Evolution

[dieublanc]

Well of course our prophets don't stop being fallible mortal people who can have incorrect opinions on things. Sounds like the folks you know, somehow were resting their tesimonies on the falsehood that our prophets are infallible, and that every word that issueth forth from their mouths are authored by God. Then they discovered that was a bunch of hogwash (which it is), and their 'testimonies' died.

When folks figure our prophets are perfect and always right, they are 1- figuring stuff you can't find in scripture or doctrine, and are 2- heading for a rough learning curve. Access to divine inspiration doesn't make you never wrong.

And seriously, dieublanc, 'teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture'? Are you honestly feeling forced into that statement, or are you just attempting to stir the pot?

LM

I realize it was a bit of a pot stirrer but you have to understand that in our current manuals we say “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".

I just want to be clear that if we accuse others of believing in the theories of men we should be held to the same standard (or in other words, we are guilty of the same).

It's a serious thing to have false doctrine being taught in our current manuals (if one accepts that this is indeed false doctrine). This is a big issue for many.

[rayhale]

I have some questions about evolution.

Why haven’t scientists been able to find any LIVE transitional animals in the 200 some odd years since Charles Darwin, like crude wings, or feathers on an alligator, or apes with crude speech ability? Notice I said live? There have been several different dead animals, fossils, and bones, that have said to be proof of evolution, but in all the cases, that I’ve seen, they have all been hoaxes. Why is that? Why do scientists have to lie about their discoveries?

I understand that there are several different theories on how life came to be, that is how science is sometimes, there isn’t always a clear answer.

[GeneC]

I have some questions about evolution.

Why haven’t scientists been able to find any LIVE transitional animals in the 200 some odd years since Charles Darwin, like crude wings, or feathers on an alligator, or apes with crude speech ability? Notice I said live? There have been several different dead animals, fossils, and bones, that have said to be proof of evolution, but in all the cases, that I’ve seen, they have all been hoaxes. Why is that? Why do scientists have to lie about their discoveries?

I understand that there are several different theories on how life came to be, that is how science is sometimes, there isn’t always a clear answer.

Doctrine and Covenants

Section 38

1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;

2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.

I take this to mean that even if Organic Evolution were true then God (who created all things and knoweth all things, for all things are present before His eyes) was it's creator and anything "created" from evolution would have then been "created" by God, the Creator of EVERYTHING.

So if anything any kind of "Evolution" is basically "Creationism in Progress".

But then why would God use evolution on somethings and not on Whales and Birds of the Sky and other animals mentioned in Genesis. How do we know that signs we identify as evolution weren't already part of the material the Gods used to organize the Earth.

You're right, where's the living proof? Where are the samples. Where is the proof that Genesis and the Doctrine and Covenants - and the Temple teachings are wrong. Not theory not conjecture but proof and proof that it wasn't caused by God's Creationism in the first place.

[Guest Godless]

I have some questions about evolution.

Why haven’t scientists been able to find any LIVE transitional animals in the 200 some odd years since Charles Darwin, like crude wings, or feathers on an alligator, or apes with crude speech ability? Notice I said live?

Animal life as we know it has had roughly 65 million years to evolve into its current state, and in some cases longer considering that a few species survived the last great extinction. In any case, it should come as no surprise that there are currently no transitional species. Or maybe there are. It's hard to identify a transitional species that hasn't completed its transition yet. It's also difficult to observe speciation directly since it's a process that takes place over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

There have been several different dead animals, fossils, and bones, that have said to be proof of evolution, but in all the cases, that I’ve seen, they have all been hoaxes. Why is that? Why do scientists have to lie about their discoveries?

Examples?

[Dravin]

Or maybe there are. It's hard to identify a transitional species that hasn't completed its transition yet.

The first thing that comes to my mind would be blind cave fishes or cave spiders species (who have non-functioning or minimally functioning eyes but still have them). The problem is someone who wants to can just say, "That's not transitional, God made them that way."

Edited February 14, 2011 by Dravin

[GeneC]

Which one can not prove either way.

[Dravin]

Which one can not prove either way.

Which is fine, but it would be incorrect to say that science can't find anything currently alive that suggests it's in a trasitionary state (in my examples eyes to no eyes).

Edited February 13, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

I have some questions about evolution.

Why haven’t scientists been able to find any LIVE transitional animals in the 200 some odd years since Charles Darwin, like crude wings, or feathers on an alligator, or apes with crude speech ability? Notice I said live? There have been several different dead animals, fossils, and bones, that have said to be proof of evolution, but in all the cases, that I’ve seen, they have all been hoaxes. Why is that? Why do scientists have to lie about their discoveries?

I understand that there are several different theories on how life came to be, that is how science is sometimes, there isn’t always a clear answer.

Are you talking about vestigial organs?

If so, I have 6 pet ball pythons. They have 2 spurs near their tails that are commonly attributed to vestigial limbs from their evolutionary ancestors.

There are tons of vestigial organs in the animal kingdom - from the vestigial leg bones of whales to the wings of the flightless emu.

On those hoaxes... you'll have to give an example so we can discuss that in specifics. There are zealots on either side of the discussion - a lot of them are so anxious to provide "proof" that they bypass the scientific process just so they can say, "I told you so.". For these claims, even the scientific community throws them away as junk.

For others, scientific research is not perfect. Sometimes they get things wrong. Usually, though, you'll hear it debunked by other scientists.

[rayhale]

Animal life as we know it has had roughly 65 million years to evolve into its current state, and in some cases longer considering that a few species survived the last great extinction. In any case, it should come as no surprise that there are currently no transitional species. Or maybe there are. It's hard to identify a transitional species that hasn't completed its transition yet. It's also difficult to observe speciation directly since it's a process that takes place over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

Examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) comes to mind, I’m not saying that this is a hoax, but one year the bones known as ‘Lucy’ was an ape, one year they were human, and another year they were somewhere in-between.

There are two different types of evolution, one that is within one animal type, like horses, fish, etc. and another type of evolution that is between two or more animals. Like I asked, where are the alligators with crude wings, or feathers? Like you said, they have millions of years of normal evolution, and thousands of years of human intervention, and at least thirty years of gene and DNA tampering. Why haven’t science have seen any reliable transforming animals? Or created a new animal, that can breed by itself, in a lab?

[HiJolly]

rayhale: Why haven’t science have seen any reliable transforming animals?

But rayhale, Dravin answered this question. It has. In fact, you seem to be missing a lot of pertinent information about evolution. You should take a Biology course at an accredited institution. You could learn a lot.

HiJolly

Edited February 14, 2011 by HiJolly

[rayhale]

I think you are missing a LOT of pertinent information about evolution, like where are all the evolutionary links from single cell organisms to cats, dogs, horses, alligators, apes, man, ect…

[Faithless]

I’m new to this discussion here, and have tried to read every comment carefully and would like to add some input and answer some questions. I will try to hit as many points as I can.

First off, let’s talk about Tyler’s questions and comments on the evolution of the human race.

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.

I could argue against that, because humans are only where we are today because of our ability to communicate, but I’ll let that go. Even though we are more intelligent, that doesn’t mean we didn’t evolve that intelligence. It doesn’t mean we don’t share a common ancestor with apes, who I might add are the second most intelligent animal around. The basic animal instincts are still there: the drive to breed, the drive to protect our pack, the drive to eat, all behind our emotions, which apes have as well.

Moving on, Tyler stated that animals with the same ancestors have the same intelligent level. That I know is not true. My first example is birds. A quail is a cute, but rather stupid bird. They spend most of their time grounded and are easily captured by a fox or cat. A crow, on the other hand, can create and use tools as well as learn how to use tools by watching other crows. I don’t even need to mention the dodo bird, which wasn’t even close to being intelligent at all. Another example, the same one Godless used, would be dogs. A relatively dumb dog is the bulldog. Fooling a bulldog is quite easy to do. However, compare it to a Border Collie, arguably the smartest dog you could find. They have the knowledge to herd sheep without much training, and a high memory capacity memory cappacity.

Now a question that troubles me is why do animals go extinct then??? The only explanation I can come up with is that man and earth didn't need them. They served their purpose.

Well, it’s definitely not a creator’s doing, I’ll tell you that much. Animals go extinct due to natural selection. When there is a major change in their environment, such as a new predator moving in, or a major change in climate or whether, then the population in that environment have 3 major choices. Adapt, migrate, or die. If the species doesn’t migrate, which happens, or if only some of them decide to migrate, then they have to evolve to fit the environment, which is hard if it was a quick change, or die, and thereby go extinct.

Why haven’t scientists been able to find any LIVE transitional animals in the 200 some odd years since Charles Darwin, like crude wings, or feathers on an alligator, or apes with crude speech ability? Notice I said live? There have been several different dead animals, fossils, and bones, that have said to be proof of evolution, but in all the cases, that I’ve seen, they have all been hoaxes. Why is that? Why do scientists have to lie about their discoveries?

The answer is: There are transitional animals. Obviously, they wouldn’t look like that to you or me. Evolution isn’t leading up to this point in time, it’s forever ongoing. If we had a time machine and went forward a million years, assuming that the earth was still here, we would see a new set of animals, all of which had common ancestors from our time or after. We don’t see transitional animals now because to us, they don’t look transitional. Also, apes do have crude speech ability, and can communicate with each other with sounds from their mouth and hand motions.

I’m not saying that this is a hoax, but one year the bones known as ‘Lucy’ was an ape, one year they were human, and another year they were somewhere in-between.

There are two different types of evolution, one that is within one animal type, like horses, fish, etc. and another type of evolution that is between two or more animals. Like I asked, where are the alligators with crude wings, or feathers? Like you said, they have millions of years of normal evolution, and thousands of years of human intervention, and at least thirty years of gene and DNA tampering. Why haven’t science have seen any reliable transforming animals? Or created a new animal, that can breed by itself, in a lab?

The reason it’s had a name change isn’t because it’s a fake or because they don’t know what it is; they keep changing the name because it’s neither human, nor ape. Human evolution didn’t just happen in an instant. An ape never gave birth to something human like. It happened with gradual changes. If we go back 10,000 years, humans were still around, but they were a bit more ape-like than we are. Evolution is gradual change over many years. One quick example, if I were to take 100 rabbits, and breed the two with the longest ears multiple times, I would get let’s say 50 bunnies with really long ears. If I took the two of that litter with the longest ears, and kept breeding them, I would get bunnies with even longer ears. If I then had rabbits with ridiculously long ears, I think that we would all agree that it is still a rabbit. Now, what if I did the opposite and shrunk its ears? Then grew its tail? Then shrunk its size down? It would look more like a mouse, and less like a rabbit. So, what would we call it? Some people would still want to call it a rabbit, but others would say it was something different. That is why Lucy’s name was changed, because they didn’t know if it was closer to humans or to apes.

The last question is rayhale’s as well. He asked why science hasn’t seen any transforming animals, or created a new animal, that can breed, in a lab? Well, we answered the transforming part earlier on in this comment. As for the creation of a new animal: Really rayhale? Science isn’t science fiction. We only learned what DNA was 100 years ago, and learned that it was a double helix 50 years ago. Creating a new animal would take technology that is years ahead of us. However, we are on the way to creating new life , but it’s nowhere near a breeding animal.

[dieublanc]

History deniers (as Richard Dawkins calls them) often use the argument that there are no transitional fossils or living creatures that prove for example that reptiles became mammals or birds evolved from dinosaurs.

There is in fact plenty of such evidence. For example Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians (Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

But what if there existed a living animal that was genetically both reptilian and mammalian? An animal that has remained in this 'transitional state' while other animals continued to evolve.

Well there is such an animal.......the Platypus.

This strange animal looks to have the bill of a duck, the eyes of a mole, the eggs of a lizard and the tail of a beaver!!

It comes from an early branch of the mammal family, and like mammals it is covered in fur and the female platypus feeds her newborn with milk. However, it lays eggs like a reptile.

The platypus, native to Australia, is so odd that when the first specimens were sent to Europe in the 19th century, scientists thought it was a hoax. And so some may well say "If you don't believe in evolution then I don't believe in Platypuses!!"

[GeneC]

Yes and then you have the unicorn (who missed the ark)

[slamjet]

My opinion and thoughts:

To view Evolution as a truth puts in the realm of being a philosophy. If it were scientific, it would need to be able to be proven false by the principle of Falsification. So to say that Evolution is in fact a truth and not a theory is closing the door on adding empirical evidence and turns it into a matter of faith. And if it is a matter if faith, then it's not provable by empirical methods.

Thus those who say that Evolution is true, then you've shut down the scientific method and made it a religion, so to speak. Those who say it's false have taken it out of the realm of religion, so to speak again, and are applying the scientific method. Which, by definition, holds that there is a reasoning for the theory to be possible.

So in my mind, to say it is false, or true is irrelevant. The real question is if there is a middle ground and say that evolution has some truth to it that a Creator has made physical evolution a key component into the survival of a given species, but not to all species. Just as mental evolution (or evolution of thought) is a key component to a given species and not to all species.

I believe when it is said that God created man in his own image. And that the Human race is evolving in leaps and bounds in an evolution of thoughts. But I also am willing to concede that there is a scientific basis for the evolution of some species in a physical and/or behavioral way for survival as opposed to a mental evolution.

[MrShorty]

Human evolution didn’t just happen in an instant. An ape never gave birth to something human like. It happened with gradual changes.

I'll never forget that day sitting in Dr Jeffrey's Evolution class at BYU. He comes into class pushing a cart of hominid skulls. Starts off with a discussion of what makes an ape skull different from a human skull, then proceeds to show different skulls essentially showing the progression from ape-like to human-like.

I still haven't figured out how to reconcile these opposing ideas. I often think the truth is probably going to be very interesting, and maybe unexpected.

[Faithless]

My opinion and thoughts:

To view Evolution as a truth puts in the realm of being a philosophy. If it were scientific, it would need to be able to be proven false by the principle of Falsification. So to say that Evolution is in fact a truth and not a theory is closing the door on adding empirical evidence and turns it into a matter of faith. And if it is a matter if faith, then it's not provable by empirical methods.

Thus those who say that Evolution is true, then you've shut down the scientific method and made it a religion, so to speak. Those who say it's false have taken it out of the realm of religion, so to speak again, and are applying the scientific method. Which, by definition, holds that there is a reasoning for the theory to be possible.

So in my mind, to say it is false, or true is irrelevant. The real question is if there is a middle ground and say that evolution has some truth to it that a Creator has made physical evolution a key component into the survival of a given species, but not to all species. Just as mental evolution (or evolution of thought) is a key component to a given species and not to all species.

I believe when it is said that God created man in his own image. And that the Human race is evolving in leaps and bounds in an evolution of thoughts. But I also am willing to concede that there is a scientific basis for the evolution of some species in a physical and/or behavioral way for survival as opposed to a mental evolution.

So, what you're saying is if you believe a theory is true, then it's more of a religious thought than a scientific one? I believe the theory of gravity to be true, so does that make gravity a faith based assumption and not a scientific one? Believing the theory of evolution is true does not make it invisible to change. It means that you believe the theory as a whole is true, and that if minor, or even major, facts about it change, you will look at it in a scientific way. Saying it is true doesn't shut down the scientific method. On the other hand, if you say it is false, it doesn't turn it into science. I think that unicorns, dragons, and wizards are false, but that doesn't make them science. Also, you can't accept some parts of evolution and not the other parts. Then you will just accept the parts that go along with whatever you want to believe, and deny the parts that go against it. It's the same thing with using the bible. I believe the bible as a whole isn't true. I don't think of the parts that go along with my beliefs are true, and the parts that go against it are just "symbolic".

[Tyler90AZ]

What about humans eyesight being so much better as far as color is concerned.

[slamjet]

So, what you're saying is if you believe a theory is true, then it's more of a religious thought than a scientific one? I believe the theory of gravity to be true, so does that make gravity a faith based assumption and not a scientific one?

Sorry to say but there are anomalies in the theory of gravity and it is being challenged. I"m not savvy enough to say successfully, but there is a discussion about this in scientific circles.

Believing the theory of evolution is true does not make it invisible to change. It means that you believe the theory as a whole is true, and that if minor, or even major, facts about it change, you will look at it in a scientific way. Saying it is true doesn't shut down the scientific method. On the other hand, if you say it is false, it doesn't turn it into science. I think that unicorns, dragons, and wizards are false, but that doesn't make them science. Also, you can't accept some parts of evolution and not the other parts. Then you will just accept the parts that go along with whatever you want to believe, and deny the parts that go against it. It's the same thing with using the bible. I believe the bible as a whole isn't true. I don't think of the parts that go along with my beliefs are true, and the parts that go against it are just "symbolic".

I'm just saying that I believe there is evolution, but not to the extent that it's being made to be. I'm only trying to give my .02 on how I try to mesh evolution with religion. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I read the textbooks and articles. And I'm familiar with the Scientific Method.

Science is a theory based discipline. Come up with a theory, test it out to gather empirical evidence and then support or change your theory depending on the evidence. It's an exercise in changing the theory to fit the evidence. Gather enough evidence and the theory holds more water. BUT... for the theory to be properly scientific, it has to be able to be proven false. Thus eliminating circular logic.

Religion is not like that. It's faith based on believe, personal idealism and experience. I am a Christian because I believe that Christ atoned for my sins and for the fall, thus saving me and all of humanity and the world from permanent spiritual death. This cannot be proved in an empirical way. It runs afoul of the Scientific Method because no hard evidence can be produced, and thus circular reasoning is introduced and is the norm.

Evolution, as a theory has to be able to be proven false otherwise it's no longer scientific. Circular reasoning and belief enters in and it becomes a religion. I introduced my version of a middle ground into the thread to see if it can be explored without the passions of dogma from either side.

I believe that it is this middle ground that can bridge the gulf between science and religion; a way to not violate the Scientific Method and still incorporate it into Religious Belief. I'm not saying that what I put here is correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm just trying to illicit a discussion that may be congruous to a unified understanding and cohabitation of believes and evidence.

[Faithless]

What about humans eyesight being so much better as far as color is concerned.

sorry again, Tyler, but humans have poor eye-site compared to the animal kingdom. Ever heard of the phrase "eye of an eagle"? They can see greater distances than us, and have a larger color range as well. We have three different types of cones, the cells in our eyes that let us see color, and they have five.

[Tyler90AZ]

Man is the only mammal that is not color blind. That makes them stand out from animals in the Great Ape family, along with their intelligence. The gap between human intelligence and animals from the Great Ape family is greater then any of the animals you said. I do believe in evolution for animals, but not for humans.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Guest Godless]

Man is the only mammal that is not color blind. That makes them stand out from animals in the Great Ape family, along with their intelligence.

Where did you get that notion? Anyway, you're wrong. The article has a lot of scientific jargon, but once you get past all that there's actually some pretty interesting information about the link between color vision and daytime activity levels. In a nutshell, there are a few species of primate that are colorblind due to the fact that they are nocturnal, and therefore have no need for color vision. However, most primates have some degree of color vision.

And faithless is right, our vision sucks compared to that of other animals. Animals have evolved the abilities they require to survive, which is why many species, while they may be colorblind, have much better night vision than us (even humans can't see color at night). It's also why bees can see ultraviolet light and we can't.

[Tyler90AZ]

I concede that I was running on misinformation regarding color blindness in mammals. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I still assert the original argument; that mans intelligence is superior to all animals.

I admit my fault is in posting my theory to hastily. I'm not very Darwin-esque in my approach. I prefer not to wait years to post something. Although I should take that approach.

[Faithless]

Sorry to say but there are anomalies in the theory of gravity and it is being challenged. I"m not savvy enough to say successfully, but there is a discussion about this in scientific circles.

I'm just saying that I believe there is evolution, but not to the extent that it's being made to be. I'm only trying to give my .02 on how I try to mesh evolution with religion. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I read the textbooks and articles. And I'm familiar with the Scientific Method.

Science is a theory based discipline. Come up with a theory, test it out to gather empirical evidence and then support or change your theory depending on the evidence. It's an exercise in changing the theory to fit the evidence. Gather enough evidence and the theory holds more water. BUT... for the theory to be properly scientific, it has to be able to be proven false. Thus eliminating circular logic.

Religion is not like that. It's faith based on believe, personal idealism and experience. I am a Christian because I believe that Christ atoned for my sins and for the fall, thus saving me and all of humanity and the world from permanent spiritual death. This cannot be proved in an empirical way. It runs afoul of the Scientific Method because no hard evidence can be produced, and thus circular reasoning is introduced and is the norm.

Evolution, as a theory has to be able to be proven false otherwise it's no longer scientific. Circular reasoning and belief enters in and it becomes a religion. I introduced my version of a middle ground into the thread to see if it can be explored without the passions of dogma from either side.

I believe that it is this middle ground that can bridge the gulf between science and religion; a way to not violate the Scientific Method and still incorporate it into Religious Belief. I'm not saying that what I put here is correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm just trying to illicit a discussion that may be congruous to a unified understanding and cohabitation of believes and evidence.

I agree fully with what you are saying about science being theory based and that when circular reasoning and believe is added, it becomes a religion. Thanks for going into more detail.

[Faithless]

I concede that I was running on misinformation regarding color blindness in mammals. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I still assert the original argument; that mans intelligence is superior to all animals.

I admit my fault is in posting my theory to hastily. I'm not very Darwin-esque in my approach. I prefer not to wait years to post something. Although I should take that approach.

I agree, man is more intelligent than other animals. That doesn't mean we're superior, but we are smarter. That also doesn't mean we aren't part of the great ape family. We may be smarter, but we aren't that much smarter. Look at the intelligence level from, say, a cow compared to a chimp. Both mammals, and yet the intelligence gap is leaps and bounds greater than the level in between apes and humans.