Byu Professor Says Mormons Can Believe In Evolution

[jkwilliams]

You really think this is comparable to what hippos and whales can do? Like you had a straight face when you posted that link?

It's what you get from what I affectionately call "defensive googling."

[TheSkepticChristian]

We can... and do...

 

Dude, we humans are very intelligent, we can do a lot of stuff. Hippos do that because it is their nature to do that. 

How many non-human mammals (not related to the hippo and whale)  breastfeed under water.  There are over 4200 species of mammals on our planet, how many mammals breastfeed underwater? Not many. What a coincidence that hippos and whales can. What a coincidence that whales and hippos have very little hair, and the other similarities too. 

 

So if I tell you eagles can fly, you are going to tell me that humans can also fly LOL 

 

 

Not particularly whale like at all. No. Ambulocetidae They describe it as crocadillian like.

 

LOL so is that macro-evolution? Ambulocetidae was a crocodile? LOL

Whatever,  what do his peers say about his  work?  Just look at the teeth for yourself

 

 

 

And the animal before this in the line up the nasal opening is on the end of its snout just like any other land Mammal.

 

 

What are you talking about? The Basilosaurus was a 100% marine animal. 

Edited November 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

From your link:

". Please note that a special technique is used to insure that the baby does not breathe water. Also, the baby is dunked underwater for only one second at a time. Do not experiment with this technique without proper instruction from a water-training expert."

You really think this is comparable to what hippos and whales can do? Like you had a straight face when you posted that link?

Hippos and whales lift their babys to the surface to breath during feeding as well. Its not like whales nurse their young in the depths of marianis trench or that Hippo babies don't pause while feeding and go to the surface to breath. They are mammals just like we are. A hippo could nurse outside the water just as easily.

Infact heres a Hippo baby nursing on land:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmsCf9WXZqBv_X_ID4G3JslOcUIatjnAVqJVvMc4xZRfztB06A8A

Sperm whales leave their babies at the surface while they dive to hunt squid. When they return to the surface they use the same techniques these women are using to nurse their young.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Dogs bark, humans can do it too LOL

The Wolf Howls, humans can do it too

 

Zakuska doesn't know what he is talking about.  

Edited November 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[jkwilliams]

Dogs barks, humans can do it too LOL

The Wolf Howls, humans can do it too

 

Zakuska doesn't know what he is talking about.

I have to say the underwater nursing thing is the strangest argument I have seen here in a long time. And that's saying something. How is something that is completely instinctive to hippos at all comparable to some random guy's suggestion that women nurse their babies in a way that is counterinstinctive to humans?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Sperm whales leave their babies at the surface while they dive to hunt squid. When they return to the surface they use the same techniques these women are using to nurse their young.

So the mommy whales, plug their babies nose and only hold their baby under water for one second at a time (after being instructed by an expert in the technique)? Got it. Have a great day!

Edited November 2, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Zakuska]

Dude, we humans are very intelligent, we can do a lot of stuff. Hippos do that because it is their nature to do that. 

How many non-human mammals (not related to the hippo and whale)  breastfeed under water.  There are over 4200 species of mammals on our planet, how many mammals breastfeed underwater? Not many. What a coincidence that hippos and whales can. What a coincidence that whales and hippos have very little hair, and the other similarities too.

Not a coincidence at all beings how that is where they spend 90%-100% respectively of their life. Where would we expect them to breast feed? On the Moon?

 

The female duck-billed platypus breastfeeds without benefit of a breast or a nipple. The mammary glands rest underneath the mother's chest. The youngster pushes against the chest wall with his soft, pliable bill, then licks the oozing milk off his mother's skin and hair.

• Whales need to preserve their sleek, hydrodynamically efficient shape. The mother's milk glands are below her thick blubber layer. This inside location also protects the milk from cold. The baby nudges the area and milk-thick as cream-spurts out. A baby Pacific gray whale can drink 80 pounds of breastmilk a day.

• Hippos are born underwater -- and nurse underwater, too. The mother puts her head under water and boosts the newborn to the surface to breathe. Then the baby goes under again, finds a nipple and suckles, instinctively folding down his ears and closing his nostrils. Every twenty to forty seconds, he bobs to the surface to breathe and swallow.

• Female and young lions live together in a pride. In one pride, all the lionesses take care of all the cubs. Unlike almost all other mammals, any lioness will wet-nurse any cub. A napping lioness who has been huting all night doesn't pay much attention to who is suckling on her. And because they are all so closely related, a lioness helps the family no matter whose baby she nurses.

• The hooded seal lives about thirty years, but spends only four days nursing and being a child, the shortest nursing period of any mammal. They live at sea, but they must give birth and nurse out of the water. The only surface available is floating ice. Pups are born when the ice is beginning to melt and break up. A sudden storm might send pieces crashing together, crushing moms and pups. Or an ice floe might split, and moms and pups could be separated. A short childhood helps avoid these perils.

• Orangutans breastfeed, ride on their mother's body and sleep in her hest for seven years-among the longest nursing period of any mammal. The young stay with their mothers at least until a new baby arrives; males begin to wander off then, but females may stay around for a while ovserving how babies are cared for. They are accomplished acrobats, often nursing upside down-hanging by a hand and a foot from a branch.

• Baby animals are weaned when the mother is newly pregnant or preparing for another pregnancy. In western culture, today, the most common reason cited for human weaning is in preparation to return to a job outside the home.

Also Hippos aren't "exclusive" under water nurses.

Here's a baby Hippo nursing on land.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmsCf9WXZqBv_X_ID4G3JslOcUIatjnAVqJVvMc4xZRfztB06A8A

 

LOL so is that macro-evolution? Ambulocetidae was a crocodile? LOL

Did I say Ambulocetidae was a Crocodile? No.

 

Pakicetidae

Reconstruction of Pakicetus

General[edit]

...

They have dorsal orbits (eye sockets facing up), which are similar to crocodiles.

...

Ambulocetidae

Reconstruction of Ambulocetus natans

General

Ambulocetus natans, which lived about 49 million years ago, was discovered in Pakistan in 1994. It was probably amphibious, and resembled the crocodile in its physical appearance.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Laugh it up funny boy.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

I have to say the underwater nursing thing is the strangest argument I have seen here in a long time. And that's saying something. How is something that is completely instinctive to hippos at all comparable to some random guy's suggestion that women nurse their babies in a way that is counterinstinctive to humans?

Good thing Its not my argument.

It's TheSkepticChristian's who listed the super powers of the hippo to be able to nurse underwater, a true miracle of miracles.

All I'm saying is its not that "coincidental" or "miraculous" beings how they spend 90% of their life in the water and they nurse their babies on land too just like other mammals and other Mammals can and do nurse in the water.

Here's a baby Hippo nursing on land.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmsCf9WXZqBv_X_ID4G3JslOcUIatjnAVqJVvMc4xZRfztB06A8A

He even claimed they had a super special gene (I issued a CFR which he ignored) which allowed them to do it while other mammals cant because they don't have this super special gene that makes them super hero's like that.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Not a coincidence at all beings how that is where they spend 90% of their life. Where would we expect them to breast feed? On the Moon?

 

Again, there are not a lot of mammals that breastfeed underwater. Of course, it is the hippos nature to be in the water, hippos and whales are related. Can elephants breastfeed under water? Elephants spend a significant amount of time in the water. What about rats? Rats are great swimmers. What about sloths? 

 

1. internal genitals. Then you say that some humans have internal genitals, but you completely miss my point.  

2. nurse their juveniles while in the water Then you say that humans can do it too. Hillarious. 

3. send handy vocal messages to each other while submerged No response 

4. do not have sweat glands No response 

5. barely any hair on their bodies Then you say that humans are called the naked ape. However, Humans do have about the same number of hairs as chimps, just thinner. 

6. Thick Bones Then you say that some people have thick bones, which completely misses the point. I am talking about the species as a whole. There are thousands of different rare deformities. Common creationist tactic, bring up medical deformities. 

 

It is clear that I am wasting my time with you. What does your cut and paste have anything to do with what I am saying? 

 

PS Is human Evolution micro or macro evolution? Please don't ignore my question. 

Edited November 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[BHodges]

The voting turned out a lot more pro-evolution than I expected. That's pretty cool.

Zakuska, I think it's important to recognize that anyone is free to believe anything in particular for or against evolution. What's out of bounds now, however, is questioning anyone's faith or testimony on that basis.

[ERayR]

The voting turned out a lot more pro-evolution than I expected. That's pretty cool.

Zakuska, I think it's important to recognize that anyone is free to believe anything in particular for or against evolution. What's out of bounds now, however, is questioning anyone's faith or testimony on that basis.

 

Tell that to The SkepticChristian.  His approach is that if you do not agree with him you are mentally deficient.

[BHodges]

Tell that to The SkepticChristian. His approach is that if you do not agree with him you are mentally deficient.

Well if that's what he/she said I'd disagree. No need to make accusations about mental acuity.

[changed]

Evolution as a concept is integral to an open canon.

What survives,survives, as a doctrine, a church, a corporation, a practice, or belief.

That which doesn't work, doesn't work and "dies" and cannot carry on.

It's pretty much common sense when you think about it.

Think of the extinct Edsel.

 

I think there is much more to life than survival.... The rocks survive - they survive better than anything living, and they survive without evolving. 

 

The motivation for life is eternal progression, not mere survival.

[Zakuska]

Again, there are not a lot of mammals that breastfeed underwater. Of course, it is the hippos nature to be in the water, hippos and whales are related.

Manatees are another good example of under water breast feeders. We wouldnt expect them to beach themselves to feed their young now would we? Physiologically they're an even better fit for whale evolution, having no back legs and adapted breathing holes. Some even have the fluke of a whale already.

Can elephants breastfeed under water? Elephants spend a significant amount of time in the water.

Sure they CAN. They use their trunks as snorkels while swimming. Manatees are said to have evolved from elephants so it can be argued that elephantine mammals breastfeed underwater all the time.

 

1. internal genitals. Then you say that some humans have internal genitals, but you completely miss my point.

I got your point perfectly. Aparrently you didnt get mine.

Manatees also have internal genitalia. So do Seals & Walruses. Its not a partucularly miraculous or note worthy adaptation, When you realize that even some land mammals have internal genitalia.

(Eg. Marsupial moles)

 

2. nurse their juveniles while in the water Then you say that humans can do it too. Hillarious.

Hippos can nurse on land too just like any other mammal. Again not a particularly note worthy similarity.

Here's a baby Hippo nursing on land.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmsCf9WXZqBv_X_ID4G3JslOcUIatjnAVqJVvMc4xZRfztB06A8A

3. send handy vocal messages to each other while submerged No response

I said flatulants. You must have missed it.

 

4. do not have sweat glands No response

I gave you the point. You must have missed that too.

However you might want to look up hippo "blood sweat". Yes technically not sweat... but...

5. barely any hair on their bodies Then you say that humans are called the naked ape. However, Humans do have about the same number of hairs as chimps, just thinner.

not all humans have alot of body hair. Take for example the Indians of south America who genetically can't grow a beard and have little if any hair on their chest.

naked ape indeed!

6. Thick Bones Then you say that some people have thick bones, which completely misses the point. I am talking about the species as a whole. There are thousands of different rare deformities. Common creationist tactic, bring up medical deformities.

Isn't that exactly what Darwin was saying when he posited that DNA errors/mutations is the driving force behind evolution.

 

It is clear that I am wasting my time with you. What does your cut and paste have anything to do with what I am saying?

Intresting... I quite enjoy our little discussions and would never be so rude or conceited as to voice my disdain for another poster every chance I got.

 

PS Is human Evolution micro or macro evolution? Please don't ignore my question.

neither.

Now are you going to answer my CFR?

What super special gene do hippos have that let them exclusively breast feed underwater while other mammals can't?

I could throw you a life line... GLOBAL WAR... er... SQUIRREL!

PS. Nasa Says Antartica has a mass Gain of Ice.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

Edited November 3, 2015 by Zakuska

[carbon dioxide]

Lets say that creation occurs by evolution and if we become gods and we create our own worlds we have to use this long evolutionary process.  I think it would be a good idea of once you spend the time creating a world by using evolution to the point where you wanted your world to be to take samples of all living life on your world and freeze them.  Then when you create your next world, you can just thaw your frozen samples and you can avoided a multi-billion year creation effort for your next world.  You are ready to rock and roll on your new worlds on day one. 

[mfbukowski]

I think there is much more to life than survival.... The rocks survive - they survive better than anything living, and they survive without evolving.

The motivation for life is eternal progression, not mere survival.

Things which never lived 'survive'?

Not what we are discussing. This is about evolution. You know, like living things?

[mfbukowski]

Duplicate

Edited November 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[longview]

Lets say that creation occurs by evolution and if we become gods and we create our own worlds we have to use this long evolutionary process.  I think it would be a good idea of once you spend the time creating a world by using evolution to the point where you wanted your world to be to take samples of all living life on your world and freeze them.  Then when you create your next world, you can just thaw your frozen samples and you can avoided a multi-billion year creation effort for your next world.  You are ready to rock and roll on your new worlds on day one.

This is essentially what I have stated in previous threads. I spoke of "priesthood templates" that allowed God to say the word and the "dust" would obey. Any creature that was desired could be organized in this manner and come to life.

[ERayR]

This is essentially what I have stated in previous threads. I spoke of "priesthood templates" that allowed God to say the word and the "dust" would obey. Any creature that was desired could be organized in this manner and come to life.

 

Or simply transplanted from on creation to another.

[Zakuska]

Or simply transplanted from on creation to another.

Which I might add, could explain why completely formed species magically pop into and out of the fossil record with no trace of where they came from.

Ever study the "cambrian explosion"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Evolutionists are at a loss to explain how so many species can "evolve" from a single celled organism in such a short period of time. (20-25 Million years)

 

The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record.[1][2] Lasting for about the next 20[3][4]–25[5][6] million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.[7]

...

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s,[14] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.[15] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

 

IOW the fossil record as it stands now goes counter to Darwinian Evolution by natural selection. It says that most animals we know today (whether still alive or extinct in the fossil record) "evolved"/showed up/appeared in less than 25 Million years.

 

This is essentially what I have stated in previous threads. I spoke of "priesthood templates" that allowed God to say the word and the "dust" would obey. Any creature that was desired could be organized in this manner and come to life.

 

3D printing?

Edited November 3, 2015 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

I think there is much more to life than survival.... The rocks survive - they survive better than anything living, and they survive without evolving. 

 

The motivation for life is eternal progression, not mere survival.

You know I think I misunderstood this post in my earlier reply.

Perhaps you were saying that life itself is change and striving for a better way?

One of my favorite lyrics from Jefferson Airplane:

(Yes I am that old)

"You are the Crown of Creation

and you've got no place to go.

Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for

in the only way that it's granted

in a place among the fossils of our time.

Life is Change

How it differs from the rocks

I've seen their ways too often for my liking"

Life is always striving. Sorry if I misunderstood your post

[ERayR]

I do want to say that is very generous of the good professor to give us all permission to believe in (macro) evolution.

[longview]

 

Which I might add, could explain why completely formed species magically pop into and out of the fossil record with no trace of where they came from.

- - -

    - - -

3D printing?

I am inclined to think more dimensions than 3.  But actually I am thinking of the many scriptures that refer to intelligences that are embedded within stones and dust and etc.  Even the Earth itself.

[changed]

Things which never lived 'survive'?

Not what we are discussing. This is about evolution. You know, like living things?

 

My degrees are in non-living things.  No one has ever been able to explain evolution to me in terms of things like atomic interaction potentials, phase diagrams, formation temperatures and pressures, or with any of the other good, constant, repeatable mechanisms we use to explain the microstructures of things like rocks.  Everything is made out of atoms, it all comes down to just atomic interaction potentials - so without bringing "spirit" into the equation, can anyone here please explain to me what atomic interaction potential or compositions are changing to produce new atomic microstructures in living entities?

 

 

You know I think I misunderstood this post in my earlier reply.

Perhaps you were saying that life itself is change and striving for a better way?

One of my favorite lyrics from Jefferson Airplane:

(Yes I am that old)

"You are the Crown of Creation

and you've got no place to go.

Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for

in the only way that it's granted

in a place among the fossils of our time.

Life is Change

How it differs from the rocks

I've seen their ways too often for my liking"

Life is always striving. Sorry if I misunderstood your post

 

Poetry? Yes, explanations about life seem to be more "liberal arts" questions than "science" questions.  In my field, if someone tried to explain a new microstructure by saying something like "it wanted to survive" it would be a ridiculous laughable explanation - it's a liberal arts explanation. 

 

The definition of survive is merely a continuation of existence.  Evolution is not a process of survival.  What has survived?  Did DNA survive? No - it changed.  Did the creatures' form/nature/structure survive?  No - it changed. 

 

So here are two simple questions:

 

1.  Explain evolution by showing what atomic interaction potential has changed to create a new microstructure

2.  If the point is "survival" - then what has survived these thousands of years? 

Edited November 4, 2015 by changed

[mfbukowski]

My degrees are in non-living things. No one has ever been able to explain evolution to me in terms of things like atomic interaction potentials, phase diagrams, formation temperatures and pressures, or with any of the other good, constant, repeatable mechanisms we use to explain the microstructures of things like rocks. Everything is made out of atoms, it all comes down to just atomic interaction potentials - so without bringing "spirit" into the equation, can anyone here please explain to me what atomic interaction potential or compositions are changing to produce new atomic microstructures in living entities?

Poetry? Yes, explanations about life seem to be more "liberal arts" questions than "science" questions. In my field, if someone tried to explain a new microstructure by saying something like "it wanted to survive" it would be a ridiculous laughable explanation - it's a liberal arts explanation.

The definition of survive is merely a continuation of existence. Evolution is not a process of survival. What has survived? Did DNA survive? No - it changed. Did the creatures' form/nature/structure survive? No - it changed.

So here are two simple questions:

1. Explain evolution by showing what atomic interaction potential has changed to create a new microstructure

2. If the point is "survival" - then what has survived these thousands of years?

I tried.

If you think the answer will improve your life and give you a reason to help your fellow man, make one up

That's what we dumb liberal arts folks worry about.

Just stupid stuff like that