human evolution, teachings within the temple and exalting ordinances.

[Dravin]

Guess I'm working on old info

You may just be confusing concepts. Genes are turned on and off during development. And you have recessive genes which kinda can be called 'turned off' by the dominate one in some situations. We also have a lot of DNA that isn't used, old bits and pieces that scientist propose are left over from the evolutionary process. Obviously you aren't inclined to accept that theory but you may have remembered hearing about how we have a lot of DNA we aren't using per se.

Combine those all together from something you heard a while ago (I have the advantage of just finishing up a biology class so its fresh on my mind) and I can kinda see how you could come up with the idea.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Dravin

[bytor2112]

Was it something I said????

Um...that was my lame attempt at some sarcastic humor :)

[JohnnyRudick]

You may just be confusing concepts. Genes are turned on and off during development. And you have recessive genes which kinda can be called turned off by the dominate one in some situations. We also have a lot of DNA that isn't used, old bits and pieces that scientist propose are left over from the evolutionary process. Obviously you aren't inclined to accept that theory but you may have remembered hearing about how we have a lot of DNA we aren't using per se.

Combine those all together from something you heard a while ago (I have the advantage of just finishing up a biology class so its fresh on my mind) and I can kinda see how you could come up with the idea.

It is these "Old" and "unused" DNA "that scientist propose

are left over from the evolutionary process." that have me going.

I think that in another 50 years they will have another theory on that

Which will be closer to what I have proposed here.

But in 50 years I guess I will be long gone from here perhaps:bawl:

[GeneC]

Um...that was my lame attempt at some sarcastic humor :)

I was implying My lameness, not yours!

[Traveler]

There is also nothing to indicate He did either.

The life of a single cell zygote is dictated by the DNA inherent in that organism.

Then you do not believe G-d is involved in the creation of life? - including you and everything else since Adam and Eve? Since you believe DNA and not G-d dictates what a zygote will become. My point is that DNA is proff of the means that G-d creates new life not the exception. I reject that knowing something means that G-d was not involved and responsible.

My question is - what in scripture has convinced you that your creation was acomplished with different means than that of Adam and Eve? If you read the scriptures there is no mention of the creation of Adam - The scriptures talk about the creation of man - not Adam.

Evolution, no I don't buy it No Proof - Progression, yes that's what life is all about.

There is a preponderance of evidence in nature to support evolution – there is no evidence of any other process that has brought about the changes of life. I will admit that evolution does not answer all questions but it answers a lot more than any other theory put forward. And the science of evolution has produced more useful research than any other theory.

The Traveler

[GeneC]

Then you do not believe G-d is involved in the creation of life? - including you and everything else since Adam and Eve? Since you believe DNA and not G-d dictates what a zygote will become. My point is that DNA is proff of the means that G-d creates new life not the exception. I reject that knowing something means that G-d was not involved and responsible.

My question is - what in scripture has convinced you that your creation was acomplished with different means than that of Adam and Eve? If you read the scriptures there is no mention of the creation of Adam - The scriptures talk about the creation of man - not Adam.

There is a preponderance of evidence in nature to support evolution – there is no evidence of any other process that has brought about the changes of life. I will admit that evolution does not answer all questions but it answers a lot more than any other theory put forward. And the science of evolution has produced more useful research than any other theory.

The Traveler

You are taking the statement out of context. "He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.”

Which means that He also created the DNA which dictates the outcome of whatever He created, His outcome, so yes. Simple to understand and you would have known the answer if you'd have read my posts as I never said that DNA, not G_D dictates any outcome whatsoever.

As for the scripture not referring to Adam, here's one from a Church Presidency no less::

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.

And lastly there is absolutely no proof of human evolution, that's why it's still called a Theory and I'll take the Apostles word for that any day.

[GADBabaganoosh]

Remember also, that the earth could very well have taken millions of years to build. Keep in mind that wonderful scripture in the Pearl of Great Price that says time is measured unto man. Also, the fact that even if the bible says it took a day to do whatever in the process that it doesn't define the length of that day. It just says they created what they created, then the day was through. Kind of like, how someone can call it a day earlier before the day is up or something, except instead of calling it a day before the darkness hits on the planet, they call it a day after that planet has spun around a few million times.

I have heard that the story of Adam and Eve in the bible IS symbolic.

Anyways, theres some food for thought. Doctrine is doctrine, so take it for what it is. If its wrong, its wrong. If it's right it's right.

[JohnnyRudick]

Remember also, that the earth could very well have taken millions of years to build. Keep in mind that wonderful scripture in the Pearl of Great Price that says time is measured unto man. Also, the fact that even if the bible says it took a day to do whatever in the process that it doesn't define the length of that day. It just says they created what they created, then the day was through. Kind of like, how someone can call it a day earlier before the day is up or something, except instead of calling it a day before the darkness hits on the planet, they call it a day after that planet has spun around a few million times.

I have heard that the story of Adam and Eve in the bible IS symbolic.

Anyways, theres some food for thought. Doctrine is doctrine, so take it for what it is. If its wrong, its wrong. If it's right it's right.

A day could be one revolution of a planet orbiting the sun Kolob perhaps?

[GeneC]

From Bruce R. McConkie From the Book - A New Witness for the Articles of Faith

Chapter 12 False Doctrines About the Fall

Heresies Concerning Adam and the Fall

Heresy 3- Organic evolution is the process whereby all life on earth came into being, and man, as now constituted, is the end product of this process.

Commentary: This is the false view of many self-designated scientists. The tendency among them is to present Darwinian theories as established realities. These theories postulate the evolvement of all forms of life from lower orders over astronomically long periods of time. They assume death has always been present and that there never was a fall, and they make no provision for a plan of redemption and a resurrection of all forms of life.

Heresy 4: Evolution is the process God used to create all forms of life except Adam, who came by special creation; or Adam was the end product of an evolutionary system used by the Lord for his own purposes.

Commentary: These false notions, together with whatever variations of them happen to be in vogue at any given time, are simply an attempt, on the part of those whose faith falls short of the divine standard, to harmonize the specious theories of men with the revelations of the Lord. They pledge a superficial allegiance to religious truth and allow for a form of divine worship without forsaking the theories of men. They, of necessity, assume that death has always existed on earth, that it did not have its beginning with the fall of Adam, and that there must be some other explanation for all the revelations which say that the atonement ransoms man from the effects of the fall. When those who espouse this view talk of a fall and an atonement, they falsely assume such applies only to man rather than to the earth and all forms of life, as the scriptures attest.

[JohnnyRudick]

From Bruce R. McConkie From the Book - A New Witness for the Articles of Faith

Chapter 12 False Doctrines About the Fall

Heresies Concerning Adam and the Fall

Heresy 3- Organic evolution is the process whereby all life on earth came into being, and man, as now constituted, is the end product of this process.

Commentary: This is the false view of many self-designated scientists. The tendency among them is to present Darwinian theories as established realities. These theories postulate the evolvement of all forms of life from lower orders over astronomically long periods of time. They assume death has always been present and that there never was a fall, and they make no provision for a plan of redemption and a resurrection of all forms of life.

Heresy 4: Evolution is the process God used to create all forms of life except Adam, who came by special creation; or Adam was the end product of an evolutionary system used by the Lord for his own purposes.

Commentary: These false notions, together with whatever variations of them happen to be in vogue at any given time, are simply an attempt, on the part of those whose faith falls short of the divine standard, to harmonize the specious theories of men with the revelations of the Lord. They pledge a superficial allegiance to religious truth and allow for a form of divine worship without forsaking the theories of men. They, of necessity, assume that death has always existed on earth, that it did not have its beginning with the fall of Adam, and that there must be some other explanation for all the revelations which say that the atonement ransoms man from the effects of the fall. When those who espouse this view talk of a fall and an atonement, they falsely assume such applies only to man rather than to the earth and all forms of life, as the scriptures attest.

Never read this before but has been my view for many years.

Thanks:cool:

[Xevelous]

Warning, this post is a wee bit honest. I do not mean any offense by what I am about to say.

School is there to teach applicable knowledge that is supported with repeatably tested and tried evidence to students to advance our future. This is a complete non issue. Regardless of what people believe, Evolution is a Theory that covers fields of science from botany to cellular biology, from psychology to zoology. Without it we would not have the ability to create vaccines which keep children from dying every year. Also, Evolution is mentioned in, but otherwise has little to say about Abiogenesis (Which is the science of non-organic molecules creating self replicating systems (life) which is actually a field of chemistry) Evolution is the science of population genetics, this is all. And it can and has been successfully applied to the human genome thousands of times.

Intelligent Design, regardless of Who's religion it is, is religion. And where it is a public institution children have the freedom of and FROM religion. It also is not backed with evidence. It's sole providence is that based on belief and filling scientific gaps with an "Intelligent creator" where science "yet does not know" or someone thinks "cannot happen by evolution". Classrooms are for teaching knowledge. "We don't know and cannot conceive, therefore an Intelligent designer!!!" is not knowledge.

Personal beliefs are fine, and no one should care about them. But they do not stand in the academic arena on the grounds of use to advancing humanity.

I am sorry about my not so humble opinion, but that is the long and hard of it.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Xevelous
grammar issue

[MarginOfError]

From Bruce R. McConkie From the Book - A New Witness for the Articles of Faith

Chapter 12 False Doctrines About the Fall

Heresies Concerning Adam and the Fall

Heresy 3- Organic evolution is the process whereby all life on earth came into being, and man, as now constituted, is the end product of this process.

Commentary: This is the false view of many self-designated scientists. The tendency among them is to present Darwinian theories as established realities. These theories postulate the evolvement of all forms of life from lower orders over astronomically long periods of time. They assume death has always been present and that there never was a fall, and they make no provision for a plan of redemption and a resurrection of all forms of life.

Heresy 4: Evolution is the process God used to create all forms of life except Adam, who came by special creation; or Adam was the end product of an evolutionary system used by the Lord for his own purposes.

Commentary: These false notions, together with whatever variations of them happen to be in vogue at any given time, are simply an attempt, on the part of those whose faith falls short of the divine standard, to harmonize the specious theories of men with the revelations of the Lord. They pledge a superficial allegiance to religious truth and allow for a form of divine worship without forsaking the theories of men. They, of necessity, assume that death has always existed on earth, that it did not have its beginning with the fall of Adam, and that there must be some other explanation for all the revelations which say that the atonement ransoms man from the effects of the fall. When those who espouse this view talk of a fall and an atonement, they falsely assume such applies only to man rather than to the earth and all forms of life, as the scriptures attest.

I'll bring this one up again:

Joseph Fielding Smith is recorded as having said that man will never land on the moon. How did that turn out for him?

[GeneC]

I'll bring this one up again:

Joseph Fielding Smith is recorded as having said that man will never land on the moon. How did that turn out for him?

And you actually believe we did? Need I say more?

[MarginOfError]

And you actually believe we did? Need I say more?

Yeah, I do. Because if there were any question about whether we'd ever actually done it, the Soviet Union would have been cramming it down our throats for years.

The fact that the Soviet Union never even challenged whether or not we had done it is pretty solid evidence that we did indeed do it.

But I think we've seen and heard enough to identify the kind of conspiracy theorist lunacy you subscribe to. It's a shame such lunacy really damages one's credibility. By the way, care to explain to me, what exactly is repentence?

[GeneC]

Show some evidence then. And your IDIOTIC accusations show the kind of judgmental lack of character that you have. The one thing that they could have done to prove they landed they didn't do. Why do you think that was.

Repentance is what people like you need for being judgmental when Christ teaches you not to be. You can look up the rest as it sound like a good exercise for you. You might learn something, just maybe.

And let's see, you cling to an unproven theory and I cling to an unproven theory. And there's something wrong with my logic? Nice try, nice try.

At least I have the Church leaders word that evolution is lunacy!! Your personal attacks certainly detract from your credibility I must say.

Edited December 2, 2010 by ThankGodForRepentence

[MarginOfError]

Show some evidence then. And your IDIOTIC accusations show the kind of judgmental lack of character that you have. The one thing that they could have done to prove they landed they didn't do. Why do you think that was.

Repentance is what people like you need for being judgmental when Christ teaches you not to be. You can look up the rest as it sound like a good exercise for you. You might learn something, just maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I'm well aware of what repentance is, by the way. I was more curious about your namesake.

[GeneC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I'm well aware of what repentance is, by the way. I was more curious about your namesake.

Don't be it concerns you not, Error.

Edited December 2, 2010 by ThankGodForRepentence

[rameumptom]

Quoting Elder McConkie as stating evolution is heretical, is rather silly. First off, he is not the prophet. Second, he has been dead for 25 years, and there's been a lot of revelation and science occur since then. Third, the specific statement from the First Presidency that still applies was given back in 1932 (I think), which states that the Church does not have an opinion on evolution. Their main concern is we ensure a belief in Adam and the Fall, which could have happened with or without evolution involved.

As for Johnny and Dravin's discussion on genetics, there is another point to be included. We do not receive all the DNA from all our ancestors. This point is very applicable right now in Book of Mormon studies, as the main haplotype (genetic markers) for Native Americans actually tie to Clovis man. Some studies suggest a small link with some to the Middle East, but they are inconclusive. The reality is, Lehi's genetics may not have passed down to today's Native Americans. And if they did, how would we know, as we have no genetic material to compare it with (the seed of Joseph). It is just as likely that the genetic material is long gone. There are no genetic markers for Lehi in the population remaining.

So, when Dravin states that white people cannot engender a black child, that is mostly correct. If somewhere in the past there was a black ancestor, and that genetic marker was successfully passed down from one generation to the next, it ostensibly could create a dark skinned offspring. However, the odds are more likely that the marker gets lost from the gene pool. If you kill off all blondes, eventually their genetic marker will no longer exist, as only brunette and redhead markers will be passed along.

[MarginOfError]

But since objective research isn't your cup of tea:

Let us analyze our accomplishments and find out where our values are. We have made great strides of advancement in scientific fields. We have sent men to the moon and back... (N. Eldon Tanner, , April 4, 1971)

At the time, President Tanner was the second counselor to President Joseph Fielding Smith. That's right...the same President Smith that said man would never make it (at the time President Smith made that comment, it wasn't uncommon for people to believe we couldn't do it). So we have contradictory opinions among the First Presidency about whether it was possible. And the remarks of a member of the First Presidency to say that the space program did indeed put someone on the moon.

What does all of this lead to? The simple fact that when human beings speak outside of their realm of knowledge, they have a tendency to say things that turn out to be incorrect.

Which is why matters like evolution and the mechanism of diversification are matters best left to science...best left to the experts that can critically and systematically evaluate the merits of the evidence instead of clinging to an ideology.

Don't be it concerns you not, Error.

At least I didn't spell it Errer.

[GeneC]

Quoting Elder McConkie as stating evolution is heretical, is rather silly. First off, he is not the prophet. Second, he has been dead for 25 years, and there's been a lot of revelation and science occur since then. Third, the specific statement from the First Presidency that still applies was given back in 1932 (I think), which states that the Church does not have an opinion on evolution. Their main concern is we ensure a belief in Adam and the Fall, which could have happened with or without evolution involved.

As for Johnny and Dravin's discussion on genetics, there is another point to be included. We do not receive all the DNA from all our ancestors. This point is very applicable right now in Book of Mormon studies, as the main haplotype (genetic markers) for Native Americans actually tie to Clovis man. Some studies suggest a small link with some to the Middle East, but they are inconclusive. The reality is, Lehi's genetics may not have passed down to today's Native Americans. And if they did, how would we know, as we have no genetic material to compare it with (the seed of Joseph). It is just as likely that the genetic material is long gone. There are no genetic markers for Lehi in the population remaining.

So, when Dravin states that white people cannot engender a black child, that is mostly correct. If somewhere in the past there was a black ancestor, and that genetic marker was successfully passed down from one generation to the next, it ostensibly could create a dark skinned offspring. However, the odds are more likely that the marker gets lost from the gene pool. If you kill off all blondes, eventually their genetic marker will no longer exist, as only brunette and redhead markers will be passed along.

Still can't engender a new species from it. Always will be a man, white or black.

[MarginOfError]

And let's see, you cling to an unproven theory and I cling to an unproven theory. And there's something wrong with my logic? Nice try, nice try.

At least I have the Church leaders word that evolution is lunacy!! Your personal attacks certainly detract from your credibility I must say.

Ah! an edit. I love when people add to their posts after someone as already responded, as if it will make their argument stronger.

First, let's clarify something here. I don't cling to either theory. I accept that both are plausible explanations and am content to wait on the body of evidence that will justify the conclusion.

Second, you have the word of men who happened to be in leadership positions in the Church. As has already been demonstrated, they have been wrong about scientific matters in the past, and they will be in the future. I think it is folly to accept every word they say as irrefutable truth.

[GeneC]

Ah! I love it when somebody tries to make something big out of an innocent edit. Kind of reminds me of the Lawyers ganging up on Christ trying to snare him. Interesting and telling.

It was being edited during any response not that it matters. All you have to do is reread, not to hard for most to do.

So see there we do agree. I don't cling to either theory either. I accept that if He wanted to plant a whole different set of laws unto us which included evolution by his knowledge of the Truth, by his Voice alone, he could. I accept that He can do whatever He wants, only we don't have the full rhyme or reason yet. Maybe that information is in the sealed part of the Book of Mormon or in the Records kept by the Ten Tribes, maybe we won't ever know on this side of the veil.

Secondly: But I will take the word of Righteous men in Christ's Church any day over an Atheist like Darwin.

I don't know, you don't know, only a few privileged in history, that have in fact seen the past and future but couldn't pass that information onto us. Yes, folly to accept every word that's why I read and study both sides and make up my own mind.

And not that it matters but my doubt about the moon goes way back to the early 1970's way before any conspiracy was born.

[Traveler]

One of the problems with these kinds of discussions is ignorance. Like dealing with anti-LDS often ideas and concepts are so far out of context it is difficult to find rational and actual common ground. For example: Electron Theory – Includes the theory that mater is comprised of atoms and that electrons are a building element of atoms. Electron theory also assumes that electrons are negatively charge and will “flow” or move giving rise to transmission theory. However, by definition the term atom means the smallest single indivisible thing. So one could argue that since an atom can have smaller parts called electrons that ether the theory of atoms or electrons are false.

The argument that evolution is only a theory is an argument of ignorance. Let’s first take a look at the definition of evolution:

ev·o·lu·tion

–noun

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.

7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.

8. Mathematics . the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. 8 ) .

9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.

10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

The big point of for the discussion of this thread is #3. When someone says that there is no human evolution (NO MUTATIONS, NATURAL SELECTIONS OR GENETIC SHIFTS) in human populations – What??? – There is no proof of variations in color of eyes, hair, or skin pigments between individual humans? When a person says there is no proof of evolution I wonder? The argument of “no proof” appears really uninformed and ignorant light of the facts!!! Children even with the same parents can have different color of eyes and hair.

One last point about no proof of evolution: There is no proof that G-d created and developed obvious stages of living things in the fossil record around of creatures with various levels of human characteristics? (See definition #1 of evolution). No proof that Neanderthals ever existed prior to the advent of Adam and Eve? My point here – dear friends. It does not matter that modern man (Adam) descended directly from Neanderthals or other such creatures or not does not mean that G-d did not employ evolution in creation and preparation for the man Adam and his wife Eve.

Are we searching for truth or trying to find excuses to dismiss it?

The Traveler

[GeneC]

First off the thread is about whether man was divinely created by The Creator or evolved from evolutionary garbage like slime. Sure man change eye colors etc but man was created man and will always be man. He can progress into Godhood but that is through acts and not mutations or DNA enhancements.

[Wingnut]

First off the thread is about whether man was divinely created by The Creator or evolved from evolutionary garbage like slime.

Actually it's about whether or not a scientific belief in evolution is compatible with LDS religious beliefs.