runner, we don't swim very well, we can't fly without mechanical contraptions, we're far from the strongest, we don't have big teeth or claws, and our young are incapable of survival without extensive long term involvement of their parents. Evolution is really simple to understand; Those that reproduce win. ALL organisms produce slight variations in their offspring. We are not exact duplicates of either of our parents. but a compilation and editing of both. If one's offspring is better suited to the environment and those offspring go onto produce more offspring than their siblings then the genetics of those that produce more offspring will become more dominate in the population. We don't breed slow race horses for that very reason. Ps. In the human species there are 105 males born to every 100 females. It is the females that get to choose their partners. Edited November 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 It may not make sense to you. But evidently to the female of most species of birds it makes perfect sense. Take away our awesome technology and man is a pretty feeble animal. We're far from the fastest runner, we don't swim very well, we can't fly without mechanical contraptions, we're far from the strongest, we don't have big teeth or claws, and our young are incapable of survival without extensive long term involvement of their parents. Evolution is really simple to understand; Those that reproduce win. ALL organisms produce slight variations in their offspring. We are not exact duplicates of either of our parents. but a compilation and editing of both. If one's offspring is better suited to the environment and those offspring go onto produce more offspring than their siblings then the genetics of those that produce more offspring will become more dominate in the population. We don't breed slow race horses for that very reason. Ps. In the human species there are 105 males born to every 100 females. It is the females that get to choose their partners. hum....females get to to choose their partners? Thats funny. Its a mutual agreement in most of the free world where we choose based on a myriad of reasons, least of which have to do with evoluyionary theory.
katherine the great Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 hum....females get to to choose their partners? Thats funny. Its a mutual agreement in most of the free world where we choose based on a myriad of reasons, least of which have to do with evoluyionary theory.Yes. In most of the animal kingdom, females control reproduction and the direction of sexual selection.
cdowis Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) It may not make sense to you. But evidently to the female of most species of birds it makes perfect sense. Take away our awesome technology and man is a pretty feeble animal. We're far from the fastest runner, we don't swim very well, we can't fly without mechanical contraptions, we're far from the strongest, we don't have big teeth or claws, and our young are incapable of survival without extensive long term involvement of their parents. Evolution is really simple to understand; Those that reproduce win. ALL organisms produce slight variations in their offspring. We are not exact duplicates of either of our parents. but a compilation and editing of both. If one's offspring is better suited to the environment and those offspring go onto produce more offspring than their siblings then the genetics of those that produce more offspring will become more dominate in the population. We don't breed slow race horses for that very reason. Ps. In the human species there are 105 males born to every 100 females. It is the females that get to choose their partners. Your entire post comes down to one sentence == we don't know, we can't explain it. See how easily you could have said that, without the mumble jumbo, trying to divert from the main issue that evolution simply fails the "ten ton trailer" test of explaining some very basic issues on the development of organisms. I am speaking from experience -- I have had several threads on such questions and, when the evolutionists finish their rhetorical fireworks, they basically admit that there is no answer that evolution can provide.++++++++++++++= Sigh, while I am blathering away here, let me repeat something I posted a long time ago. Of all arguments for evolution, one of the strongest arguments is the "tree of life", the interconnected nature of all organisms. Basically the argument is that "only evolution can explain this." Well, I have an alternative explanation. This is not the time or place to get into details, but it is based on chaos theory. It was, for example, discovered that thru the chaos model, a single tree in a forest could predict the nature of the entire forest. If you want to get a general picture of an entire forest, scientists discovered that they can look at a single tree. I propose that, with enough research, chaos theory could provide that explanation of the DNA similarities and the hierarchy of organisms. None of this makes evolution "go away", but simply puts it into its proper place as only one mechanism of the development of the variety and characteristics of organisms we see today. Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis 1
Rob Osborn Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Yes. In most of the animal kingdom, females control reproduction and the direction of sexual selection. And yet, we ourselves as human beings do not fit this evolutionary tale. Its way more complex than evolution of the why and how of sexual reproduction in humans.
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Take away our awesome technology and man is a pretty feeble animal. We're far from the fastest runner, we don't swim very well, we can't fly without mechanical contraptions, we're far from the strongest, we don't have big teeth or claws, and our young are incapable of survival without extensive long term involvement of their parents.I would not be that harsh on man, even without technology. While man is not a fast runner he is designed to outlast most animals. The average human (before most of us got fat and weak) can outrun any predator as long as there is some distance between them when the pursuit starts. Humans do not really need to swim well and never really have. The sea is not a bountiful source of food without some level of technology or at least some moderately advanced tools. Most animals cannot fly and as cool as flying would be humans being able to fly would not help them much in terms of securing food. We may not have sharp teeth or claws but humans are superbly designed to wield weapons which are in many ways superior. Even if it is something picked up like a tree branch a human (again, before the obesity epidemic) can fight off a lot of animals and a weapon has the advantage of being able to sustain damage without weakening the user. If a predator breaks a tooth or claw trying to bring down prey it can be a long term problem. If a human breaks a weapon you replace it.Our young are relatively helpless though for an extended period.
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 hum....females get to to choose their partners? Thats funny. Its a mutual agreement in most of the free world where we choose based on a myriad of reasons, least of which have to do with evoluyionary theory. A man chases a woman until she catches him.Yes; human females do the choosing. Just as females of almost every species do the choosing. Why did you choose the mate you did when any fertile female of our species would do.
Recommended Posts