Of Evolution And Eden

[BenRaines]

Those who believe in the Garden of Eden, please tell me how long you think it lasted? How long were Adam and Eve in the garden. I believe that it could have been a long time in the way we look at years. 1,000 or 10,000 years. I don't know and am curious if someone has read anything that gives any indication. It doesn't matter in my eternal progression just curious.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 4 2005, 01:59 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Nov 4 2005, 10:55 AM

Are you saying single cell protozoa and humans are the same species?

←

Snow was pointing out my original definition of evolution for the purposes of this thread. Mammals don't become reptiles, fish don't become humans, cows don't become snakes, etc...

My question wasn't really, "Does anything in any way, shape or form 'evolve' from one state to another," but in the traditional evolution of species sense, did every life form we see today evolve from a single-cell, self-replicating, photo-synthesizing ancestor somewhere in a goopy swamp of primordial sludge? And if so...how does that align with the Eden experience?

←

A few things to note:

1. The scriptural account of creation produces all varieties of living things after which G-d commands the living things to reproduce after their kind. Many religious people consider kind and species to mean the same thing but I do not think that is a good assumption.

2. There are scientific problems to a G-d less concept of evolution. Sharks and Bats for example. They demonstrate that there is more than the forces of nature as we understand them in pushing the envelop of evolution.

3. Human creation is a problem for most religious ideas that will not accept evolution for several reasons. I will list two: First, I believe that I was created in the exact manner using the exact same methods with all the same elements being brought to be as was the creation of Adam and Eve. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that the creation of Adam was unique among mankind. Second: I believe that creation is still taking place. All things are created in the same manner today as they were created in the beginning according to scripture. G-s is still the creator.

4. Creation is an observable miracle. The best explanation of that miracle that I know is evolution. Personally I think those that separate creation from evolution commit intellectual and spiritual suicide.

The Traveler

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 4 2005, 06:44 PM

Many religious people consider kind and species to mean the same thing but I do not think that is a good assumption.

Why not?

First, I believe that I was created in the exact manner using the exact same methods with all the same elements being brought to be as was the creation of Adam and Eve.

Please explain what this means. By what method do you think Adam and Eve were created?

All things are created in the same manner today as they were created in the beginning according to scripture.   G-s is still the creator. 

According to what scripture?

Personally I think those that separate creation from evolution commit intellectual and spiritual suicide.

Define exactly what you mean by "evolution" in that comment, please. Species changing to different species? And no, to date I haven't slit my intellectual/spiritual wrists that I know of.

Tenjewberrymuds.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler+Nov 4 2005, 07:55 AM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 3 2005, 10:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Nov 3 2005, 06:42 AM

First off I will state that evolution is a fact.  Every human evolves from a zygote to a child at birth and continues to evolve through various stages of aging.  It is not entirely necessary for death in the normal sense to occur for evolution to take place.  We also know that life has been evolving on our planet for a very long time, many times longer than the time given in scripture for Adam to have existed.

←

Great. We all understood that AK was referring to the evolution from one species into another species but then you define evolution (to be aging process) in a way totally irrelevant to the discussion and declare it to be a fact.

Well don't you just win the prize for irrelevancy?

←

I just pointed out that the process from which a single cell protozoa (zygote) eventually becomes a human child is the same process as aging in adult humans. If a single cell protozoa can (evolve) into a human child in about 9 months how difficult would it be for G-d to establish all living things from a single life source?

The Traveler

←

Again Traveler, whether or not it is easy for God or hard for God is irrelevant. AK was talking about the evolution from a lower life form to a higher life form.

Are you saying single cell protozoa (zygote) and humans are the same species?

0

Irrelevent. A pretty standard definition of "species" (setting aside the taxinomical debates) is:

"A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding."

Zygotes and fetuses don't breed but in a general sense, yes an embryo and a human are of the same species.

[Traveler]

Many religious people consider kind and species to mean the same thing but I do not think that is a good assumption.

Why not?

Because one is a statement from G-d and the other an idea from mankind.

First, I believe that I was created in the exact manner using the exact same methods with all the same elements being brought to be as was the creation of Adam and Eve.

Please explain what this means. By what method do you think Adam and Eve were created?

Evolution

All things are created in the same manner today as they were created in the beginning according to scripture.   G-s is still the creator. 

According to what scripture?

The Scriptures tell us G-d created all things and they also tell us he is the same yesterday and today. The scriptures also tell us that G-d called his creations good. Since they are good and he is good then changing would have to be different which would make them different from good.

Personally I think those that separate creation from evolution commit intellectual and spiritual suicide.

Define exactly what you mean by "evolution" in that comment, please. Species changing to different species? And no, to date I haven't slit my intellectual/spiritual wrists that I know of.

Tenjewberrymuds.

←

When we observe mitosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind it=s DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation that results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways. The second is integration; this is when the cells form symbiosis relationships with each other, which will define a higher life form. From a single cell of one kind or type will come enormous numbers of different KINDS (or types) of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exist and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life. To say the evolution process exist to this, the arbitrary point defined by men as that of the species and then no longer occurs, is to me a mockery of what little knowledge the Almighty grants us. How silly are we to assume that the Almighty deceives us in what he shows us in nature or that we can make up in our own ignorant minds in better understanding than that which he openly displays to all that will look upon his wonders. Has the creator ceased to create and put an end to his creative power? Does evolution disprove a creator or what the scriptures tell us? If people of faith allow this to become a definition we make a serious mistake. Is understanding a denial of the Almighty? If we learn a thing - does that mean that the power of the Almighty is no longer active in that thing? Not to me - I believe we should acknowledge him for all his works, including what little we have learned, and then seek to learn more of him and his works.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 4 2005, 10:10 PM

Zygotes and fetuses don't breed but in a general sense, yes an embryo and a human are of the same species.

←

The argument of an embryo or fetuses as a human life form is exactly the argument that was before the US Supreme Court in the case Roe vs Wade. The high court ruled that there is no proof that an embryo or fetuses during the first trimester is human. What you have convinced yourself of, is in reality truly irrelevant.

If you have relevant proof that an embryo or fetuses is human - I beg you - do not waste your time on this silly forum. Take your proof to the forum of law and end this era of human abortation.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler+Nov 4 2005, 10:14 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 4 2005, 10:10 PM

Zygotes and fetuses don't breed but in a general sense, yes an embryo and a human are of the same species.

←

The argument of an embryo or fetuses as a human life form is exactly the argument that was before the US Supreme Court in the case Roe vs Wade. The high court ruled that there is no proof that an embryo or fetuses during the first trimester is human. What you have convinced yourself of, is in reality truly irrelevant.

If you have relevant proof that an embryo or fetuses is human - I beg you - do not waste your time on this silly forum. Take your proof to the forum of law and end this era of human abortation.

The Traveler

←

All that was a prelude to an abortion stance?

For heaven sakes - just say so and open up a thread.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 4 2005, 05:29 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Nov 4 2005, 06:44 PM

Many religious people consider kind and species to mean the same thing but I do not think that is a good assumption.

Why not?

←

Having thought more on the problem of evolution bounded by species I thought I would introduce another idea. If we were to consider the vast number of species that exist under the classification of “worm” we might be rather surprised at the vast number. Despite all our research and great knowledge is it estimated that currently there are still vast numbers of worm species that are yet to be discovered. If we are to consider, however, just the known species of worms and calculate the size of the ark from scripture we would have a problem. The ark would not be large enough to hold even the known species of worms. Therefore, if we insist on limiting evolution to never ever producing a new species then there could not have been an ark that preserved the vast species of life we see in existence today.

We have a similar problem with birds and insects.

But there is still another problem. It has to do with genetic engineering. Already there are genetic modifications taking place at experiential levels that are arguably new species. Although I can only speak to this subject at the bacterial level, what will we say of evolution when man is able to produce genetic modifications of new species for various levels of life. For years man has been able to produce what are called hybrids. This was done even in biblical times. By further pushing the genetic envelope it is not unfathomable to realize that man may one day do what many religious societies and individuals insist G-d cannot. That is introduce a new species by genetic manipulation of evolution.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 4 2005, 11:39 PM-->

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 4 2005, 10:14 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 4 2005, 10:10 PM

Zygotes and fetuses don't breed but in a general sense, yes an embryo and a human are of the same species.

←

The argument of an embryo or fetuses as a human life form is exactly the argument that was before the US Supreme Court in the case Roe vs Wade. The high court ruled that there is no proof that an embryo or fetuses during the first trimester is human. What you have convinced yourself of, is in reality truly irrelevant.

If you have relevant proof that an embryo or fetuses is human - I beg you - do not waste your time on this silly forum. Take your proof to the forum of law and end this era of human abortation.

The Traveler

←

All that was a prelude to an abortion stance?

For heaven sakes - just say so and open up a thread.

←

Why???

if neither you or I cannot demonstrate this as a scientific principle such a discussion would be pointless. The only point I wanted to make all along is that every living thing evolved from its beginning of a single cell. I hope it can be realized the power of evolution and how everything that exist is linked directly to that process. Despite personal beliefs of evolution I have never heard of any explanation of any complex life form that came about by a different means.

It is this whole idea that G-d created stuff without a birth process that brings about the idea that since birth is the process of new life now that G-d is no longer a needed force to maintain creation life. This in my mind creates conflict between science and religion that is very unnecessary.

The Traveler

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 5 2005, 10:53 AM

It is this whole idea that G-d created stuff without a birth process that brings about the idea that since birth is the process of new life now that G-d is no longer a needed force to maintain creation life.

←

That's one conclusion, but not the only one. In fact I don't know one person who would argue that God isn't the active force sending a spirit to its new body (whenever people think an embryo becomes alive...don't wanna get into that right now). So just because birth is "automated," guess who created and designed the automated system? God. No conflict at all. He's still the creator and always will be.

You use the word evolution alot, but it seems all you mean is a single cell going through changes dictated by its DNA/RNA to a fully developed life form, i.e. an embryo to a child. The question for true organic evolutionists, is who put the DNA/RNA in there?

The human genome as of a year ago was listed as 3.5 billion molecules long in a BBC article...that's like a library with 3,500 books, each book having 1,000 pages, each page having a 1,000 words. Sorry, that can't occur by chance. Someone "wrote the book" on creation, pardon the pun, and it was God, not chance.

Look at a smaller example. Say you have the 27 letters of the alphabet in a hat. You choose one letter at random, until all 27 have been chosen. Do you know the chance of someone randomly picking all 27 letters of the alphabet in their correct order, i.e. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc...?

Try computing 27!, or 27 factorial, to whit:

27x26x25x24x23x22x21x20x19x18x17x16x15x14x13x12x11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1.

I'm not going to get into an advanced permutations and probability lesson here, not enough time, but you calculate the mathematical probability of the 27 letters being chosen in sequential order by chance and you get a 1 in 1.0888869450418352 e+28 chance. Written out, that's:

10,888,869,450,418,352,000,000,000,000, or over 10 octillion possible ways of choosing the 27 letters one by one. By comparison, the universe is calculated by many to be only 14.5 billion years old (probably wrong, but again a year ago it appeared as a number in a BBC article...BBC is for example only, I don't think they're gospel or something).

Written another way, that's a probability of 9.1836898637955462840177044845541 e-29. Written without scientific notation, that's:

0.000000000000000000000000000091836898637955462840177044845541 chance of choosing a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z out of a hat in order, randomly. That's a little over 1 novemdecillionths. So the universe isn't even old enough for the 27 letters of the alphabet to randomly form a chain of sequential letters. How did 3.5 billion genome molecules form randomly then?

If you think Adam and Eve "evolved" as per your definition of embryonic development....who was their physical mother? Where did their embryos grow? They were the first man and woman, weren't they?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 5 2005, 10:32 AM

If we were to consider the vast number of species that exist under the classification of “worm” we might be rather surprised at the vast number.  Despite all our research and great knowledge is it estimated that currently there are still vast numbers of worm species that are yet to be discovered.

We have a similar problem with birds and insects.

←

I italicized the word "estimated" above. That's the callsign of evolution...estimation. You're tilting at windmills here, Traveler, because I never said one worm couldn't "change" into another kind of worm...KIND, KIND of worm, as in MULTIPLY AFTER THEIR OWN KIND. Sounds biblical to me. :) I don't believe worms will ever become cows, period.

And no Christian that I know of denies how a human child develops. But alot of us consider that to be just that, development, not evolution. When I used the word evolution at the start of this thread, I meant over a series of generations. An embryo doesn't spawn more embryos, then die, and then those embryos spawn more embryos and die, and then somewhere down the line one of those lucky embryos becomes a human child. It's a false comparison.

One embryo either develops into a child, or doesn't.

I'm talking about,say, "bird A" having short wings, it's offspring having shorter wings, their offspring losing their wings and feathers, their offspring developing opposible digits, and their offspring shedding their beaks and growing teeth until they become cats of a sort. That is what I mean by evolution, and I think you're confusing a few readers because it sounds like you think Adam and Eve "evolved" from a single-cell drop of ooze in an oxygen rich puddle of sludge billions of years ago.

Do you?

[Ray]

Technically, evolution is classified as either "micro" evolution or "macro" evolution.

Most LDS believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution.

[Serg]

Just to chill a little, um, i agree with you Ray, but its funny to complement your statement of "we believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution"with : "but from little things come the greater ones", phrase that appears both in the BoM and D&C. LOL

Nah, i agree with you, but it sounds funny.

Regards,

[Ray]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Nov 5 2005, 04:07 PM

If you think Adam and Eve "evolved" as per your definition of embryonic development....who was their physical mother? Where did their embryos grow? They were the first man and woman, weren't they?

No, they were only the first "man" and "woman" on this Earth.

[Traveler]

I am glad to see that Apostle Knight finely took my advice about applying the scripture term "kind" to the scientific term "species". I warned of that danger.

Part of the problem I see in this discussion on evolution is that many Christian thinkers do not understand the scientific principle of evolution. Since Galileo first attempted to publish a book on tides to explain how the earth traveled around the sun and that the moon was the only object that traveled around the earth many religious thinkers have been threatened by the possibility that man could comprehend the how of anything associated with the workings of G-d.

Man was created to have dominion over all that exist in the sphere in which he is placed. Such dominion was intended to come from the knowledge of the truth of things. The physical human form is indeed a wonder. From a simple beginning of a single cell comes the human shell. But the human shell if full of living things and not even half of them are children of the first original cell that began the human life. In truth there are billions of creatures all working together to keep the human shell alive. Your food is all prepared and distributed in the most part by other living things that do not share your human genome and DNA. And so many functions of your human form are maned by inhuman life forms that you cannot live without.

Evolution is not chance. Nothing that exist is chance. Everything is an effect of something that preceded it. There is no life that does not fit the pattern of creation and there is order in all things. The more man learns the more he learns of the order of things and the more we learn the order of thing the more we know that order is the basis of all that exist.

But because a Galileo perceives the order of things that move through the skies is no reason to believe that G-d did not invent and ordain that pattern. It is the duty of Christians to leave the understanding of things to those that do not believe in G-d? I do not believe in the ignorance of man. It is the duty - especially of Christian to love, seek and embrace all truth.

I only ask that those that have discovered what I have not - Tell me of your efforts to study, learn and to valadate your understanding. It appears to me evolution is a basic building block in the order of things - all things. Show me one thing that lives that lives to demonstrate the principle flawed.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Just thought I would add one more thing about chance. In reality chance has never been demonstrated. The closest we have come to chance has been probability but even the most splendid example of probabilities in quantum physics vanishes when observed.

The Traveler

[Guest Member_Deleted]

traveler :

But because a Galileo perceives the order of things that move through the skies is no reason to believe that G-d did not invent and ordain that pattern. It is the duty of Christians to leave the understanding of things to those that do not believe in G-d? I do not believe in the ignorance of man. It is the duty - especially of Christian to love, seek and embrace all truth.

So very well stated Traveler! Thank you for your well thought out posts. :)