The Origin Of (Our) Species

[Uncle Dale]

Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon are three of the top four elements in our galaxy, and presumably the known universe. Helium is number two but is chemically inert. Nitrogen while chemically active combines with far fewer elements than Oxygen. So in all likelihood if there is life on other planets it is a complex hydrocarbon tied onto one or more oxygen atoms. As life on this planet comes in many colors there is no reason to suggest that if it exists elsewhere it too wouldn't come in various colors.

Yeah, probably so. There may be some silicon based life

out there somewhere, or even an unimaginable entity

based upon both carbon and silicon, but hydrocarbons

is where the smart money comes down.

Next question is -- oxygen-intolerant, oxygen-tolerant, or

oxygen-dependent.

Then, asexually reproducing, bi-sexually reproducing, or

tri-sexually (for all you Star Trek, Nemoy-mourning folks).

Only after we get past all of those forks in the extraterrestrial

probabilities pathway, does consciousness and self-directed

evolution come into possible play.

I'm betting on 99.9% of life in our cosmos being at the

level of black-smoker, oxygen-hating microbes, that

typically get wiped out every couple of galactic rotations

by cosmic rays, asteroid impacts, exploding stars, etc.

UD

Edited February 28, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

Can you believe in macro evolution, particularly the part about the the evolution Homo sapiens, AND believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Do you? How do you manage? Do you synchronize the two beliefs or compartmentalize them?

I have a pious LDS friend with a PhD in anthropology who believes that biological evolution was God's method of developing the various forms of life on Earth, in addition to other aspects of Terraforming -- which took billions of years.  At some point, therefore, God might presumably decide that hominids had reached the point where they would be considered modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and that direct, divine communication and testing could begin on his now embodied spirit children.  Indeed, the alllegory of innocence in the Garden could easily be the childlike animal phase of development in mammalian history until hominids had reached fundamental realizations which animals simply do not have.  So the symbolism and figurative language would mask the long development of mammals with no self-reflection to that of fully human intellect.

 

The meaning would still be essentially the same.  However, Brother Brigham and I do not share that view.  We maintain that the first humans were born on Earth of parents from another solar system, i.e., that they were transferred here as fully modern humans, with no evolutionary developmental phases.  However, humans would still have all the biological capacity for adaptation to different environmental conditions.   But only adaptation within species.

[Robert F. Smith]

Maybe I misunderstood PPP -- in thinking that he said

matter has no beginning and no end, each small bit

possessing an equally small bit of intelligence. Thus,

the intelligence of a complex molecule would generally

be superior to that of a low weight atom, etc. etc.

.........................................................................................   

I thought Pratt got around this little oddity by saying

that through a series of events there were more and

more gods, although the amount of intelligent matter

is infinite and eternal (timeless).

But that's Graceland College teaching from 1978. I

suppose that BYU cosmology courses in 2015 are

much more logical and scientific.

................................................................  

You are thinking in yesterday's conventional terms about something which is as unikely to be molecular as the vast majority of the universe is to be composed of conventional atoms.  Nearly all of the universe is invisible and indetectable dark matter and dark energy, the composition of which we do not understand.  There is nothing of conventional physics or chemistry which can explain it to us.

 

Thus, talk of an infinite regress of gods, and of elemental intelligences may have nothing at all to do with conventional physics and chemistry.  Indeed, we have no rational reason for thinking about LDS theology and cosmology within such narrow strictures.

[Robert F. Smith]

So maybe other children of God on other worlds breathe nitrogen or helium or whatever just as we breathe oxygen, and other people (let's call us all people okay?) on other worlds have green or orange or whatever color skin instead of the colors we have, and stuff like that?

Fun stuff to imagine I suppose but it's just speculation with no evidence to support it.

The late Isaac Asimov once wrote a scientific article in the journal Analog: Science Fact/Science Fiction in which considered how and why sentient beings on other worlds might have a lot in common with us, yet still be a bit odd from our point of view.  He used the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology to show why this would be true, and it was very convincing.  So, our DNA may be scattered across the universe, but providing some quite different and customized humans on an array of strange worlds.  How that plays out for the appearance of various gods is anybody's guess.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

Thus, talk of an infinite regress of gods

...

 

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it seems that

if the earthlings had an origin in Adam -- and Adam had

an origin himself -- then the population of the universe

increases over time. Perhaps not so much in terms of

short-lived human earthlings; but the overall count of

eternal, undying gods must increase with each new

graduating class.

 

Thus (unless we wish to argue that infinity plus anything

is still infinity) the number of gods today is more than it

was in Adam's time -- and still more than its total, back

when Eloheim was "like man is now."

 

UD

Edited February 28, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Ahab]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it seems that

if the earthlings had an origin in Adam -- and Adam had

an origin himself -- then the population of the universe

increases over time. Perhaps not so much in terms of

short-lived human earthlings; but the overall count of

eternal, undying gods must increase with each new

graduating class.

Thus (unless we wish to argue that infinity plus anything

is still infinity) the number of gods today is more than it

was in Adam's time -- and still more than its total, back

when Eloheim was "like man is now."

UD

That's the thing I like best about my family, both my extended and more immediate kin folk. There literally is no end to us, whichever way you are looking. There's just more and more and more and more and more...etc, forever. Some good, some bad. Some prettier and more sexually attractive than others. Some smart like me and some smarter and some others not as smart as I am. Or should I say intelligent instead of smart. Maybe so. I still have a lot to learn about all kinds of things But at least I know where babies come from.

[Uncle Dale]

That's the thing I like best about my family, both my extended and more immediate kin folk. There literally is no end to us, whichever way you are looking....

 

 

Back when I was a kid, some pestering cousin told me

that Great Grandpa Godfrey had been convicted as

a horse-thief in North Ogden, around the time of the

Civil War. I didn't believe him then and I don't believe

him now.

 

But the allegation got me to thinking. One of those old

Godfreys married a MacIntier up in Idaho, and her

ancestors were the same as Mother Smith's. -- So,

if Joseph and Lucy's line has really been traced back

to Adam (as was professed to me) -- then I can ride

on those genealogical coat-tails back before Noah's 

flood, and even before Enoch's city left the earth.

 

How I trace things backwards from Adam, I can't say,

I'll let the Smiths figure that part out for me.

 

UD

Edited February 28, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it seems that

if the earthlings had an origin in Adam -- and Adam had

an origin himself -- then the population of the universe

increases over time. Perhaps not so much in terms of

short-lived human earthlings; but the overall count of

eternal, undying gods must increase with each new

graduating class.

 

Thus (unless we wish to argue that infinity plus anything

is still infinity) the number of gods today is more than it

was in Adam's time -- and still more than its total, back

when Eloheim was "like man is now."

 

UD

Makes sense to me, Dale, even though infinity + 1 is still infinity.  Such paradoxes are difficult to understand for anyone, except perhaps a god.  Dealing with incommensurable magnitudes and attempting to comprehend the relation of the discrete to the continuous can boggle any mind.  However, there is even a website which claims that there must be an infinity of gods (http://www.infinitiaty.org/ ):

 

"An infinity of Gods? Poppycock! That's impossible." Not only is it possible, but it must be so. Nothing can be created without a cause for its creation. We were created by a God, thus there must have been a God, God Two, to cause our God, God One, to exist. And there must have been a God, God Three, to create God Two; and a God, God Four, to create God Three; and a God, God Five, to create God Four ... and on into the heavenly infinite regress. Thus, not only can there be an infinite number of Gods, but there must be.

 

Or, as Hugh Nibley put it, in assaying the Gnostic Book of Jeu:

 

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).  [see C. Schmidt & V. MacDermot, Books of Jeu (Leiden: Brill, 1978)]

 

This is reminiscent of the Grand Hotel paradox of mathematician David Hilbert:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo .

[Ahab]

Back when I was a kid, some pestering cousin told me

that Great Grandpa Godfrey had been convicted as

a horse-thief in North Ogden, around the time of the

Civil War. I didn't believe him then and I don't believe

him now.

But the allegation got me to thinking. One of those old

Godfreys married a MacIntier up in Idaho, and her

ancestors were the same as Mother Smith's. -- So,

if Joseph and Lucy's line has really been traced back

to Adam (as was professed to me) -- then I can ride

on those genealogical coat-tails back before Noah's

flood, and even before Enoch's city left the earth.

How I trace things backwards from Adam, I can't say,

I'll let the Smiths figure that part out for me.

UD

Rather than just taking somebody's word for it I'm looking forward to meeting each of my parents going back as far as I can in eternity, however long that may take.

I was fortunate enough to meet each of my immediate parents'parents, my first in line grand parents, and each of them should know who their parents are or their parents should at least know their children, so it should be easy to trace each of my parents back in their order without having to do a lot of research by paper work. And in the cases where children don't know their parents and the parents don't know their children we're supposedly going to be getting assistance from God or his messengers to help fill in the details. Anyway, however it will be done, I'm looking forward to meeting each of my parents however great and grand they are and getting to know them all, personally. Cousins and aunts and uncles too? Well, yeah, but I'd like to focus on my parents, primarily.

[Rivers]

We are always talking about us being children of God and how the human race is one great big family.

According to the theory of evolution all living things are one great big family. That is pretty awesome to think about.

[Rivers]

duplicate

Edited February 28, 2015 by Rivers

[Rob Osborn]

The statement declares human evolution as one of the "theories of men," but falls short of explicitly declaring it untrue or evil.

The LDS Church has produced a number of official doctrinal statements on the "origin of man." These statements generally adopt the position, as a church-approved encyclopedia entry[a] states, "[t]he scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again."

Evenson, William E. (1992). "Evolution". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. p. 478. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.

Its easy to live in denial.

[Ahab]

We are always talking about us being children of God and how the human race is one great big family.

According to our doctrine everyone sent to this planet is one great big family because we're all children of one Father but that doesn't mean our one common Father is related to every other person in the universe who is the same kind of being he is, even if there is an infinite regression of parents, because there is no ultimate origin with one person or couple who began our whole race, so there are an infinite number of human families instead of all of us being in the same family.

According to the theory of evolution all living things are one great big family. That is pretty awesome to think about.

Yes but that's the pretty big flaw in the theory of evolution. On this planet there are many different kinds of beings, rather than all beings being the same kind of being. Like dogs and cats and apes being different kinds of beings rather than the same kind of being and us being yet another different kind of being. We all live here on this planet with other kinds of bengs but we're not all the same kind of beings. The theory of evolution is awesomely silly.

[thesometimesaint]

[pogi]

Its easy to live in denial.

 

Are you speaking to me, or to the church approved Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

[Teancum]

Can you believe in macro evolution, particularly the part about the the evolution Homo sapiens, AND believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Do you? How do you manage? Do you synchronize the two beliefs or compartmentalize them?

 

 

No.  Evolution of humans precludes a literal Adam and Eve....it takes incredible mental gymnastics to conclude otherwise.

[Teancum]

Evolution (macro) is a state sponsered and state protected religion. Pure fantasy, not based on scientific method. Now if you want to talk about having faith, please explain the origin of life, time, matter and energy. It's a man made religion based on faith, not science.

 

Here Kent Hovind gives a great summary.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHFqFP-Li_o

 

 

When I see things like this I think this is when religious dogma is dangerous.

[thesometimesaint]

When I see things like this I think this is when religious dogma is dangerous.

 

Given that Kent Hovind is still in prison maybe it isn't his religion that is the problem.

[Teancum]

I do not believe that Evolution is compatible, not only with the creation of Adam and Eve, but with the gospel.

I cannot accept that in a direct lineal descent one generation is considered a lower lesser form of life (outside of the family of God and inelligible for exaltation) and the very next one will be resurrected to the Celestial Kingdom and Godhood.

 

Imagine evolution is true.  We have passed through neanderthal, cromagnon, and then you are the father of "Adam", the first homo sapiens, and the first being eligible for the Celestial Kingdom.  You are basically as intelligent as any father/son.  Just as Christ was in the image of his father, so your son is in your image.  You watched him being born. You loved his mother.  But because you aren't advanced enough you cannot be exalted with him to the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  You can never follow him in his progression to godhood, because you are one generation too early for homo sapiens - the children of God.

 

Nope, can't accept such a situation.

 

Well you have a problem because really the theory of evolution is quite factual.

[Teancum]

Kind of ridiculous that man can get so confused as to his origins when in fact the good book states emphatically that we are the very sons of God. Our own doctrine even goes further to say that we are not the result of a lower order of animals. But yet, we will continue to deny such truths in light of man's feeble and corrupt understandings.

 

 

Relying on fables and fairy tales is a dangerous thing.

[Ahab]

Relying on fables and fairy tales is a dangerous thing.

It can be if you confuse fables and fairy tales with reality, like how some people confuse evolution with reality while thinking what God has told us is all just fables and fairy tales.

Once upon a time all the people on Earth knew our Father in heaven was really our Father, but that was way back in the days of Adam and Eve.

[Stargazer]

 

Nice!  Thanks for posting that.

 

It does seem that the target of the video is a particular organization, which didn't interest me, but I think it is an excellent overview of what the two terms means.

 

I especially liked the pix of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane!  I wonder if a mother Chihuahua would be able to carry to term a litter of puppies whose father was a Great Dane?  If not, that wouldn't argue against them as the same species, of course.

[Stargazer]

Relying on fables and fairy tales is a dangerous thing.

 

That's an overstatement.  It depends on what you're relying upon it for.  If there is a fairy tale that you can safely jump out of a plane as long as you are carrying a rabbit's foot, well, that's dangerous.  If you avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk because it would break your mother's back, then not so much.

[Calm]

 

 

I especially liked the pix of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane!  I wonder if a mother Chihuahua would be able to carry to term a litter of puppies whose father was a Great Dane?  If not, that wouldn't argue against them as the same species, of course.

http://puppytoob.com/dog-breeds/can-chihuahua-great-dane-mix-exist/

 

Because of the incredible size difference, with Chihuahuas being teeny tiny and Great Danes being incredibly large and tall creatures, it simply isn’t the best fit for either of the dogs. For one thing, it’s hard for them to get impregnated and when they do, because the puppies would be too big for a Chihuahua mother to deliver naturally, they would need to be delivered via C-section. It is not recommended also because this breeding wouldn’t happen naturally because of such a difference in size. There would definitely be numerous complications that aren’t healthy for all involved, not only in delivery but also in pregnancy.

 

https://ponderingsfrompluto.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/new-dogbreed-chi-dane-dane-or-great-mexican/

 

Samson’s team had to erect a ladder for the male to climb since, even with the female Great Dane laying on the ground, his climbing on top of her was similar to an adult man having to climb a small structure.

“The male dog had a very difficult time, especially with the female Great Dane barking and looking at him as if not really sure of why he was trying to, um, mate with her,” Samson said. “We had to finally give her anesthesia which helped her relax and greatly lowered her inhibitions. She probably thought of it as a drunk, one-night stand.”

The female Great Dane then was pregnant and carried four puppies to term.

The puppies then had to be fed with a bottle since, once they were delivered, their mother did not know what to think of them. Some had problems opening their mouths wide enough to suckle from the teats.

Thankfully, the litter was two boys and two girls, and they will then breed with each other to see if they can then create a new breed.

The Chi-dane-danes/Great Mexicans have the large heads of the Great Danes but are roughly twice the size of a Chihuahua. This is good, since having the head of the big breed and the body of a smaller breed would cause serious equilibrium issues.

 

Edited March 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Nice!  Thanks for posting that.

 

It does seem that the target of the video is a particular organization, which didn't interest me, but I think it is an excellent overview of what the two terms means.

 

I especially liked the pix of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane!  I wonder if a mother Chihuahua would be able to carry to term a litter of puppies whose father was a Great Dane?  If not, that wouldn't argue against them as the same species, of course.

 

At the genetic level the two are still the same species of dog. I would suppose that in the distant future they will have separated enough to have become two separate species.