The Origin Of (Our) Species

[Ahab]

Lets be more precise. Micro-evolution is reality. Macro-evolution is active imagination/fairy tale.

That's what I thought too before I took the time to watch the Microevolution vs Macroevolution video the sometimesaint has been dishing out in most of these threads. Watch it. Basically macroevolution is a collection of micro steps. But here's the kicker. Evolution is not about one kind of living being becoming a different kind of living being, like a cat becoming a dog or a fish becoming an ape or a man or any other kind of living being. In fact the video narrator says that kind of change would disprove the theory of evolution and that kind of change is considered to be impossible according to evolution theory.

So apparently evolution, either micro or macro, isn't as big a deal as I was thinking it was. The most primitive or original type of man is still a man, after all, according to the theory of evolution.

They're still wrong about some things though. As you and I know Adam and Eve were in perfect form as man and woman before the Fall, and the Fall as we understand it was a step down rather than a step up with our composition getting worse or less pure as time has marched on. Plus their video shows a tree of life analogy with all kinds of living beings stemming out of the trunk of a single tree, which doesn't square up to what they say about one kind of being not being able to become a different kind of living being, like a cat becoming a dog, etc.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, actual evolution is reality. Your distorted claims about evolution are the fairy tales.

I love your voice, I would like for you to say my favorite word. I know it is silly. The word is "passport".

 

 

"My name is Werner Brandes. My voice is my passport. Verify me. Thank you."

Edited March 4, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wonder if evolution will go the way of the Big Bang.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

[Rob Osborn]

ID is NOT a theory, at least as science uses the term.

SEE

This is why these debates (rather attacks) never even get off the ground.

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder if evolution will go the way of the Big Bang.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

While almost anything is possible we're going to need a whole lot more evidence of this quantum fluid filled with massless particles called gravitons. A hypothetical massless particle that mediate the force of gravity.

Edited March 4, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Nofear]

I wonder if evolution will go the way of the Big Bang.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

For the record, one proposed and untested theory does not mean an end to the idea. Moreover, the idea presented in the article link doesn't do away with Big Bang cosmology or call it incorrect. An idea was put forth that would eliminate the need for a singularity and still retain all the predictions of a vanilla general relativity big bang.

 

Additionally, we might also note that evolution as a theory put forth by Darwin has undergone many adaptions as new information comes to light (e.g. DNA). Part of the test of a the robustness of a theory is how will it handles new data unknown to the theory at the time of its creation. When a theory is able to easily accommodate new ideas unconceived of at the time of its origin -- that it is a very good sign of being on the right track*.

 

 

 

* Also for the record, the Big Bang theory has done this several times over.

[thesometimesaint]

This is why these debates (rather attacks) never even get off the ground.

 

I don't know as we debating is the best way to establish science or religion. IE; If science makes a claim about religion, and it doesn't, then it is going far beyond the role of science. If religion makes a claim about science, and it does, then it too is going far beyond the role of religion.

SEE

[DragonLancer]

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 believe that each world starts with microbial life that is either introduced there, or that arises from abiogenesis, and then through its own tendency to become more complex over time, it self-assembles into more complex forms.  Then, some of this complexity arises from "chimeric" events.  For example, in the endo-symbyont theory, it has been established that both mitochondria and chloroplasts arose from other cells taking in cells of other kinds into themselves.  Another manifestation of this phenomenon is the cell nucleus, which probably originated as a DNA virus intruder which as evolved into an organelle in the cell which contains DNA.  The closest relatives genetically to mitochondria in our cells is the family of bacteria that has flagella to which the Typhus and Rickettsia species belong.  In other words, in our cells, we have enslaved bacteria to produce energy for the entire cell, and have repurposed a large DNA virus to contain most of the code for the running of our cells.

 

As spirits coming to earth in a certain order create a selection pressure on the temporal matter in the cells, they follow more and more the lines of order that the spirits come to earth in.  Over time, the order the spirits come to earth follows the order that the Lord would like species to arise, until finally, "man-like" beings appear.  But this is not just a process of evolution, but also a process of gene-swapping between various species, both on the microbial level, and in more complex forms.  A chief source of this "horizontal gene transfer" is through either wounds in animals and plants through which new foreign cells and genes are introduced, or through disease when foreign organisms invade, or that over time become symbyonts.  Also, when illnesses cross species lines like bird flu or swine flu jumping to other species, sometimes those types of viruses can inject their DNA into us that they acquired from previous hosts of other species.  It was just revealed yesterday that some HIV viruses originated from Chimpanzee SIV, whereas others originated from Gorilla SIV.  This means that the virus has jumped from primates to humans many times in history.

 

Different hybridization events happened throughout history between Astralopiths and Homo species, which included Neanderthals and so forth, to finally give birth to the pre-Adamic anatomically modern human species, which is known as Cro-Magnon.

 

When we finally came to have homonids on the earth that were anatomically and genetically identical (or at least compatible) to humans from previous worlds, the time comes for the "crowning event" of human evolution to happen, the crowning hybridization event.  Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother came down to earth in 4000 BC to live on the earth for a while, taking upon themselves the name of Adam and Eve.  They planted a garden here, and lived here, having two children, who were subsequently married.  Then the Heavenly Parents left, once their children were of age.  Those children fell prey to the temptations of their spirit brother, and fell from a state of immortality to be mortal like the rest of the humans on this planet.  Over time, they had children, who met up with the other humans that originated from the hybidization events previously spoken of here.  And when they met up with them, they married them, and were genetically identical or compatible to them.  This was the crowning hybridization event in the history of the planet.  This is where the species from heaven that had come from a previous world hybridized with the one that was genetically compatible here, which arose from the same process as the species from the previous world had.

 

This is my belief on the origin of the human race.  It arises naturally through natural processes, although it is "guided" from selection pressure from the order that spirits which inhabit bodies come, and then hybridizes with the one from the previous world before it.  The Savior's body, and any children that are his potential descendants are yet another product of a hybridization event.

 

But the side-effect of this theory would mean that there are people on the planet that are not necessarily descendants of Adam directly, being pure "gentile" having never hybridized with the "covenant race", but who over time will hybridize and make covenants with the Lord and bring their genetic strength in to the covenant for building up of Zion, just as the wild olive trees are grafted in.  They are adopted in and become the spiritual descendants of Adam, and then their children become direct descendants eventually when they intermarry with the covenant race.

Edited March 4, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For the record, one proposed and untested theory does not mean an end to the idea.

Never claimed it did.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't know as we debating is the best way to establish science or religion. IE; If science makes a claim about religion, and it doesn't, then it is going far beyond the role of science. If religion makes a claim about science, and it does, then it too is going far beyond the role of religion.

SEE

You are quite hung up about this whole "creationist" thing. Just so you know, "God" is not a religion.

[Coreyb]

DragonLancer

This is closest to the types of theories I have thunk up in the safe confines of my own mind. Two questions, don't you suppose that by now every living person has at least some ancestors of the covenant race? Also, why do you feel confined to the time frames drawn from genesis. I don't see the timeframes mentioned therein as being literal, or most of the specific father son relationships. The whole book strikes me as legendary epics tying the people of the writers time back into the time and lineage of "The Ancients". If there is any "real" history in genesis, I think it is "abridged" if you will. IE the ages of the patriarchs are exaggerated and the entire time covered is substantially shortened. Only the significant patriarchs are mentioned so the genealogical lines are simplified by dropping the nobodies (and hence all the women). Likely, the number of names included is intentionally amended to reflect some symbolic numerology, in good Semitic fashion, like the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. For all we know, genesis could contain bits of oral history going back too... ..well, who knows. That's my opinion at least

Edited March 5, 2015 by Coreyb

[thesometimesaint]

You are quite hung up about this whole "creationist" thing. Just so you know, "God" is not a religion.

 

Believe me when a scientist claims science disproves God I am equally hard on them.

 

Never said God was. What I have consistently said is that we mortals can't use science to prove or disprove God. Science certainly can't repeat some of the alleged actions of some mortal claiming to act for God.  IE; Throw as many axeheads into a river as you want they're not going to float.

[DragonLancer]

DragonLancer

This is closest to the types of theories I have thunk up in the safe confines of my own mind. Two questions, don't you suppose that by now every living person has at least some ancestors of the covenant race? Also, why do you feel confined to the time frames drawn from genesis. I don't see the timeframes mentioned therein as being literal, or most of the specific father son relationships. The whole book strikes me as legendary epics tying the people of the writers time back into the time and lineage of "The Ancients". If there is any "real" history in genesis, I think it is "abridged" if you will. IE the ages of the patriarchs are exaggerated and the entire time covered is substantially shortened. Only the significant patriarchs are mentioned so the genealogical lines are simplified by dropping the nobodies (and hence all the women). Likely, the number of names included is intentionally amended to reflect some symbolic numerology, in good Semitic fashion, like the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. For all we know, genesis could contain bits of oral history going back too... ..well, who knows. That's my opinion at least

 

Because, there is space for sensible Biblical/Scriptural literalism to a degree (even though not all scripture is or can be literal), just as there is space for sensible interpretation of science.  As Henry Eyring said, sometimes the logic is not "this versus that," but "this AND that."  When they both fit in the same picture sensibly, I don't see any reason to alter the timelines.  I just let them stand.  I don't believe in invoking biblical gap theory or extensions of timelines, or anything else when there is a simpler alternative.  Simply let science speak, and let the scriptures speak, and take the marriage between the two, where they sensibly come together.

 

I don't believe that everyone on the planet has mixed in with the covenant race yet.  There are some lines in Africa diverged from the rest of the human tree 50,000 years ago that have not had significant amounts of marriage with outside groups.  Africans in general have no neanderthal DNA, which shows that they didn't hybridize all that much with those that did hybridize with Neanderthals, etc.  So my guess is, in isolated pockets all over the planet, we will find groups that have not mixed in with the rest of the human tree significantly for tens of thousands of years, making them "pure gentile."  But of course, we are interested in ALL strong genes and ALL strong people spiritually to mix in and bring their strong genetic heritage to the covenant race.  We don't care where that strength originated (or ought not to care).  We want it in the covenant.

Edited March 5, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Rob Osborn]

Believe me when a scientist claims science disproves God I am equally hard on them.

Never said God was. What I have consistently said is that we mortals can't use science to prove or disprove God. Science certainly can't repeat some of the alleged actions of some mortal claiming to act for God. IE; Throw as many axeheads into a river as you want they're not going to float.

Its the atheists agenda to say that we cant prove nor disprove God with science. All things denote their is a God.

BTW, I am not a creationist in the way that science has labeled them. I dont think any LDS believer believes in creationism as defined by scientists.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[ALarson]

All things denote their is a God.

 

No, all things do not denote there is a God.  No one can KNOW that there is a God (unless you've met him or her).  I believe there is creation or even a creator (and I also happen to have faith that this is God).  Having faith and knowing are two different things though.

[Ahab]

No, all things do not denote there is a God. No one can KNOW that there is a God (unless you've met him or her). I believe there is creation or even a creator (and I also happen to have faith that this is God). Having faith and knowing are two different things though.

You're showing that you don't know what it means to know something. Think instead that knowledge is to know something without the least bit of doubt. People can know things, including people, while being wrong about what they know or think they know. Both faith and knowing involve being sure about something. Knowing is simply to be sure without any shadow of doubt.

[ALarson]

You're showing that you don't know what it means to know something. Think instead that knowledge is to know something without the least bit of doubt. People can know things, including people, while being wrong about what they know or think they know. Both faith and knowing involve being sure about something. Knowing is simply to be sure without any shadow of doubt.

I agree.

 

That's why we really cannot use the word "know" when referring to whether or not there is a God.  If one wants to insist that they "know" there is a God, that's a misuse of the word, IMO.

[thesometimesaint]

Its the atheists agenda to say that we cant prove nor disprove God with science. All things denote their is a God.

BTW, I am not a creationist in the way that science has labeled them. I dont think any LDS believer believes in creationism as defined by scientists.

 

Quit with the Ad Hominem. Theists as well as Atheists accept the Theory of Evolution. Is the Pope a Theist? YES! Was Darwin a Theist? YES! Is Kenneth Miller a Theist? YES! Is Robert T. Bakker a Theist? YES! Is BYU a Theistic institution? YES!

 

All things don't denote there is a God. Life, unprotected, on the sun or any other planet but ours is problematic at best. Despite what Brigham Young believed about man being on the sun and moon.

 

Glad to hear that. While Creationists come in many different "kinds". The vast majority fall into the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institute "kinds". Just the "kinds" I have been talking about. If they and you spout the ideas of the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institution "kinds".  Then YES they and you are the Creationist "kind ".

Edited March 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

I agree.

No you don't, and this post from you shows that you don't.

That's why we really cannot use the word "know" when referring to whether or not there is a God. If one wants to insist that they "know" there is a God, that's a misuse of the word, IMO.

When someone says they know something what they are saying is that they are sure beyond any doubt about whatever they are saying they know. When someone says they know God, for example, what they are saying is that they are sure beyond any doubt that they are acquainted with God. Or, for another example, someone says they know the sky is blue what they are saying is that they are sure beyond doubt that the sky is blue.

To have faith is to be sure about something but while leaving some room for doubt, and to know something is to be sure beyond any doubt.

That's the difference between faith and knowledge. And people can be wrong about what they are sure about even if they don't have any doubt.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Its the atheists agenda to say that we cant prove nor disprove God with science. All things denote their is a God.

BTW, I am not a creationist in the way that science has labeled them. I dont think any LDS believer believes in creationism as defined by scientists.

Sometimes creating straw men are useful Rob. Labeling what you believe as creationism is not very useful or accurate hence, a straw man. Since when do some people care about accuracy though?

[thesometimesaint]

No you don't, and this post from you shows that you don't.

When someone says they know something what they are saying is that they are sure beyond any doubt about whatever they are saying they know. When someone says they know God, for example, what they are saying is that they are sure beyond any doubt that they are acquainted with God. Or, for another example, someone says they know the sky is blue what they are saying is that they are sure beyond doubt that the sky is blue.

To have faith is to be sure about something but while leaving some room for doubt, and to know something is to be sure beyond any doubt.

That's the difference between faith and knowledge. And people can be wrong about what they are sure about even if they don't have any doubt.

 

There are no humans on the sun or the moon despite what Brigham Young believed.

[ALarson]

No you don't, and this post from you shows that you don't.

 

Well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Because I firmly believe that no one can absolutely "know" that there is a God.  IMO, one can believe there is a God or have faith that there is a God, but they cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt.  

[Rob Osborn]

Sometimes creating straw men are useful Rob. Labeling what you believe as creationism is not very useful or accurate hence, a straw man. Since when do some people care about accuracy though?

Just so you know, I am not a creationist as TSS thinks I am. I believe in intelligent design which is very different than typical Young Earth Creationism as described and used by evolutionists in their attempt to group those guys with Intelligent design..

Edited March 5, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

Quit with the Ad Hominem. Theists as well as Atheists accept the Theory of Evolution. Is the Pope a Theist? YES! Was Darwin a Theist? YES! Is Kenneth Miller a Theist? YES! Is Robert T. Bakker a Theist? YES! Is BYU a Theistic institution? YES!

 

All things don't denote there is a God. Life, unprotected, on the sun or any other planet but ours is problematic at best. Despite what Brigham Young believed about man being on the sun and moon.

 

Glad to hear that. While Creationists come in many different "kinds". The vast majority fall into the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institute "kinds". Just the "kinds" I have been talking about. If they and you spout the ideas of the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institution "kinds".  Then YES they and you are the Creationist "kind ".

Back to square one over and over and over again...

Please acknowledge that ID and Young Earth Creationism are two separate theories/paradigms.

[thesometimesaint]

Back to square one over and over and over again...

Please acknowledge that ID and Young Earth Creationism are two separate theories/paradigms.

 

Because you refuse to accept the evidence that is right in front of your face.

 

They are part and parcel of the same thing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."^[32] In drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation," such as "creationism" and "Creation Science," were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design,"^[15] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic].^[14] In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,^[25] and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.^[22] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up..."^[33]

Edited March 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint