Buckeye Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Specifically, does BYU have classes that teach that man came from monkeys? I thought that i remembered that they did, but a friend of mine does not believe that a church school would allow such things to be taught so i'm looking for information and some specific class names (because she'll want them). Thanks! I was an engineering grad at BYU so I only had evolution in Bio 100. But I do know that evolution is serious taught at the school. For sources, I would start by looking at Steven Peck, a BYU professor and strong advocate of evolution. Here is his class list to show your friend: http://lifesciences.byu.edu/Directories/FacultyStaff/ctl/FacultyProfile/mid/5712/NetID/slp73. I'd also invite her to read his recent book on evolution and faith, as well as his interviews on evolution to Bill Reel, KUER, FairMormon, etc. (see below links). A few starter resources to give your friend are these interviews of Peck by Jana Reiss and the Daily Universe: Quote By Steven Peck I am a Mormon. And an ape. This pairing is not customary, notwithstanding most Mormons, as members of the human race, are. There is nothing terribly exceptional or unusual about my apishness, but I thought it necessary to point out, because I want to talk about this a bit. Like many Mormons, I am big on genealogy. Although, I must admit, my recent ancestry has captured me less thoroughly than my deep heritage. Still, let’s not go too far back, I don’t want to talk about my invertebrate, fishy, or even reptilian past. I want to natter about two of my ape-line grandmothers. One of my grandmothers was a small thing, with a head about the size of a chimp. But here is the incredible thing–she walked upright. Her hands thus free allowed her to fashion rocks into a slightly more useful form. Take a chip off a stone here. Flake off a bit there. And voila! You have just the thing needed to hack open a bone with a little more panache. My grandmother was a lovely woman, and even if she and I are not in the same species, I owe much of what I am to her. .... Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/flunkingsainthood/2010/09/why-mormons-should-embrace-evolution-byu-biology-professor-steven-peck.html#ZcQRGbr9pvStDbUB.99 Quote ... Peck said one of his purposes in writing the book is because LDS people tend to be suspicious of evolution. “Evolution is my favorite subject,” Peck said. “In the biology department, it’s a huge part of what we teach because it infuses all of biology. You really can’t be a biologist without a commitment and interest in evolution because it’s the foundation.” Peck received his undergraduate degree at BYU and said when he arrived at the university, he thought evolution was “not something that Latter-day Saints believed in or could believe in.” He later came to accept evolution as he was taught by biology professors who were also active members of the church. Peck said he wrote this book to help people understand “that evolution’s OK, even for people of faith who are believers in the gospel, like I am.” http://universe.byu.edu/2015/11/02/byu-professor-writes-book-examining-evolution-and-faith1/ Interviews: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/evolving-faith http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/11/17/fair-conversations-episode-12-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-1-of-2/ http://kutv.com/news/local/byu-professor-man-evolved-from-apes Edited October 14, 2016 by Buckeye 2
Buckeye Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 I also highly recommend Peck's fiction and science fiction works. You can find him on Amazon. For kids, read the squirrel book. For Halloween, read a Short Stay in Hell - it will seriously blow your mind for awhile. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Daniel2 said: During my tenure at BYU from 1991 to 1997, I was taught by several professors that humankind biologically evolved from a more primitive form of life, and that we biologically share a common ancestor with today's monkeys (as we ultimately do, with all other forms of animal life on earth). Biology 100 was one of the classes I recall... I was there in the mid 1970's. They had just gotten rid of its war on evolution perpetrated by the previous school administration. Interesting times to be sure, but I was taught evolution.
Popular Post halconero Posted October 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 14, 2016 Okay. I'm not getting into my personal beliefs on this one, as they're too complex for a short post, and I already promised people in the Adam-God threads a couple weeks back to post on there, which I plan to do this weekend since the past week has been an absolute nightmare in terms of paperwork at my job. But anyways, a profound misunderstanding going on in this thread of what the theory of evolution proposes. Regardless of your beliefs on it, there should at least be a correct understanding of the fundamentals of that theory before you put up an opposition to it (if you choose) that is both coherent and workable. 1. Evolution is not progressive in the sense that species by necessity become increasingly smart, stronger, larger, or faster. "Devolution" as some have used in the past is a misnomer. Evolution has no sense of direction. It is simply a change in allele frequencies (the frequency in which certain strands of DNA) from one generation to another in a particular species. 2. Mutation is random: Mutations randomly occur in the DNA of an individual due to damage by radiation, spontaneous changes, or other means. Sometimes this results in cancer, sometimes it results in an extra pair of digits on your hands (I know a friend with 6 fingers on each hand, all functional. Awesome piano player). Most of these mutations aren't perceptible to humanity (meaning they're a change in the genotype, but not the phenotype, meaning the physical manifestation of genes). If they occur in DNA prior to reproduction, then these changes may be passed on to an individual's offspring. I think we can all agree that sperm and eggs contain genetic information from parents which is passed on. 3. Evolution is not random: Wait, what? How can mutation be random, but evolution not? It's rather simple really. I'll start off with a negative example. Some mutations might be detrimental to the survival and reproduction of an individual, and hence the species. Let's say a mutation in an Arctic wolf causes it to be born hairless. That pup will in all likelihood not survive into adulthood to be able to pass on this DNA. The weather, climate, geography, and other natural "environment" in which a mutation occurs is not really random (aside from weird weather patterns once in a while), nor is the fact that full-body hairlessness is is rather detrimental to survival in cold weather really all that random either. For a positive example, let's say we take a group of people with dark skin who migrates to a cold, northern climate which doesn't get as much sun throughout the year. Eventually this group includes an individual with a mutation for less melanin in the skin. That individual is able to absorb more Vitamin D, doesn't get rickets (a disease caused by people with Vitamin D sufficiency and actually reasonably common to people of Latin-American or African descent living in norther climates), and passes on this beneficial mutation on to his offspring. Because it is so advantageous to that northern climate over generations, and less and less people with that mutation die from rickets prior to reproduction, eventually that mutation becomes generalized among the population. So, while mutations occur at the individual level and are random, how frequent those mutations become among a population isn't random, but guided by environmental conditions. So when "survival of the fittest" gets tossed out, it doesn't mean the survival of the best. It means the that those who are best fitted for their environment due to their genetic traits are more likely to survive. This is what is meant by "Natural Selection" (there are other forms of selection, like sexual selection for example), that nature in a way "selects" what traits are most suited for that environment and "favours" them with increased odds of survival and successful reproduction. Humans are pretty dope at changing their environment btw. 4. As populations of species gets separated into different environments, and isolation (maybe geographic isolation, maybe cultural isolation, maybe sexual isolation) mutation and the retention of new traits over millions of years can accumulate to the extent that these two groups are not genetically compatible with regards to sexual reproduction. This is called the biological species concept. Basically, a new species develops overtime. The closer the genetic link between species, the closer in time they are to each other from the point of divergence. Horse and donkeys for instance, are genetically close in that they can produce offspring together, but due to the general sterility of mules this means they have diverged to the point of being different species. Still though, they are much closer than say...house cats and lynx, which cannot produce fertile offspring. 5. Hence, the "humans evolved from monkeys" argument is a misunderstanding of the relationship between humans and monkeys. Humans and monkeys are both primates in evolutionary theory and taxonomic classification, but humans are not monkeys nor did they come from them. There was one example up above, but I've liked the following cultural comparison better: "If the Spanish language came from French, why are there still French speakers?" Well, the first thing that strikes us as odd is the fact that Spanish didn't come from French, it developed from Latin, the language of the Roman Empire which covered both modern-day France and Spain. Likewise, humans didn't come from monkeys, but they both share a common ancestor that was at once dissimilar and similar to both, with two groups of this ancestor diverging at some point and developing along distinct lines. Then one might ask the question "if Spanish came from Latin, why isn't Latin still around" (I know you can study Latin, but as far as every day speech goes it's dead)? Well, because the political, cultural, and military environmental conditions at the time favoured the eventual development of Spanish while devaluing or not favouring Latin. Likewise, the same conditions which favoured the development of humans and monkeys in their own specific contexts also facilitated the eventual extinction of the common ancestor. Maybe a famine happened, maybe an ice age occurred, may a migration was undertaken, whatever. The point is that the environmental conditions changed, and favoured the frequency of one mutation over another over time. 5
Buckeye Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) For courses to show your friend, you can also easily find BYU's course list for the biology department: https://registrar.byu.edu/catalog/2014-2015ucat/departments/Biology/BiologyCourses.php. Four of the courses specifically mention evolution in their title, though as Professor Peck would point out, all of the courses rely heavily on evolution. Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching math without numbers. Edited October 14, 2016 by Buckeye 2
Buckeye Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) Delete Edited October 14, 2016 by Buckeye
Bob Crockett Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Specifically, does BYU have classes that teach that man came from monkeys? I thought that i remembered that they did, but a friend of mine does not believe that a church school would allow such things to be taught so i'm looking for information and some specific class names (because she'll want them). Thanks! Yes. I have two text books authored by BYU Profs for use in their class. I use them frequently. 1
maklelan Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) DELETED Edited October 14, 2016 by maklelan
RevTestament Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Nope, did I show my ineptitude? Please tell me where I erred. I'm so far from science learned than I care to admit. ETA: Here's a possible answer. https://www.icr.org/article/3109/ While I don't know if the point of this thread is a lesson in Biology or evolution, technically, man has been classified into the "order" of primates. Primates include man, apes, monkeys, and lemurs. Man is a separate genus(homo) and species from all these others, but is in the "family" of hominidae with apes. Put more simply evolutionists believe man evolved from a common ancestor to these other species, but that was "before" apes. However, I don't believe evolutionists believe that common ancestor has been definitively shown in the fossil record. Edited October 14, 2016 by RevTestament 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, RevTestament said: While I don't know if the point of this thread is a lesson in Biology or evolution, technically, man has been classified into the family of primates. Primates include man, apes, monkeys, and lemurs. Man is a separate genus(homo) and species from all these others. Put more simply evolutionists believe man evolved from a common ancestor to these other species, but that was before apes. However, I don't believe evolutionists believe that common ancestor has been definitively shown in the fossil record. The fossil record is the evidence for evolution in the past. That you are different than your parents, and your children are different than you show evolution in the present.
RevTestament Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: The fossil record is the evidence for evolution in the past. That you are different than your parents, and your children are different than you show evolution in the present. I am not here to debate evolution, but that is not correct. Gene mutation and "natural selection" is what drives evolution according to biology. The fact that I look a little different from my parents does not mean any evolution has occurred.
thesometimesaint Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 Then stop debating. The fossil record isn't what drives evolution. It is the evidence for it. Just as you are the evidence of evolution from your parents, and Grandparents. That is exactly what evolution is. A change in allele frequency that gets past down to future offspring. You don't look exactly like either parent, but like a pleasant combination of both. SEE
RevTestament Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Then stop debating. The fossil record isn't what drives evolution. It is the evidence for it. Just as you are the evidence of evolution from your parents, and Grandparents. That is exactly what evolution is. A change in allele frequency that gets past down to future offspring. You don't look exactly like either parent, but like a pleasant combination of both. I don't know where you got that I even inferred the fossil record drives evolution. That is something you are asserting. I said "However, I don't believe evolutionists believe that common ancestor has been definitively shown in the fossil record." The fossil record provides a "snapshot," if you will, of evolution. Right now there is still debate about the latest and oldest finds of Orrorin which everyone seems to agree aren't ape, so the "divergence" of man from ape keeps getting pushed back, so that man does not come from "ape." Again, I am not evidence of evolution from my grandparents. I said "Gene mutation and "natural selection" is what drives evolution according to biology." I may have the exact same Y chromosomes as my grandfather, or the exact same mtDNA as my maternal grandmother, etc. Unless the genes mutate, there will be no long term evolution - homo sapiens will always be homo sapiens - despite different combinations of genes. "Microevolution" is not macroevolution which is what is at discussion here.
cdowis Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Then stop debating. The fossil record isn't what drives evolution. It is the evidence for it. Just as you are the evidence of evolution from your parents, and Grandparents. That is exactly what evolution is. A change in allele frequency that gets past down to future offspring. You don't look exactly like either parent, but like a pleasant combination of both. SEE OK, now show us a video of a bee colony and explain how it supports evolution.
Teancum Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 7 hours ago, bluebell said: Specifically, does BYU have classes that teach that man came from monkeys? I thought that i remembered that they did, but a friend of mine does not believe that a church school would allow such things to be taught so i'm looking for information and some specific class names (because she'll want them). Thanks! Yes. And they did when I attended there in 1982. 1
Teancum Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 7 hours ago, cdowis said: Or this from Hugh Nibley, Before Adam http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly Articles/NibleyH_BeforeAdam.html This futile quarrel should be no concern of ours. For one thing, we have a story to tell before Adam. Religion and science have none, absolutely none. ..... And one of our biggest stumbling blocks is not knowing how Adam relates to other beings, earthly and heavenly. That is the root of the Adam-God misunderstanding. (Until we care to look into the matter seriously, I will keep my opinions in a low profile.) Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God. This is the book of remembrance from which many have been blotted out. They have fallen away, refused to choose God as their father, and by so doing were registered in Satan's camp. "Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom." (Moses 7:37.) Can we call them sons of Adam, bene-Adam, human beings proper? The representative Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, to name only the classic civilizations of old, each fancied themselves to be beings of a higher nature, nearer to gods than others who inhabited the land with them (and before them), or who dwelt in other lands. And yet they did not deny humanity to them. Adam becomes Adam, a hominid becomes a man, when he starts keeping a record. What kind of record? A record of his ancestors—the family line that sets him off from all other creatures. Such records begin very early, to judge by the fabulous genealogic knowledge of the Australian aborigines (A. P. Elkin) or the most "primiitive" Africans (L. Frobenius). Even written records go back to ages lost in the mists of time—the Azilian pebbles, the marking of arrows, and the identity of individuals in their relationships with each other.48 Whether former speculation about life on other worlds is now to be upgraded to life from other worlds remains to be seen, but Adam is wonderful enough without that. That gap between the record keeper and all the other creatures we know anything about is so unimaginably enormous and yet so neat and abrupt that we can only be dealing with another sort of being, a quantum leap from one world to another. Here is something not derivative from anything that has gone before on the local scene, even though they all share the same atoms. Adam is a myth. There is no way such a person existed. 1
Teancum Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 6 hours ago, cdowis said: Yes, I have myself made that observation from time to time. I find it interesting that DNA research shows a relationship between whales and bovines. I'm sure some of the highly imaginative evolutionists have figured out how that worked. Uh no it is not imagintiive. It is based on the scientific methodology. I know religionists have trouble with this. But unless they provide evidence we can just assume that all they have it faith which is belief is something without, and at times, in spite of evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 6 hours ago, cdowis said: OK, now show us a video of a bee colony and explain how it supports evolution. While not a video Evolution of the Honey Bee. SEE http://bibba.com/honeybee-origins/
readstoomuch Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 .If you major in zoology, microbiology or genetics you take oodles of classes. Try molecular biology, anatomy and physiology, invertebrate and vertebrate strategies of evolution, seminars in evolution, and principles and science of evolution. Duane Jeffrey's taught many of them as well as others such as jack Sykes. Jack was catholic,but all the others were Lds and taught organic evolution as an absolute fact and then served faithfully in the Church. I saw Duane a few years ago as he was cleaning out his office. He had finally retired and I was the last former student he hugged on the way out the door.
cdowis Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: While not a video Evolution of the Honey Bee. SEE http://bibba.com/honeybee-origins/ Did you actually read this article? Basically it talks about the evolution of bees by "evolving" or "the miracle of evolution" (as was explained in a PBS documentary). Are you familiar with the word tautology? For example, Quote Two attributes of honey bees which have been essential to their evolution and biology are their clustering behaviour and, particularly in the case of the cavity-nesting species, their ability to cool the nest by evaporation of water collected outside. And... Quote Another behavioural character of honey bees is the communication of information about food sources and the recruitment of foragers by “dance language”. The accurate dissemination of information concerning direction and distance of forage areas leads to efficient exploitation of food sources. Now, what am I missing? How did bees develop/evolve clustering behaviour, how did they develop/evolve the dance language. May I suggest that you actually read the question, and look at the article before wasting your time and my time with this nonsense. Edited October 15, 2016 by cdowis 1
bluebell Posted October 15, 2016 Author Posted October 15, 2016 15 hours ago, Teancum said: Uh no it is not imagintiive. It is based on the scientific methodology. I know religionists have trouble with this. But unless they provide evidence we can just assume that all they have it faith which is belief is something without, and at times, in spite of evidence. Faith, by religious definition, is belief in something that isn't proven but does have evidence. 2
ERayR Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 22 hours ago, Tacenda said: I'll never forget a high school teacher that taught evolution and men coming from apes. He actually tried to walk like an ape, I swear, each day. I thought it was all bull, and still have a hard time believing we evolved from apes. Tacenda I agree. I have a hard time believing we evolved from apes or even that we had a common ancestor. I have no problem with great time spans or animal life before man but I believe that the advent of God's family was a separate and special event.
Teancum Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 19 minutes ago, bluebell said: Faith, by religious definition, is belief in something that isn't proven but does have evidence. No that is not what Paul says. It is something hoped for that does not have evidence. One can argue faith is the manifestation of the evidence that is not seen. Hebrews 11:1 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
thesometimesaint Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 2 hours ago, cdowis said: Did you actually read this article? Basically it talks about the evolution of bees by "evolving" or "the miracle of evolution" (as was explained in a PBS documentary). Are you familiar with the word tautology? For example, And... Now, what am I missing? How did bees develop/evolve clustering behaviour, how did they develop/evolve the dance language. May I suggest that you actually read the question, and look at the article before wasting your time and my time with this nonsense. The bee(s) that had a clustering behavior and/or dance strategy reproduced better than those that didn't. It isn't that complicated.
Recommended Posts