Why Mormons should embrace evolution

[FunkyTown]

I think he's falling prey to the fallicy that evolution is guided to some sort of perfection instead of the reality: I can survive to adulthood and have more babies than you who then survive to adulthood and have more babies means I win.

I suspect you mean 'Fallacy', though I'd like to know which fallacy I'm suffering from. I would assume you mean strawman in this case, the idea that I am making an argument against one that hasn't been made.

But let's take what you're saying at face value.

Are you saying there are more humans than amoebas or paramecium? Heck - Are you saying there are more cockroaches then single celled organisms?

It's possible that your argument is that the development of specialized cells that lived limited lives filled a niche in evolution, due to a lack of competition, fluorished(Since obviously single cells like Amoebas and Paramecium are far more successful evolutionary than humans, if pure numbers are taken in to account).

However, let's analyze what you're really saying: A newly formed specialized lifeform will still have the same food requirements as its predecessor, so they will naturally be competing.

Unless, of course, your argument is that the cell first developed the ability to live off of a different foodstuff at the same time as specializing. Perhaps the original single cells developed the ability to engage in chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis, or perhaps they developed the ability to prey upon other single celled organisms. Would you say the argument of evolutionists is the same development that allowed the immortal cells to feed on something else also made that cell mortal and thus able to survive because it was in a non-competing state?

[Dravin]

I suspect you mean 'Fallacy', though I'd like to know which fallacy I'm suffering from. I would assume you mean strawman in this case, the idea that I am making an argument against one that hasn't been made.

I didn't say a logical fallacy, I said a fallacy, an error, a mistake. You are presupposing certain conditions must be true for evolution as a theory to not fall in on itself when such is not the case. I'm not a biologist but evolution does not require a move towards perfection nor does more complex organisms having shorter lifespans pose a problem for the theory.

My examples were placed in an accelerated state and at extremes for emphasis and illustration that quality of life or some sort of ideal form is not what evolution is about.

Are you saying there are more humans than amoebas or paramecium? Heck - Are you saying there are more cockroaches then single celled organisms?

Nope, but I think you know that. Now you are engaging in a straw man. My point was that evolution doesn't direct to somehow what is ideal or best, simply what survives, survival being based on reproducing not some sort of quality of life. So no, the fact that there are more amoebas is not an issue, note my example of a group that survived in its environment that actually produced fewer offspring than that which it competed against because an adaption allowed them to do so (and it can be any adaption not just to a new food source).

Unless, of course, your argument is that the cell first developed the ability to live off of a different foodstuff at the same time as specializing. Perhaps the original single cells developed the ability to engage in chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis, or perhaps they developed the ability to prey upon other single celled organisms. Would you say the argument of evolutionists is the same development that allowed the immortal cells to feed on something else also made that cell mortal and thus able to survive because it was in a non-competing state?

Nope it isn't. You're presupposing food as the only factor, it could have been a resistance to increasing levels of oxygen in earth's early atmosphere or innumerable factors. Surviving offspring are a measurement of fitness but having more children is not the only way one can have more surviving offspring nor is utilizing another food source (though those can both be ways). You are also presupposing that not-aging (not the same as immorality) is always an advantage, such is not so.

Then of course natural selection isn't the only method of evolution, just the one Darwin came up with. Gene flow, genetic drift and mutation all play a role, though that last one plays into the others.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Dravin

[bytor2112]

So are you speaking of Darwin or Dawkins from Carlimacs post?

Are these courts of glory really dependent on disbelieving science? I would think that a full understanding of God's methodology would be well received, especially if such an understanding was ultimately essential for eternal progression.

I suspect that the Lord would rather us believe on the words of Prophets and Holy Writ. Darwinism has created in the minds of many a world without God...existence without a Divine Creator, a world without a Divine plan or need for a Redeemer.

[Guest]

I suspect that the Lord would rather us believe on the words of Prophets and Holy Writ. Darwinism has created in the minds of many a world without God...existence without a Divine Creator, a world without a Divine plan or need for a Redeemer.

And Jesus Christ has created Westboro Baptist Church?

Of course the Lord wants us to believe in Prophets and Holy Writ. Darwin's work does not necessarily run contrary to them.

The words of the Prophets:

"... we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

"... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

[FunkyTown]

Nope it isn't. You're presupposing food as the only factor, it could have been a resistance to increasing levels of oxygen in earth's early atmosphere or innumerable factors. Surviving offspring are a measurement of fitness but having more children is not the only way one can have more surviving offspring nor is utilizing another food source (though those can both be ways).

Then of course natural selection isn't the only method of evolution, just the one Darwin came up with. Gene flow, genetic drift and mutation all play a role, though that last one plays into the others.

All right, Dravin, I'll bite. I don't want to engage in straw men.

How does taking an immortal creature and reducing its lifespan immeasurably work with evolution? How did those first single-celled organisms make the jump to specialized cells and what proof do we have that this is the case?

Obviously, since my original point was that we have no proof of the very basics of evolution and then I went on to say that people would argue evolution until they're blue in the face despite no proof of the very basics that were needed in order to make Evolution true, you wouldn't be coming forth and arguing this without that proof. That would be silly. I'm not going to try to figure out what you're saying, so I'd just like those questions answered simply. It's too hard trying to read your mind.

[Dravin]

How did those first single-celled organisms make the jump to specialized cells and what proof do we have that this is the case?

There is no proof (that I'm aware of). I never claimed there was. Evolution however is not at a loss for the mechanism by how it (selection choosing a creature with a lessor lifespan over a greater) could happen. I could postulate various scenarios like I did for the whole banana and grass scenario but:

1) I'm not a biologist and any analogies or explanations I could provide would be very crude.

2) I don't think that's what you are looking for.

To quote you:

If evolution exists because creatures that successful mutations tend to live longer and pass on their traits more because of that life, Evolution is fundamentally flawed. Basic cells live forever and are functionally immortal. Your cells will not live forever. Specializing greatly reduced the lifespan, in fact.

1) Your first sentence is based on a flawed premise, the theory of evolution does not propose that adaption leads to longer life (beyond that of living long enough to reproduce).

2) You said the very fact that organisms with shorter lifespans haven't been selected against (and subsequently having gone extinct) was incompatible with evolutionary theory.

If you want to say there is no proof of when and exactly what circumstances led to that development you can do so and I'll have no issue with it, but that isn't what you said. You presented a flawed interpretation of evolution and claimed it invalidated evolutionary theory. To which I pointed out such is not the case, evolution does not postulate such and I provided a hypothetical demonstrating how an organism with a lesser lifespan could be selected for instead of against that jived with evolutionary theory.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Dravin

[bytor2112]

And Jesus Christ has created Westboro Baptist Church?

???

Of course the Lord wants us to believe in Prophets and Holy Writ. Darwin's work does not necessarily run contrary to them.

Of course it does...especially if it leads one to conclude that there isn't a God or a Creator or a need for a Redeemer.

The words of the Prophets:

"... we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

"... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

I can assure you that God did not reveal this and if it leads people away from Christ it is not praiseworthy..........

Edited September 22, 2010 by bytor2112

[Traveler]

.....

How did those first single-celled organisms make the jump to specialized cells and what proof do we have that this is the case?

...

We do not know of the universe prior to the fall - There is no proof of anything prior to the fall. All our knowledge of things is post fall observance. Since the fall every new life that has been created began as a single-celled organism. Every human following Adam and Eve (including Jesus) began as a single-celled organism called a zygote. There has never been even a remote hint of any other possibility. Without evolution a single cell will remain forever as the same single cell.

One problem is in understanding evolution. In essence it means change. Since the fall there is a preponderance of change. We are told, however, that G-d does not change and one of the ancient understanding of “Eternal” meant unchanging.

Our understanding of science is the study of change (evolution). We have known nothing else. Even spiritually we change and evolve through repentance and sacred covenantal ordnances. But there is another overarching problem. By definition “Creation” is change and therefore evolution must be an element of creation. We may not understand all the element involved in evolutional creation but we know of some from observation as well as scripture.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

I don't know much about "the man" Charles Darwin. But his theories have certainly captured the fancy of many aetheists- some of who I would say are...maybe repugnant is too strong, but I'm pretty put off by them. Listening to Mr. Dawkins on NPR one day made me itchy and frustrated and nearly nauseous. He's really a distasteful character.

Agree about Richard Dawkins. His book "The God Delusion" was a bunch of self-indulgent assumptions and bad reasoning. As they say, a logical argument is entirely dependent on accurate starting premises. And he didn't have those in place.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

anatess: "Of course the Lord wants us to believe in Prophets and Holy Writ. Darwin's work does not necessarily run contrary to them."

Of course it does...especially if it leads one to conclude that there isn't a God or a Creator or a need for a Redeemer.

This reminds me of the statement "guns kill people". That's what you're saying, bytor2112. Truth is what it is, it is what we do with it that makes all the difference.

I can assure you that God did not reveal this and if it leads people away from Christ it is not praiseworthy..........

I don't know whether I should blame you for your ignorance or not. (sigh) I guess I'll withhold judgement, but I will say that you, as a member of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God on earth, are responsible for seeking out truth wherever it is to be found.

HiJolly

[Guest]

???

For your information, Bytor, Darwin's theory of evolution NEVER stated that God does not exist. It only outlines a theory by which species have evolved. He was even reluctant to apply the same theory to Man. It is not Darwin who started/encouraged atheism. Just like it is not Jesus Christ who started/encouraged Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals.

Get it?

Of course it does...especially if it leads one to conclude that there isn't a God or a Creator or a need for a Redeemer.

I can assure you that God did not reveal this and if it leads people away from Christ it is not praiseworthy..........

Okay, I'm not going to comment on this because it is obvious to me that you don't know who Charles Darwin is and what his work is all about.

Go and study. Then come back here. It is, after all, what you tell kool-aid drinkers when they counter your political viewpoints.

[bytor2112]

I don't know whether I should blame you for your ignorance or not. (sigh) I guess I'll withhold judgement, but I will say that you, as a member of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God on earth, are responsible for seeking out truth wherever it is to be found.

Thus saith Hi Jolly and I am not ignorant. So judge all you want....note that I haven't said evolution isn't truth. This is not the manner in which the Lord reveals truth and if "truth" leads away from Christ...then maybe one should seek else where.

[HiJolly]

<Snip> This is not the manner in which the Lord reveals truth <snip>

This statement needs re-working, I think! Perhaps you should read The Origin of Species? Or if you have, well then, there's a larger problem to address.

HiJolly

[Guest]

Thus saith Hi Jolly and I am not ignorant. So judge all you want....note that I haven't said evolution isn't truth. This is not the manner in which the Lord reveals truth and if "truth" leads away from Christ...then maybe one should seek else where.

Ooooh, I hate to do this to GaySaint again because I have used him so many times for examples... But it is fitting. So, I'll delete this if GaySaint objects....

Anyway, GS is LDS and even went on a mission. BECAUSE of his LDS faith, he is now living with a gay partner instead of marrying one of the lovely sisters who were willing to be his wife.

So... by the same analogy, you want GS to seek truth elsewhere?

Just wanting to be sure I understand you.

[bytor2112]

For your information, Bytor, Darwin's theory of evolution NEVER stated that God does not exist. It only outlines a theory by which species have evolved. He was even reluctant to apply the same theory to Man. It is not Darwin who started/encouraged atheism. Just like it is not Jesus Christ who started/encouraged Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals.

Get it?

Okay, I'm not going to comment on this because it is obvious to me that you don't know who Charles Darwin is and what his work is all about.

Go and study. Then come back here. It is, after all, what you tell kool-aid drinkers when they counter your political viewpoints.

Anatess? Did you actually read my posts? Maybe you should re-read. The works of Charles Darwin have indeed led many to conclude that their isn't a God...a Creator or the need for a Redeemer.

I made NO COMMENTS regarding what Darwin's Theory states or doesn't state now did I????? Nor did I comment on whether Darwin was an Atheist or otherwise....did I????

I have studied Darwin and feel no need to study further......perhaps you should take your own advice and go and learn to read.

Edited September 22, 2010 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Ooooh, I hate to do this to GaySaint again because I have used him so many times for examples... But it is fitting. So, I'll delete this if GaySaint objects....

Anyway, GS is LDS and even went on a mission. BECAUSE of his LDS faith, he is now living with a gay partner instead of marrying one of the lovely sisters who were willing to be his wife.

So... by the same analogy, you want GS to seek truth elsewhere?

Just wanting to be sure I understand you.

Not sure of your point.....GS made a decision to live in opposition to the Lord. Respectfully to GS....he ignored truth and will one day answer to the Lord (as we all will ) for his choices.

Before our comments get overly snarky and the thread gets closed, we should probably just agree to disagree.

[rameumptom]

Cockroaches are repugnant. God doesn't make anything repugnant, therefore either cockroaches or God do not truly exist. Yep! Works for me!

I do not think that a belief in or against evolution has anything to do with exaltation. I do believe that LDS need to keep an open mind to all possibilities. Why? Because when we close a door, we are basically shutting off any chances of receiving any new revelation in connection with that issue. Millions reject the LDS Church on that same premise: they do not like anything that opposes Trinity, or promotes modern prophets, or makes men the literal children of God, etc., and therefore the LDS Church must be false because it is repugnant to me.

We will receive according to the amount of truth we receive and accept in life. This means we must scrutinize all things, or "prove all things" as Paul enjoins us to do. But to reject a concept, simply because an apostle rejected, is to potentially ruin our chances at advancing our knowledge base. And D&C 130 warns us that the person who is more advanced in knowledge and truth will have a bigger advantage in the next life.

[GaySaint]

Yay! I was used as an example. Does this mean I’m highly evolved? Or was the comparison more along the lines of a single-celled organism?

Bytor, I’d disagree with you if this was the time or the place, but this is neither the time nor the place.

I haven’t been following this discussion, but I thought I’d add:

Just because something has the potential to lead someone away from God doesn’t speak to its truth. Some scientists choose to discount God because of scientific truths, but that is simply an interpretation, and doesn’t speak to the “righteousness” of those truths. The same could be said of Darwin’s teachings – if they are true (I tend to believe that micro-evolution is a truth, and as such, macro-evolution makes sense if you look at two periods of time that are far enough apart. I also see no reason why God wouldn’t use the laws of physics to help his creation process along when he uses them and obeys them everywhere else).

The Bible has the potential to lead people away from the LDS church if interpreted incorrectly, but that doesn’t speak to the truthfulness of the Bible, only to the incorrect interpretation thereof; interpreting science, or evolution, or any truth, to disprove God seems to fall along that same line, in my opinion.

[pam]

Okay everyone...if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all or I'll close this down.

[EandLDOW]

Would it be possible to genetically engineer a new species of hawk from a finch? Are you aware that one of the primary means to deliver genetically altered DNA is by a virus? And yet the possibilities of genetically altering virus are most common during high pressures on a species in times of famine and other disasters - of which there has been many in the natural history of this earth.

The Traveler

Yes, it's possible, but again, it would need to happen repeatedly in a small area to permit those altered to interbreed and establish a viable self-sustaining population, and the altered population would also need tu survive the natural disaster that led to the viral genetic alterations. Quite a stretch of laws of probability.

Naturally, people could genetically engineer the DNA changes and manage the breeding, but then that would be intelligent design, not evolution.

[EandLDOW]

The original point of EandLDOW was that doctrines don't generally change. You make a good point. I would also point out that sealings in the temple still allow for eternal polygamy, so to speak. So it's an interesting thing, polygamy and the Church.

HiJolly

The doctrine of multiple marriage has not changed. The Lord inspired his prophet, revelation again, to announce that the practice was no longer required of the Saints due to the laws passed by US Congress, to prevent the government from halting the work of spreading the gospel.

Actually, today, if a man's wife, to whom he was sealed in the temple, passes away, he can be sealed to a second wife. Still multiple marriage in the eternities, but the first wife has already passed away.

As for blacks and the priesthood, the prophets have always said there would come a time when they could again bear the priesthood. We just had to wait for the Lord's own time to come to actually implement it.

Many other things are the same way, we know it's coming, just waiting for the official word from the Lord to His prophet to tell us when.

[EandLDOW]

I have a hard time understanding how polygamy was abominable back in the time that this was written but acceptable none to long ago then back to abominable.

Jacob 2:23-26

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

-------------------------------------------

Alma 7:20 I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.

------------------------------------------

Evolution??? He that be a monkey, Let him be a monkey still.

Polygamy was not the abomination that the Lord referred to. He was referring to "whoredoms" in which the chosen people, Israel" took wives not of the covenant, and to David and Solomon taking wives unto themselves not by the Lord. The scriptures show that most of their wives were given them by the prophet, but they took some on their own, too, which was not according to the Lord's will.

[Guest]

Darwinism has created in the minds of many a world without God...existence without a Divine Creator, a world without a Divine plan or need for a Redeemer.

Of course the Lord wants us to believe in Prophets and Holy Writ. Darwin's work does not necessarily run contrary to them.

Of course it does...especially if it leads one to conclude that there isn't a God or a Creator or a need for a Redeemer.

I can assure you that God did not reveal this and if it leads people away from Christ it is not praiseworthy..........

Okay, Bytor. I know English is just my 3rd language but I am fairly certain I understood your words correctly.

From the above quotes, the only conclusion I can derive out of your statements is that you believe that DARWINISM is not praiseworthy as it leads people away from Christ and it is FOR SURE not inspired by God.

What did I not understand correctly?

[HoosierGuy]

I assume everyone is OK with teaching Darwinism in the schools. Everyone believes in in separation of church and state/schools, right?

[bytor2112]

Okay, Bytor. I know English is just my 3rd language but I am fairly certain I understood your words correctly.

From the above quotes, the only conclusion I can derive out of your statements is that you believe that DARWINISM is not praiseworthy as it leads people away from Christ and it is FOR SURE not inspired by God.

What did I not understand correctly?

That certainly isn't what you posted earlier. Rather, you chose to bleat away about how I didn't know Darwinism and I needed to go away and study and how Darwin wasn't atheist ( which I never said)...blah, blah,blah....

English may be your third language...but you chose to ignore what I posted and responded to things I didn't say.