Evolution

[Tyler90AZ]

I completely agree with evolution for all animals except humans. I don’t find it hard to believe that a creator would want animals to adapt in order to survive. Where evolutionists and I start going different directions is when humans are involved. I do not believe that humans have the same ancestors as apes.

Question to ask yourself if you believe humans have the same ancestors as apes:

Why are humans so much smarter than any other animal from the Great Ape family?

If you look at other animals with the same ancestors they have the same intelligence level.

The second question you need to ask yourself is:

Why is evolution only a theory and not a law?

I understand what a scientific theory is, but the fact remains evolution is not a law. There have been many scientific theories that have been proven wrong, to name a few the Expanding Earth theories, Blank Slate theory and Einstein’s Static Universe theory. Dr. Menton says about evolution, “evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.”

The reason for this post is that my Environmental Biology Professor is an evolutionist and is trying to convert me harder than any religious person to her beliefs. The same argument that evolutionists use against religious people I can use against them. The Theory of Evolution has holes just like the Creation Theory. The only difference is that Creation makes more sense to me.

The fact that animals and plants fit perfectly into their environment is amazing. If you move one animal or plant away

from its original habitat it could potentially mess up the whole ecosystem. Also humans can move anywhere and thrive because they are leaps and bounds smarter than any animal. That is one of the many things that point to intelligent design. I also have a spiritual testimony of God which is far more valuable than an intellectual testimony.

[Dravin]

In case you find this thread doesn't bring up the discussion you wanted some possible old ones you can look into:

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/34722-why-mormons-should-embrace-evolution.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/35925-human-evolution-teachings-within-temple-exalting-ordinances.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/27646-questions-scientifically-inclined-lds.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/23552-i-think-evolution-creation-same.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/24478-evolution-gospel.html

Several of them start with a theological bent but they tend to devolve into the nitty gritties fairly quickly

Edited February 12, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest Godless]

I completely agree with evolution for all animals except humans. I don’t find it hard to believe that a creator would want animals to adapt in order to survive. Where evolutionists and I start going different directions is when humans are involved. I do not believe that humans have the same ancestors as apes.

What makes humans so special? We have the same basic biological structure as any other mammal and carry out the same biological functions, so why would we be immune to evolutionary processes while others aren't?

Why are humans so much smarter than any other animal from the Great Ape family?

Because that's our only real survival trait. Gorillas and chimps are physically built for jungle life, so a superior intellect isn't necessary. We, on the other hand, have only our intelligence to keep us from becoming extinct. We possess no other physical traits that could benefit us in a natural ecosystem (like a jungle).

If you look at other animals with the same ancestors they have the same intelligence level.

One of the big drawbacks of our advanced intellect and level of consciousness is the unfounded sense of importance that it's given us. We think that the laws of nature (like evolution and mortality) don't apply to us because we're smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom. In a sense, intelligence has made us cocky.

Why is evolution only a theory and not a law?

Science is built on and around theories. Could evolution be considered a law of nature like gravity? Sure. There's more than enough genetic and fossil evidence to justify that. I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet, but I try not to get myself wrapped up in semantics. The fact that evolution is a mere "theory" doesn't take anything away from its importance in the study of biology (and medicine, and anthropology, and paleontology, etc).

I understand what a scientific theory is, but the fact remains evolution is not a law. There have been many scientific theories that have been proven wrong, to name a few the Expanding Earth theories, Blank Slate theory and Einstein’s Static Universe theory. Dr. Menton says about evolution, “evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.”

Evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and has been strengthened in ways that Darwin could never have begun to imagine by advances in genetics, molecular biology, and fossil discoveries. There's still a lot about evolution that's very theoretical (for example, some scientists are starting to put less emphasis on natural selection as a driving factor), but the fact that organisms do, in fact, evolve over time has been observed to death in both fossil records and biology labs.

The fact that animals and plants fit perfectly into their environment is amazing. If you move one animal or plant away from its original habitat it could potentially mess up the whole ecosystem.

Not really. An ecosystem could be drastically changed by the removal or introduction of a species, but that's not the same as being "messed up". Nature has an astonishing talent for adapting to change, and evolution is the driving force behind that adaptive ability.

[MarginOfError]

Why is evolution only a theory and not a law?

Science is built on and around theories. Could evolution be considered a law of nature like gravity? Sure. There's more than enough genetic and fossil evidence to justify that. I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet, but I try not to get myself wrapped up in semantics. The fact that evolution is a mere "theory" doesn't take anything away from its importance in the study of biology (and medicine, and anthropology, and paleontology, etc).

I have a hard time believing evolution will ever be accepted as a law. Laws, like gravity, Newton's laws, etc, are distinct from theories like evolution in that they can be mathematically quantified. It would be exceptionally difficult to mathematically quantify evolution. That's why evolution is "only a theory," and in this case, the semantics turn out to be pretty important.

I also have a spiritual testimony of God which is far more valuable than an intellectual testimony.

You may think that, and you're entitled to your opinion. But if not for an intellectual testimony, my spiritual testimony would have died a long time ago. And I personally know people that never would have gained a spiritual testimony if they hadn't first gained an intellectual testimony. People are different.

[Guest]

I also have a spiritual testimony of God which is far more valuable than an intellectual testimony.

I have a spiritual testimony of God that is enhanced by my intellect. So that, I can read Genesis, to gain spiritual knowledge that Jesus Christ filled the earth with life, then I can turn to my intellect in getting a glimmer of understanding in how He did it.

I'm not arrogant enough spiritually to dismiss any theory on how He may have possibly done it. And I'm not arrogant enough intellectually to think that my salvation hinges on that knowledge. But, I need both the spirit and the intellect to strengthen my love of God.

Whether science proves that man came from apes, it doesn't change the truth of Genesis. It only changes our interpretation of it.

Edited February 11, 2011 by anatess

[Tyler90AZ]

What makes humans so special? We have the same basic biological structure as any other mammal and carry out the same biological functions, so why would we be immune to evolutionary processes while others aren't?

The point is that humans are much smarter then any animal from the great ape family. If you look at any other animals from the same family they have the same intelligence level. Since animal families have the same intelligence level that is a pattern with evolution. Humans don't fit into that pattern. They are superior to all animals from Great Ape family as far as overall intelligence.

Because that's our only real survival trait. Gorillas and chimps are physically built for jungle life, so a superior intellect isn't necessary. We, on the other hand, have only our intelligence to keep us from becoming extinct. We possess no other physical traits that could benefit us in a natural ecosystem (like a jungle).

That is another reason humans don't fit into the Great Ape family.

One of the big drawbacks of our advanced intellect and level of consciousness is the unfounded sense of importance that it's given us. We think that the laws of nature (like evolution and mortality) don't apply to us because we're smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom. In a sense, intelligence has made us cocky.

I agree we are smarter then any animal from the Great Ape family.

Science is built on and around theories. Could evolution be considered a law of nature like gravity? Sure. There's more than enough genetic and fossil evidence to justify that. I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet, but I try not to get myself wrapped up in semantics. The fact that evolution is a mere "theory" doesn't take anything away from its importance in the study of biology (and medicine, and anthropology, and paleontology, etc).

I agree with what MarginofError said below. I was simply pointing out other theories that have been debunked. Like I stated I understand what a scientific theory is.

Evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and has been strengthened in ways that Darwin could never have begun to imagine by advances in genetics, molecular biology, and fossil discoveries. There's still a lot about evolution that's very theoretical (for example, some scientists are starting to put less emphasis on natural selection as a driving factor), but the fact that organisms do, in fact, evolve over time has been observed to death in both fossil records and biology labs.

I agree animals do evolve, but my argument is that God created man in his image. You can see that humans don't fit into the Great Ape family like others in that family. Look at other animals from the same families and they have a similar intelligence level.

Not really. An ecosystem could be drastically changed by the removal or introduction of a species, but that's not the same as being "messed up". Nature has an astonishing talent for adapting to change, and evolution is the driving force behind that adaptive ability.

Some animals and plants can be adapted to certain ecosystems but some can not.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Guest Godless]

What makes humans so special? We have the same basic biological structure as any other mammal and carry out the same biological functions, so why would we be immune to evolutionary processes while others aren't?

The point is that humans are much smarter then any animal from the great ape family. If you look at any other animals from the same family they have the same intelligence level. Since animal families have the same intelligence level that is a pattern with evolution. Humans don't fit into that pattern. They are superior to all animals from Great Ape family as far as overall intelligence.

You didn't answer my question. We're smarter than the average primate, yes. The size of the intellectual gap is atypical, yes. But that doesn't change the fact our bodies perform the same basic functions as other mammals (I'm not just talking about primates here). We eat, we sleep, we breathe, we reproduce. And eventually we die. This same cycle exists throughout the animal kingdom. So I'll ask again, how does our intelligence alone make us immune from the biological process of evolution that shapes the natural world?

Because that's our only real survival trait. Gorillas and chimps are physically built for jungle life, so a superior intellect isn't necessary. We, on the other hand, have only our intelligence to keep us from becoming extinct. We possess no other physical traits that could benefit us in a natural ecosystem (like a jungle).

That is another reason humans don't fit into the Great Ape family.

The fossil record suggests otherwise.

Science is built on and around theories. Could evolution be considered a law of nature like gravity? Sure. There's more than enough genetic and fossil evidence to justify that. I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet, but I try not to get myself wrapped up in semantics. The fact that evolution is a mere "theory" doesn't take anything away from its importance in the study of biology (and medicine, and anthropology, and paleontology, etc).

I agree with what MarginofError said below. I was simply pointing out other theories that have been debunked. Like I stated I understand what a scientific theory is.

Evolution hasn't been debunked. As I said, it's actually been validated by new scientific discoveries that were far beyond Darwin's time. Some of the evidence and the exact conclusions that can be drawn from it is up for debate. Natural selection is as well, as I mentioned earlier. But the fact that a species undergoes changes through the passing of generations is virtually indisputable.

Evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and has been strengthened in ways that Darwin could never have begun to imagine by advances in genetics, molecular biology, and fossil discoveries. There's still a lot about evolution that's very theoretical (for example, some scientists are starting to put less emphasis on natural selection as a driving factor), but the fact that organisms do, in fact, evolve over time has been observed to death in both fossil records and biology labs.

I agree animals do evolve, but my argument is that God created man in his image. You can see that humans don't fit into the Great Ape family like others in that family. Look at other animals from the same families and they have a similar intelligence level.

You really like that intelligence argument, don't you?

Not really. An ecosystem could be drastically changed by the removal or introduction of a species, but that's not the same as being "messed up". Nature has an astonishing talent for adapting to change, and evolution is the driving force behind that adaptive ability.

Some animals and plants can be adapted to certain ecosystems but some can not.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that the ecosystem itself can adjust to changes. If a specific species can't adapt, it goes extinct. It's called "survival of the fittest". Evolution is the reason why organisms fit into their respective environments so well. Edited February 11, 2011 by Godless

[MarginOfError]

I agree with what MarginofError said below. I was simply pointing out other theories that have been debunked. Like I stated I understand what a scientific theory is.

I think you misunderstand my point. I was supporting what you had to say, but point out the absurdity of your questions, "Why isn't it a law?" There is plenty of evidence to validate evolution, and your arguments don't really hold up against them very well.

You really like that intelligence argument, don't you?

And I really like irony.

[HiJolly]

Tyler90AZ,

You're on the wrong track. Your professor is right about the common ancestor thing. Sorry. Maybe she believes in other stuff related to evolution that isn't correct, but she's dead on correct on that one.

HiJolly

[dieublanc]

The question of humans evolving from lower life forms is addressed in our current church manuals and recent ensigns. From the current old testament institute manual:

Old Testament Student Manual Genesis - 2 Samuel : 2 - Genesis 1 - 2 - The Creation

“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 declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’"

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . . “

Now let's look at the Ensign. Do you remember that special Ensign from March 2008 all about Jesus? Well this is what Pres. Packer had to say:

We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall.

If men were merely animals, then logic favors freedom without accountability.

How well I know that among learned men are those who look down at animals and stones to find the origin of man. They do not look inside themselves to find the spirit there. They train themselves to measure things by time, by thousands and by millions, and say these animals called men all came by chance. And this they are free to do, for agency is theirs.

But agency is ours as well. We look up, and in the universe we see the handiwork of God and measure things by epochs, by aeons, by dispensations, by eternities. The many things we do not know, we take on faith.

But this we know! It was all planned “before the world was” (D&C 38:1; see also D&C 49:17; 76:13, 39; 93:7; Abraham 3:22–25). Events from the Creation to the final, winding-up scene are not based on chance; they are based on choice! It was planned that way.

This we know! This simple truth! Had there been no Creation and no Fall, there should have been no need for any Atonement, neither a Redeemer to mediate for us. Then Christ need not have been."

[unixknight]

Evolution, as a branch of science, has become a religion and Charles Darwin is its prophet.

The trouble with Evolution, and the reason it's still classed as a theory and not a Law, is because Science, true Science, requires the following things:

1)It must be reproducible. You must be able to perform experiments and observe consistent results. Evolution cannot be reproducible by its very nature; it's a process that takes millions of years.

(I know about the fruit flies. That proves diddly squat.)

2)It must be observable if it can't be reproduced in a lab. As with the problem above, it cannot be observed because it takes millions of years.

At best, Evolution can be relegated as no more than a theory that happens to fit the known facts. (Although it doesn't even really do that.)

I've seen Evolution apologists insist that Theory now carries the same weight as Scientific Law, so that they can claim Evolution is as absolutely indisputable as Thermodynamics and Gravity. This isn't so, but it won't prevent them from shouting down anyone who dares to disagree. (present company excepted, of course :) )

I've seen too many cases where Evolutionary data has turned out to have been falsified or distorted to be able to trust that theory now. If a theory is sound, then there should be no need to falsify or distort.

What's worse is that a friend of mine, a high school science teacher, admits to these problems but says they still teach it because it's the best they've got. Well, I'm not sure exactly how something that's demonstrably false is better than nothing except that it allows one to avoid believing in the Creator, or at least, crediting Him with originating life on this world. "Anything but God" is what keeps Evolution alive.

/rant

:)

[Dravin]

At best, Evolution can be relegated as no more than a theory that happens to fit the known facts. (Although it doesn't even really do that.)

That's pretty much science in general. Plate tectonics is a theory that fits the known evidence and low and behold its what is taught in Earth Sciences just like Evolution is taught in the Biological Sciences. Science is not religion where it claims objective truth, it claims a non-falsified explanation of observed phenomena. If you want objective truth to only be taught in science class you pretty much remove science from the curriculum.

As an aside about previous scientific theories having been falsified, that's the strength of science not the weakness.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Dravin

[Omegasevx]

.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Omegasevx

[dieublanc]

So are you saying that the current manuals of the church (that I quoted from earlier) are wrong with regards to the origin of man?

[HiJolly]

So are you saying that the current manuals of the church (that I quoted from earlier) are wrong with regards to the origin of man?

No, I'm confident that the manuals are undoubtedly quoting their sources accurately.

It is my belief that their sources are wrong in what they say, except perhaps the first quote, in which the word 'man' is a special definition that is not understood properly in normal everyday contexts.

It is most unfortunate that President Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Bruce R McConkie, Elder Mark E Petersen, President Harold B Lee and President Boyd K Packer are (or were) incorrect on organic evolution, but at least President David O McKay, Elder John A. Widtsoe, Elder James E Talmage and Henry Eyring all understood organic evolution as true.

Having lived in the 60's and 70's to see the more fundamentalistic viewpoints prevail in the Church, and having realized the error in those viewpoints, I am deeply saddened that such teachings have caused such resistance to truth on this matter, within the Church.

HiJolly

[Tyler90AZ]

You didn't answer my question. We're smarter than the average primate, yes. The size of the intellectual gap is atypical, yes. But that doesn't change the fact our bodies perform the same basic functions as other mammals (I'm not just talking about primates here). We eat, we sleep, we breathe, we reproduce. And eventually we die. This same cycle exists throughout the animal kingdom. So I'll ask again, how does our intelligence alone make us immune from the biological process of evolution that shapes the natural world?

Intelligence that is undoubtedly greater then any other animal proves that we were created for a greater purpose. It doesn't change the argument that we have the same basic functions as mammals. We are more intelligent then all animals even ones from the Great Ape family. God created us after his own image!

The fossil record suggests otherwise

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… " David B. Kitts PHD Zoology

Can I get links for your fossil evidence, so I can research it?

Evolution hasn't been debunked. As I said, it's actually been validated by new scientific discoveries that were far beyond Darwin's time. Some of the evidence and the exact conclusions that can be drawn from it is up for debate. Natural selection is as well, as I mentioned earlier. But the fact that a species undergoes changes through the passing of generations is virtually indisputable.

I never said evolution has been debunked; I was merely stating other theories that have been proven wrong. My point was that the evolution religion isn't 100% right. It is not a fact; it takes faith to follow.

I agree species do make changes, but my point is that humans are not from the Great Ape family. They were created in Gods image!

You really like that intelligence argument, don't you?

I love the intelligence argument. Look at all animal families and they have the same intelligence level. Even the Great Ape family has the same intelligence level. The only exception is humans. Which leads me to believe that humans are not part of the Great Ape family.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that the ecosystem itself can adjust to changes. If a specific species can't adapt, it goes extinct. It's called "survival of the fittest". Evolution is the reason why organisms fit into their respective environments so well.

I was waiting for you to say that, because this argument could be used either way.

I just feel like intelligent design is the logical argument. The universe and earth in particular is just to complex. Many parts work together simultaneously. That is putting faith aside.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Backroads]

Hmm... came in late to this and can't think of anything else to add 'cept that I have no problem with the idea of human evolution and will continue to believe in it until I find something better.

[dieublanc]

No, I'm confident that the manuals are undoubtedly quoting their sources accurately.

It is my belief that their sources are wrong in what they say, except perhaps the first quote, in which the word 'man' is a special definition that is not understood properly in normal everyday contexts.

It is most unfortunate that President Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Bruce R McConkie, Elder Mark E Petersen, President Harold B Lee and President Boyd K Packer are (or were) incorrect on organic evolution, but at least President David O McKay, Elder John A. Widtsoe, Elder James E Talmage and Henry Eyring all understood organic evolution as true.

Having lived in the 60's and 70's to see the more fundamentalistic viewpoints prevail in the Church, and having realized the error in those viewpoints, I am deeply saddened that such teachings have caused such resistance to truth on this matter, within the Church.

HiJolly

McKay, Talmage etc all accepted evolution to a certain extent but never admitted to believing that mankind had evolved. Man evolving from lower animal orders is not in harmony with the story of Adam. Even today in our the fairly new gospel principles manual it says:

"When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death"

The manual also states:

"Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death."

Science tells us that man evolved over billions of years. Mormonism tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that their bodies were immortal until they ate of the fruit.

Thus Adam and Eve being the first humans were made in a separate creation.

[Traveler]

So are you saying that the current manuals of the church (that I quoted from earlier) are wrong with regards to the origin of man?

The manuals are addressing the origin of man - specificaly Adam, not humans or human like life forms.

Every person (decendent of Adam and Eve) that I have know about, were all created by the same method and once created as a single cell life form (much lower and less intelligent than ape life forms) they (the human zygots) evolve to become humans but not all created zygots evolve to become identifable as a human. I know of nothing in the scriptures to indicate that Adam was created differently than was his children. If there is reason to believe such a thing - I would very much like to be enlightened - But would not such a thing prove that G-d did not creat all things?

The Traveler

[dieublanc]

The manuals are addressing the origin of man - specificaly Adam, not humans or human like life forms.

Every person (decendent of Adam and Eve) that I have know about, were all created by the same method and once created as a single cell life form (much lower and less intelligent than ape life forms) they (the human zygots) evolve to become humans but not all created zygots evolve to become identifable as a human. I know of nothing in the scriptures to indicate that Adam was created differently than was his children. If there is reason to believe such a thing - I would very much like to be enlightened - But would not such a thing prove that G-d did not creat all things?

The Traveler

The scriptures may be unclear but our prophets, seers and revelators are crystal clear. I quote again from Packer in the 2008 Ensign:

We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall.

[prophetofdoom]

I have never had a problem with the concept of evolution. I always just accepted that the Lord used evolution as the physical means to bring us into this universe or dimension we live in. I don't think that science and scripture need to disagree. I think people just get so tied down to their dogmatic beliefs.

[dieublanc]

I have never had a problem with the concept of evolution. I always just accepted that the Lord used evolution as the physical means to bring us into this universe or dimension we live in. I don't think that science and scripture need to disagree. I think people just get so tied down to their dogmatic beliefs.

I have studied the arguments for and against evolution. I am willing to admit that one can accept both the scriptures and evolution depending on your interpretation of the scriptures. But what I cannot do is accept the interpretation of those scriptures as given in our church, and evolution. If the interpretation of the scriptures as given in our current manuals and recent Ensigns by prophets, seers and revelators is incorrect then how can I accept those men as prophets? If evolution (of man) is true then we (the Church) are teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

[Guest Godless]

Intelligence that is undoubtedly greater then any other animal proves that we were created for a greater purpose. It doesn't change the argument that we have the same basic functions as mammals. We are more intelligent then all animals even ones from the Great Ape family. God created us after his own image!

Like I said, cocky. You have have yet to provide any objective evidence to suggest that our intelligence makes us immune from evolutionary processes.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… " David B. Kitts PHD Zoology

The record doesn't have to be perfect in order to be useful. There may be gaps, but there's still more than enough evidence to indicate the occurrence of evolution.

Can I get links for your fossil evidence, so I can research it?

This website is a pretty good place to start.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

I never said evolution has been debunked; I was merely stating other theories that have been proven wrong. My point was that the evolution religion isn't 100% right. It is not a fact; it takes faith to follow.

There's no such thing as an infallible scientific theory. Theories are constantly growing and "evolving" as new evidence is found and old evidence is reevaluated. A theory doesn't have to be perfect in order to be correct. ID supporters like to make a big deal of the fact that there are aspects of evolutionary theory that biologists can't agree on. They point to that and call evolution a "theory in crisis", which is far from the truth. That's just the nature of science.

I love the intelligence argument. Look at all animal families and they have the same intelligence level. Even the Great Ape family has the same intelligence level. The only exception is humans. Which leads me to believe that humans are not part of the Great Ape family.

Now that I think about it, I believe you're wrong. There are intellectual gaps elsewhere in the animal kingdom as well. Look at dogs, for example. Why are border collies so much smarter than, say, pomeranians (and trust me, there's a huge intellectual gap there)?

[Tyler90AZ]

Like I said, cocky. You have have yet to provide any objective evidence to suggest that our intelligence makes us immune from evolutionary processes.

It is your burden to disprove my argument..... Then I will promptly form a rebuttal....

My argument is that animals and humans were created at two different times.

[HiJolly]

If the interpretation of the scriptures as given in our current manuals and recent Ensigns by prophets, seers and revelators is incorrect then how can I accept those men as prophets?

There *is* the problem, just so. Trust me, as you learn & grow, you can indeed accept both things. As you learn the history of this Church, you can find reason to trust & believe the prophets, AND accept that they are men that make occasional and even long-term mistakes of judgment, just like any of us do.

I testify that Heavenly Father allows it. It is a necessary condition of the veil and associated moral agency.

If evolution (of man) is true then we (the Church) are teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Yep -- just as the temple teaches us. And it's ok, because this is mortality, and that's what we all have to deal with.

HiJolly