New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There's no reason to assume that there were never such persons as Adam and Eve, even if the tale told in the Bible is more allegorical than factual. There's plenty of reason for not believing that they left the Garden a mere 6,000 years ago. It will be interesting to finally learn how all that worked in actuality.

God tells the story often enough (Bible, books of Moses and Abraham) that it's clear He wants us to take it seriously, myth or not. 

What has impressed me about the biblical story is that the evolution of the solar system (earth, sun, and moon) as described in Genesis pretty much matches the progression as understood by astrophysics and paleontology (except for grass coming before life in the ocean). I'm a descendant of Native Americans, namely the Maidu people of northern California (but I'm just 1/16th, so I look like an average white guy). My people's creation story is completely fanciful and entirely mythical: you can read a version of it HERE. For all it's fancifulness, however, it involved a great world ocean, like that of Genesis. Given that a world ocean is also likely in reality (see HERE), that is an interesting coincidence, and may reflect a species-level understanding of creation.  The Maidu were an inland people, and knew little of the ocean, so their legend of a world-spanning ocean clearly originated from their deep past (or else they borrowed it from another people).

 

OR, for BOM literalists, it could be seen as a "corruption" of "true" principles taught to "Lamanites".

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/16/2021 at 7:41 PM, mfbukowski said:

And we thought Catholicism was true

Reformation

Protestantism.

Restoration

We act as if theories are true, and each seems to work better than another.

Is this the order of progression? Because that puts LDS closer to protestants than Catholics, and from my point-of-view you are actually closer (in doctrine, not culture/practice) to Catholics than protestants.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the order of progression? Because that puts LDS closer to protestants than Catholics, and from my point-of-view you are actually closer (in doctrine, not culture/practice) to Catholics than protestants.

Misunderstanding.

I was giving a historical account of paradigms, in HISTORICAL order.

And we know, for the LDS, there will be yet more revelations in our open canon.  This is one of the LDS strong points, imo, for the LDS position, in that we are adaptable to change and eternal progression toward further understanding.  I see this aspect as a parallel to science.  Progression never gets "finished"

I agree that Catholicism is closer doctrinally to the LDS view than Protestantism.

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Misunderstanding.

I was giving a historical account of paradigms, in HISTORICAL order.

And we know, for the LDS, there will be yet more revelations in our open canon.  This is one of the LDS strong points, imo, for the LDS position, in that we are adaptable to change and eternal progression toward further understanding.  I see this aspect as a parallel to science.  Progression never gets "finished"

I agree that Catholicism is closer doctrinally to the LDS view than Protestantism.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[Craig Speechly]

On 12/16/2021 at 5:05 AM, Stargazer said:

There's no reason to assume that there were never such persons as Adam and Eve, even if the tale told in the Bible is more allegorical than factual. There's plenty of reason for not believing that they left the Garden a mere 6,000 years ago. It will be interesting to finally learn how all that worked in actuality.

God tells the story often enough (Bible, books of Moses and Abraham) that it's clear He wants us to take it seriously, myth or not. 

What has impressed me about the biblical story is that the evolution of the solar system (earth, sun, and moon) as described in Genesis pretty much matches the progression as understood by astrophysics and paleontology (except for grass coming before life in the ocean). I'm a descendant of Native Americans, namely the Maidu people of northern California (but I'm just 1/16th, so I look like an average white guy). My people's creation story is completely fanciful and entirely mythical: you can read a version of it HERE. For all it's fancifulness, however, it involved a great world ocean, like that of Genesis. Given that a world ocean is also likely in reality (see HERE), that is an interesting coincidence, and may reflect a species-level understanding of creation.  The Maidu were an inland people, and knew little of the ocean, so their legend of a world-spanning ocean clearly originated from their deep past (or else they borrowed it from another people).

 

I'm kind of disappoint that the new lesson on Genius that will be taught in January doesn't take a stand regarding the creation and Adam and Eve.  It offers three options for the  creation each one conflicting with the other.  Assuming prophets exist,  I wish the church would take a stand and get a back bone instead of trying to keep all of the sub points of view within the church happy.  In the lesson they offer three alternatives for the creation of the earth.  a 6,000 year timeline, a 15,000 year time line and then the one that is actually supported with evidence, the 4.5 billion year timeline.  I get frustrated that the church wants to dumb down its lessons so as not to offend anyone

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR30nogSU0eavS-FDY73hU2Ap7k4Qu--N47HukbMabHFECJTUcXD3jbFMYk

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Assuming prophets exist,  I wish the church would take a stand and get a back bone instead of trying to keep all of the sub points of view within the church happy.

Maybe God is not as concerned with how we think creation occurred as some of us think he is. Maybe he is the one who prefers to let us figure it out ourselves rather than handing it to us on a platter. 

[Stargazer]

On 12/16/2021 at 5:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

OR, for BOM literalists, it could be seen as a "corruption" of "true" principles taught to "Lamanites".

Or it could be seen as borrowed from the Jaredites who preceded them all.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Or it could be seen as borrowed from the Jaredites who preceded them all.

Yep

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Or it could be seen as borrowed from the Jaredites who preceded them all.

Yep

[jotorious]

While attending BYU, I took a biodiversity class and it was there that I was exposed to a more rigorous theoretically scientific basis for how the scriptural accounts of Creation could be explained in evolutionary terms, although it was still mostly just storytelling. In that class, I was likewise presented with statements from general authorities over the years who spoke favorably of reconciling creation accounts with evolution. For a period of several years, I moved forward more or less satisfied with the explanation that God used evolution as a means to create man. It's been my understanding that this is the same belief many faithful members of the Church entertain along side an evolutionary explanation for the origin of man.

Still, there is an uneasiness to this explanation and not all was well in my attempts to find a seamless marriage between these two ideas. In many ways, I'm grateful knowing that the Church has officially taken an agnostic stance on the "how" of creation. I felt I could faithfully "explore" the options with regard to what I ultimately decided to believe.

A few points of uneasiness I have had include the following:

1. If via evolution, God's creation, which He pronounces as good, features death, suffering, disease, and predation in order to generate a vessel for the spirit of man. My doctrinal understanding is that these are features of the fallen world, which result from the Lord cursing the earth for man's sake (i.e. thorns, thistles, noxious weeds afflict and torment man, man is subject to death, man must expend effort to survive, etc.)
2. As mentioned in the first point, our doctrine teaches that the consequences of the Fall include the spiritual and physical death of man. Though not explicit, the death of beasts is implied as a consequence of the Fall as well, due to the need for an animal sacrifice and a coat of skins as a covering for man, perform in a similitude of the sacrifice of the Son of Man.
3. If death, suffering, and disease existed before the Fall, do they exist again in a future redeemed and paradisiacal state of the earth and of man? My feeling here is that the answer is no.

In Moses 2, God commands Moses to record His revelation of the creation. This account has some minor discrepancies when compared to other creation accounts, but most of the hallmarks are all the same. There are a few notable differences that I may address later, but suffice it to say that the general sequence of creation is maintained and that this particular sequence is used when attempting to reconcile scriptural creation with evolutionary theory, specifically with regard to aquatic life preceding land animals, and land animals preceding the creation of man. For the purposes of this thread, I'll call this the "reconcilable sequence".

Moving on to Moses 3, God draws a distinction for Moses between the spiritual and physical creation of all things. Verse 5 reads:

"...For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air" (emphasis added).

The account of the creation given in Moses 2 appears to refer only to the spiritual creation of all things, not a material creation. This is reinforced by Moses 3:7:

"And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word" (emphasis added).

So this account in Moses states that God made man, "the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also," at a time when "there was not yet flesh upon earth, neither in the water, neither in the air." This sequence contradicts an evolutionary origin for man. My inclination is to give this account more credence with regard to sequence 1) because it is more explicit in this regard than other scriptural accounts and 2) because it may be considered a more direct revelation on the topic. Please also note that the Abraham account appears to conform to this interpretation as well, though it is not so explicit regarding the sequence of the physical creation.

Young earth creations put forth many arguments and cite supporting evidence which I find quite compelling, with some exceptions. The Pearl of Great Prices contradicts ex nihilo creation, for instance. But I will list a few things that I do find compelling which suggest that evolution and naturalistic processes could not account for the life we see on earth today:

1. Soft tissue and radio carbon in dinosaur fossils contradicting deep time. Paleontologists are finding that it is very common to find soft tissue in dinosaur fossil discoveries and the scientific community is struggling to provide an explanation for the mechanism of preservation that could allow for soft tissue to persist for more than 4 millions years, even in pristine conditions. 
2. The geologic column, which has consistent sequences of rock layers across continents, the vast majority of which are shown to have been deposited in an aqueous environment above sea level, suggests a catastrophic global flood event. The boundaries between the mega sequences of the geologic column lack evidence for the passage of long periods of time, such as irregular erosional surfaces. This indicate rapid, sequential deposition. Due to the rarity of fossilization under present conditions, the fossils found in the rock layers themselves suggest rapid burial, before the organic materials can be decayed by natural processes and/or scavenged upon by other organisms.
3. Tracing patriarchal lineages via the Y-chromosome, research on the human genome indicates that all men on the earth today descended from a single man, "Y-chromosome Adam", some 4,500 years ago, the suggestion being that this individual was Noah. Similarly, using mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only through the mother, all people alive today descended from a single woman, termed "mitochondrial Eve", some 6,000 years ago via three individuals, the suggestion being that these individuals were the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I'd welcome any thoughts or comments.

Thank you!

[MrShorty]

I'm sure there are other things I could hone in on, but perhaps the most obvious one are your estimates for the age of mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam. All estimates I have seen have all been much older than a few thousand years (mostly in the 200,000 year age range: see Wikipedia entries for Y chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve for summaries).  I expect that anyone claiming a few thousand years for these is on the fringe of the science, and is very much biased by a desire to fit these two genetic markers into Biblical timelines.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jotorious said:

descended from a single man, "Y-chromosome Adam",

I believe what is meant is most recent common ancestor of those currently living…this does not exclude there being other male ancestors or if we were to test someone from 4000 years ago, they may not belong to that patrilineal lineage.
 

Quote

Although the informal name "Y-chromosomal Adam" is a reference to the biblical Adam, this should not be misconstrued as implying that the bearer of the chromosome was the only human male alive during his time.^[7] His other male contemporaries may also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, through solely patrilineal descent; in other words, none of them have an unbroken male line of descendants (son's son's son's … son) connecting them to currently living people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jotorious said:

some 4,500 years ago, the suggestion being that this individual was Noah.

Is this where you are getting the 4500 years ago dating?

https://www.icr.org/article/y-chromosome-study-confirms-genesis-flood-timeline
 

If not, could you provide the study please. 

[JustAnAustralian]

As far as the death before the fall aspect I generally go with the following:

1) Anything that happens before creation is completed is irrelevant to the question. So all the plant and animal "days" prior to the fall were full of animals nibbling on each other (and plants)

2) God told Adam & Eve that they could eat any fruit in the garden. When you eat fruit it dies, so at the very least there was the possibility of death in the pre-fall garden.

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, jotorious said:

Tracing patriarchal lineages via the Y-chromosome, research on the human genome indicates that all men on the earth today descended from a single man, "Y-chromosome Adam", some 4,500 years ago, the suggestion being that this individual was Noah. Similarly, using mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only through the mother, all people alive today descended from a single woman, termed "mitochondrial Eve", some 6,000 years ago via three individuals, the suggestion being that these individuals were the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Sorry to be a party pooper but this is completely inaccurate. Where did you get this information?Mitochondrial Eve lived over 100,000 years ago and the newest data on Y-chromosome Adam places him at well over 200,000 years ago.  
Here’s a nice current lit review with good sources:

Adam and Eve

[Alexi Nakatology]

On 11/5/2021 at 12:09 PM, Rivers said:

 

I was an evolution fanatic for a few of my teenage years… now getting along to my 30’s I think that the evolution the world needs is evolution of religious language

Survival of the fittest language game isn’t working out for us 

[jotorious]

On 2/9/2022 at 4:30 PM, MrShorty said:

I'm sure there are other things I could hone in on, but perhaps the most obvious one are your estimates for the age of mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam. All estimates I have seen have all been much older than a few thousand years (mostly in the 200,000 year age range: see Wikipedia entries for Y chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve for summaries).  I expect that anyone claiming a few thousand years for these is on the fringe of the science, and is very much biased by a desire to fit these two genetic markers into Biblical timelines.

While I have not read this article myself, I might excuse myself in this case ($30 for the article, $60 for the journal subscription). Parsons et al published in Nature Genetics an article entitled "A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region" which measure an intergenerational substitution rate 20-fold higher than is given by phylogenic analysis. https://www.nature.com/articles/ng0497-363

Howell et al published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. Using genealogical research methods (as opposed the the phylogenetic method which usually produces the 200,000 ya range), they also found a much more rapid mutation rate in mtDNA. The full article is available for review. Howell cites Parsons in his research as a point of comparison as they obtained similiar results from their experiments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914922/

[jotorious]

On 2/9/2022 at 4:36 PM, Calm said:

Is this where you are getting the 4500 years ago dating?

https://www.icr.org/article/y-chromosome-study-confirms-genesis-flood-timeline
 

If not, could you provide the study please. 

I was not citing ICR directly, although I have looked at a lot of the material they produce. I gave MrShorty a few articles addressing the mtDNA research specifically. With regard to the Y-chromosome mutation rates, the NIH has published a review and notes discrepancies between phylogenic and genealogic methods for measuring mutation rates, the latter resulting in much higher rates than could be permitted by the evolutionary time scales. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160915/

[jotorious]

On 2/9/2022 at 4:36 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

As far as the death before the fall aspect I generally go with the following:

1) Anything that happens before creation is completed is irrelevant to the question. So all the plant and animal "days" prior to the fall were full of animals nibbling on each other (and plants)

2) God told Adam & Eve that they could eat any fruit in the garden. When you eat fruit it dies, so at the very least there was the possibility of death in the pre-fall garden.

I appreciate that your point of view on this is commonly held by those who hold to both an evolutionary view and a theistic creation, but it doesn't directly answer how you would reconcile Moses 3:7 to this view, unless, of course, you're just rejecting it as an explanation of the sequence of creation and give it some other didactic value.

I would challenge you that eating fruit requires the death of the plant producing it, or even the seeds in the fruit which are often designed to survive a journey through the intestinal tract. 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, jotorious said:

I appreciate that your point of view on this is commonly held by those who hold to both an evolutionary view and a theistic creation, but it doesn't directly answer how you would reconcile Moses 3:7 to this view, unless, of course, you're just rejecting it as an explanation of the sequence of creation and give it some other didactic value.

The creation is clearly not complete by the point of Moses 3:7, so the exact point of the physical creation of Adam as an individual doesn't make any difference. We shouldn't be assessing the entirety of existence based purely on the garden in which Adam and Eve were placed (which is clearly limited in size, because it has boundaries).

1 hour ago, jotorious said:

I would challenge you that eating fruit requires the death of the plant producing it, or even the seeds in the fruit which are often designed to survive a journey through the intestinal tract. 

Firstly, don't confuse the plant, the fruit, and the seed. They are different components.

In relation to the eating part though, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074226/ During food preparation and digestion (of plants) the plant cell walls get broken, and chemicals absorbed by the body.

There's a reason that everything (for the most part) comes out looking the same.

 

[MrShorty]

@jotorious RE: the three articles. I notice that the two you directed (from Nature and Amer J of Hum Gen (or whatever the official abbreviation is) were both from the mid '90s. The Wikipedia article for mitochondrial Eve also mentions a '97 paper also reporting a 20x faster rate. The article addressed to @Calm from Investigative Genetics is 2014, so quite a bit newer but still more than 5 years old. Assuming that Wikipedia represents the consensus opinion among the experts in these fields. it would seem that these papers (2 of which are over 20 years old) have been rejected by the current consensus. Of course, it would be a significant undertaking for someone without the expertise or the ambition to slog through the literature to find out why these papers with the faster mutation rates have fallen out of favor. For some reason, it appears that the consensus opinion strongly prefers the slower mutation rates and the resulting older dates for chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve. It would seem that the next step (for someone with the expertise and ambition) would be to explore the literature data and come to an understanding of why the consensus opinion is wrong to prefer the slower mutation rates/older ages.

[jotorious]

@MrShorty I think there's no doubt that the consensus prefers evolutionary time scales to the exclusion of all other possibilities. The fact that these studies of directly measured mutation rates remain relatively unknown does not necessarily surprise me. Charles Lyell, a geologist and contemporary to Darwin who had significant influence on his secular worldview, developed a system of geology with the stated aim "to free the science from Moses." I think to fail to acknowledge the bias on the secular scientific community.

There are those of the creationist bent that have done research in this area and are publishing their findings, but not without attracting the criticism of the main stream. As a layman, I personally find it difficult to grasp the technical aspects and it is certainly difficult to know . There are those on the secular side that are researching this genetic clock question not specifically looking at the human origins question (genealogical research, heritable disease research, criminal investigation, etc.).

The creationists I've reviewed appear to argue for a 20x faster mutation rate based on pedigree studies compared to phylogenic studies. The secularist are admitting at least an order magnitude faster mutation rate. See articles below:

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.22052, notes 3x faster mutation rates when compared to the phylogenic approach, even after removing data suspected of having errors
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707629905, notes large discrepancies between phylogenic and pedigree based mutation rates
• https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/26/1/217/974367?login=true, admits at least an order of magnitude discrepancy between phylogenic and pedigree based mutation rates and is proposing possible explanations for the discrepancy

So even if it's not widely known (on Wikipedia), the scientific community is grapling with the question.

[jotorious]

@JustAnAustralian Yes, I think you make a reasonable assertion, that creation is not complete and that the boundaries of the Garden potentially allow for a terrestrial law, complete with death, disease, and predation, to prevail outside of it. And I think that's a reasonable position to take if you prefer to maintain a belief in a naturalist process to explain the diversity of life on earth. But that explanation would necessarily exclude an evolutionary explanation for the origin of man, assuming Adam and Eve tool around in the Garden while organisms evolve outside. Have I understood your point accurately?

On your second point, I believe you're saying that the digestion of fruit cells and tissue constitutes death. Is that correct?

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, jotorious said:

And I think that's a reasonable position to take if you prefer to maintain a belief in a naturalist process to explain the diversity of life on earth.

It's pretty clear from the text that God created all things, and spiritually before physically. Given the instructions in chapter 2, that creation would essentially look after it self (plants and animals producing after their own kind etc), I don't see any issues with plants, animals etc, creating vessels for spirits during the creation, much like human reproduction does today.

3 hours ago, jotorious said:

But that explanation would necessarily exclude an evolutionary explanation for the origin of man, assuming Adam and Eve tool around in the Garden while organisms evolve outside.

At the time of Moses 3:7, it was only Adam, not both of them, and Adam was busy naming the animals v19 before Eve rocked up. Ultimately though, the Garden story is about 2 individuals (Adam and Eve). We know the rib part is figurative, so I see no reason why two specifically chosen individuals couldn't be managed outside the rest of the creative process if necessary.

3 hours ago, jotorious said:

On your second point, I believe you're saying that the digestion of fruit cells and tissue constitutes death. Is that correct?

Yes. If an animal got put into a running blender, it (an an entity) would die, even if some of its cells survived. Likewise, even if some cells from the plant manage to survive the digestion process, the plant itself would die. We can extract DNA from remains many thousands of years old, but that doesn't mean the source is still alive.

[MrShorty]

@jotorious yes the scientific community is still publishing articles attempting to measure these mutation rates and trying to get the best answer. These three new articles are all between 2000 and 2012, so more than 10 years old. Again, assuming the Wikipedia article accurately represents the consensus, there seems to be very little support given to these studies that suggest faster mutation rates.

In the end, I am content to go with the consensus view and follow it through all its changes and adjustments as new data comes in. With the help of Ben Spackman (who has been mentioned earlier) I have broken through my need for "concordism" between science and scripture. I don't need Adam and Eve to be the first homo sapiens, and I don't need science to tell me that they lived 6000ish years ago. My theology of creation/cosmology doesn't even need any of it to be scientifically or historically accurate -- I can be content with scripture as "creation myth" (Ben's view of myth has been mentioned earlier -- spoiler: it need not be seen as derogatory). Sometimes, it feels like these kinds of discussions come from a concordist place as we try our level best to get science and scripture to say the same thing. Concordism is often a new term to LDS. To understand your viewpoint, would you consider yourself a concordist -- one who believes that science and scripture should be saying the same thing even if we are having a hard time understanding either or both correctly?

If you need a quick intro to concordism, try here: https://benspackman.com/2018/04/the-scientific-deformation-and-reformation-of-genesis-how-science-messed-it-up-but-also-fixes-it/