Sign in to follow this  
Lakumi

The World and its Creation

Recommended Posts

The scripture I am referring to is Moses 3:7, "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word." (emphasis added)

 

The opening statement in italics below the picture of the First Presidency declares this, "the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."  This article expresses the Church's doctrinal position regarding the matter of evolution.  

 

The Origin of Man, "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. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."

 

"True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

 

It is clear from our doctrinal position as given by our First Presidency in 1909 that Adam was first man, first flesh, and that Adam and Eve existed and are literal offspring of God/deity.  Adam will again return to claim his right as the patriarch of the human race, the offspring of God.

 

Regarding the term "flesh", "Flesh has several meanings: (1) the soft tissue that makes up the bodies of mankind, animals, fowls, or fish; (2) mortality; or (3) the physical or carnal nature of man."

 

In reference to these scriptural understandings of definition of it appears we can safely remove definition #3 because at this time they were not devilish nor were they carnal.  

 

Yet, the understanding you provide gives further cogitation regarding "flesh" meaning "living soul."  

Thanks, I completely agree with your quotes and statements here.

 

I guess I am trying to explain to those reading this that the term "man" and the use of the word "flesh" of man refers only to beings that are the offspring of God.   I also believe that Adam and Eve are the first of our race as you have quoted but that does not preclude the preparation for mortality including creations that are human-like but not man.

 

I would also consider the idea that "our race" really is not the current body we have.  Our current body is a fallen one which is in the image of God but had to be transformed from the Garden of Eden version that Adam and Eve first received.  Our race is the type that lives forever.  Our current body could not fit that description any more than one could say that an ape is like a human.  Our bodies (not spirit) have more in common with an ape right now with this current fallen body than we do with a being that lives forever.  And that is why I think it is easy to forget who we really are and people start to accept their fallen state as self.  Part of our Earthly test is to avoid spiritually internalizing carnal traits, to avoid calling the physical carnal body, self.   Of course, if one believes that we did not fall that far from the paradisical state to our current state then one would believe there hardly is any difference.  But if we did not fall that far, then Christ' atoning act is no big deal.  The magnitude of the Fall is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Atonement.  To me, those were big events. If those were big events then our current physical body is far from being like "our race".

 

To become "our race" a humanoid body would have to have been first created as a perfect, paradisiacal body in surroundings that were perfect and then fall from that state.  Obviously, that does not describe the process of evolution, it is more lke the opposite direction, a down grade. The down grade or temporary state will be reversed and then we will go back to being "our race".   Human pride centers around the idea that we are upgraded versions of previous forms and that is the evil of the theories of evolution.  Whereas, humility comes from realizing that we are in a fallen state from the original creation, fallen so far that we can't get out of the pit without help, we couldn't naturally get back to that state. Satan loves to try to teach people that they don't need God or His ways to be like God, that they can somehow naturally get there on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the OP;

I think evolution occurs (and is a very sensible), I think there's a lot of evidencial support for it... altho it has the small problem black holes do; we can't observe it directly to the extent to absolutely show that's how all the different organisms came into existence. (IE we haven't had enough observation time to that extent)

That said there's nothing stopping some entity that has the know-how and capability to mess around with it or introduce other forms of change or pressures (much like a programmer can adapt and change a program).

I remember a talk I read once by some online group, lds related.

A lot of people complain about God, the tinkerer, he had another perspective that I appreciated.

He related God to a programer, he said some people believed this programer was the best programer ever, he created every program in existence, and that was amazing. This person said he believed in something different, he believed this programer created a program that was so great, that it could change itself, adapt itself, and it eventually became all of the programs there were.

He then said that he believed the second version was the greatest programmer there could be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a talk I read once by some online group, lds related.

A lot of people complain about God, the tinkerer, he had another perspective that I appreciated.

He related God to a programer, he said some people believed this programer was the best programer ever, he created every program in existence, and that was amazing. This person said he believed in something different, he believed this programer created a program that was so great, that it could change itself, adapt itself, and it eventually became all of the programs there were.

He then said that he believed the second version was the greatest programmer there could be. 

ya i tend to relate God that way a little or as a chessmaster XD

Edited by Blackmarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get grouchy and stuff!

 

Oh and if faith is " is not to have a perfect knowledge of things" why do so many religious folk say they know instead of believe.

 

 

Some misuse it.... Others very likely have had such a powerful spiritual witness that Know is the correct term... Even if they can't prove it to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is proof?  We know and can demonstrate (prove) that evolution exist.  For example aging is an evolutionary process.  The question is – can one species evolve from another?  Yes!  The proof is surprisingly simple and old going back even into ancient times.  By selective breeding we can evolve a new species from a male donkey bred with a female horse and evolve a mule.   Evolving new species is not a new thing but we are learning new things about evolution.   More recently we have discovered how to change the genetic makeup of embryos with a virus that introduces sufficient new genetic structures that will result in a new species.   It is believe that viral infections in time of extreme pressure on many classes of life can cause evolutionary explosions of new species.  

 

It is not really a matter of proof because there are many that will, for various reasons stand in the very light of the noon day sun and declare it night.  Thus it is even as the old saying – there are none more blind than those that will not see - or as Jesus said – having eyes but seeing not.

 

From a religious stand point, G-d has been defined by many as a creator that made each different kind of creature uniquely without any evolutionary relationships.   Many are unable to consider any other method from their design of divine character.   Yet, the more we learn the more we find evidence that it is unlikely G-d designed life individually in such a manner but rather created life from a very singular design from which it would seem that infinite varieties has sprung.   I believe the great flaw of religion in modern times is to declare that evolution would disprove the existence of a Christian G-d.  A declaration I believe to be heresy to the core.

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skipping back to the OP....

 

Do you believe in Creationism, or do you believe in Evolution.

 

 

Yes.  

 

I believe that God created the world.  However, my God is not a magician to go *poof* and pull a planet out of thin air.  Rather, my God is a carpenter, whom carves creation stroke by stroke.  He created this Earth one tiny organism at a time, working through evolution to build up to His final masterpiece (us).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is proof?  We know and can demonstrate (prove) that evolution exist.  For example aging is an evolutionary process.  The question is – can one species evolve from another?  Yes!  The proof is surprisingly simple and old going back even into ancient times.  By selective breeding we can evolve a new species from a male donkey bred with a female horse and evolve a mule.   Evolving new species is not a new thing but we are learning new things about evolution.   More recently we have discovered how to change the genetic makeup of embryos with a virus that introduces sufficient new genetic structures that will result in a new species.   It is believe that viral infections in time of extreme pressure on many classes of life can cause evolutionary explosions of new species.  

 

It is not really a matter of proof because there are many that will, for various reasons stand in the very light of the noon day sun and declare it night.  Thus it is even as the old saying – there are none more blind than those that will not see - or as Jesus said – having eyes but seeing not.

 

From a religious stand point, G-d has been defined by many as a creator that made each different kind of creature uniquely without any evolutionary relationships.   Many are unable to consider any other method from their design of divine character.   Yet, the more we learn the more we find evidence that it is unlikely G-d designed life individually in such a manner but rather created life from a very singular design from which it would seem that infinite varieties has sprung.   I believe the great flaw of religion in modern times is to declare that evolution would disprove the existence of a Christian G-d.  A declaration I believe to be heresy to the core.

Yes, that is the story of the Garden of Eden.  A singular creation, each species of its kind from which all other varieties occured as a result of the Fall.  God created one man and one woman from which the variety of the human race spawns. 

 

We, unfortunately, have no ability to see what God created, "each different kind of creature" because what He created was in the Garden of Eden.  Then there was a Fall from that creation to something else.  What we currently see around us and likely even in the fosil record is the result of the Fall, not what God created in the Garden of Eden.  By definition, the paradisiacal creations don't die and therefore there would be no fosil record of God's creations.  The fosil record is a tracing of the things that die, those are things created by the Fall.

 

By definition then, Evolution as described by scientists would have to be a descrition of a corrupted, ever mutating and changing from the original process, which I think it is.  Christian religion speaks of the goal of being one, Evolution speaks of the goal of becoming specialized, unique and of various forms.  These are opposing purposes and directions.  The greater purpose of God is to reverse the effects of evolution, to restore the creation to its original, the Garden of Eden version.  Evolution serves its purpose, a carnal, corrupted varied from the straight and narrow purpose for a short period of time. Gods message has never been 'be unique', 'be unlike me', 'do what comes natural', 'make sure to separate and distinguish yourself from your neighbor'.  There are many who do just that and few that try to be 'one' with God. 

 

What the world gets wrong in this discussion is the idea that God "created" all the things that were actually created by the effects from the Fall.  Yes, secondarily, He allowed for it to happen and all things come from Him originally but the workings of man as well as the influence of Satan are allowed to happen in this existence and the fruit of that agency and that temporary influence is what we see around us. The whole world was changed at the Fall.  This is not a pure, God acting by Himself creation around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is proof?  We know and can demonstrate (prove) that evolution exist.  For example aging is an evolutionary process.  The question is – can one species evolve from another?  Yes!  The proof is surprisingly simple and old going back even into ancient times.  By selective breeding we can evolve a new species from a male donkey bred with a female horse and evolve a mule.   Evolving new species is not a new thing but we are learning new things about evolution.   More recently we have discovered how to change the genetic makeup of embryos with a virus that introduces sufficient new genetic structures that will result in a new species.   It is believe that viral infections in time of extreme pressure on many classes of life can cause evolutionary explosions of new species. 

 

I am not so sure a mule is a good example for evolution, for evolution to exist the evolutionary species must be able to reproduce.  A mule is unable to reproduce after its kind.

 

What I see in the mule case is man interfering with a natural breeding and as a result the new species is unable to reproduce. 

 

They did this also with a Liger, but I haven't read anything specifying this Liger was able to reproduce offspring. 

 

I have no objections accepting the evolution within a species, as they say the horse and zebra would have evolved from a species further down the evolutionary line.  Sure, I can accept this.  The evolutionary species is still a horse.  Much like trout.  There a plenty of species of trout all probably evolving from the same type of species.

 

What I object to, because of no proof, is the change of one species into a whole new species unlike, in any detail, to its progenitor.  A fish ultimately becoming a man.  What evidence does science have to offer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure a mule is a good example for evolution, for evolution to exist the evolutionary species must be able to reproduce.  A mule is unable to reproduce after its kind.

 

What I see in the mule case is man interfering with a natural breeding and as a result the new species is unable to reproduce. 

 

They did this also with a Liger, but I haven't read anything specifying this Liger was able to reproduce offspring. 

 

I have no objections accepting the evolution within a species, as they say the horse and zebra would have evolved from a species further down the evolutionary line.  Sure, I can accept this.  The evolutionary species is still a horse.  Much like trout.  There a plenty of species of trout all probably evolving from the same type of species.

 

What I object to, because of no proof, is the change of one species into a whole new species unlike, in any detail, to its progenitor.  A fish ultimately becoming a man.  What evidence does science have to offer? 

How would a fish becoming like a man fit your requirements of "a whole new species unlike, in any detail, to its progenitor"?

 

If that were possible to turn a fish into a man it would still share some features with some detail.  It would share some DNA pairiings, enzymatic functions, some similar cell structure etc. All creatures in the world have some things in common, we could find some detailed similarities in almost all creatures, so that is a straw man argument.

 

The truth is that scientist have been making synthetic life for a long time.  Scientists can manipulate the DNA structure and pairs to produce a new version of the species that had never existed before and would not be found in "nature".  Plasmids are put into E. Coli DNA and different proteins are made as a result, for example.  What you are asking about sounds like something that has already been done; "The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."  They extracted the DNA from one completely different organism, synthetically produced the DNA and put it into that cell with the original DNA removed and created a whole new species from which it could reproduce on its own that newly created species.   Is that not proof enough that it could be done?  God knowing all the DNA arrangements of every species as "it has always been done" could plop that into material prepared from the Earth and form all sorts of living things that did not have a "mother" of natural birth.  Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a fish becoming like a man fit your requirements of "a whole new species unlike, in any detail, to its progenitor"?

 

It is understood, at least from what I remember reading, the horse and zebra, as we see them today, resulted from a common ancestor a horselike animal.  Alright, as mentioned, I an accept this.  They still resemble each other, within the same kind.

 

What resemblance do I have of a fish?  We have bones, we have blood, we have DNA.  When asked about these questions and someone gives an example the new species is always in likeness of the previous example.  A mosquito, new species of mosquito.  Fine, I accept.  We have observation and replication.  A new species of plants, which is still in the likeness of its parent. 

 

I am not against evolution, just think its interesting when people call it a scientific fact without any evidence to back up a change in kind.  All species produce after their kind, this is scripture.  Now, what is their kind?  This is still an unknown as to what was actually meant.  However, when it comes to accepting the First Presidencies message regarding the human specifies not evolving from any lower life-form -- well, not a question for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is understood, at least from what I remember reading, the horse and zebra, as we see them today, resulted from a common ancestor a horselike animal.  Alright, as mentioned, I an accept this.  They still resemble each other, within the same kind.

 

What resemblance do I have of a fish?  We have bones, we have blood, we have DNA.  When asked about these questions and someone gives an example the new species is always in likeness of the previous example.  A mosquito, new species of mosquito.  Fine, I accept.  We have observation and replication.  A new species of plants, which is still in the likeness of its parent. 

 

I am not against evolution, just think its interesting when people call it a scientific fact without any evidence to back up a change in kind.  All species produce after their kind, this is scripture.  Now, what is their kind?  This is still an unknown as to what was actually meant.  However, when it comes to accepting the First Presidencies message regarding the human specifies not evolving from any lower life-form -- well, not a question for me.

All I can find are quotes regarding Adam and not "human species" but maybe I am not looking hard enough.  For example, from "The origin of man" is states; "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."

 

Again, I think there is a difference between what God created in the Garden vs the fallen world creatures after the Fall, including the effects the Fall had on the human body.  These statements also don't preclude the possibility that when the sons of God marry the "daughters of men" that there be some 'horse plus donkey = mule' going on.  We would still be descendents of the first man but also fulfil the idea that we have corrupted bodies and have a life span something less than 930 years. May it be possible that the mix was too corrupted at the time of Noah, and had to be re-balanced? 

 

Again "human" from a religious stand point means physical body in which a spirit child of God is placed.  That started with Adam who was created.  So, that is not speaking of any other kind of creature development that does not have a spirit child of God in it.

 

The religious definition of species and their "kind" might be the form of the creation in which that entity will be resurrected in.  Species may not be so well represented by the sum total of all the mutations and corruption that has taken place since the Garden of Eden to make the animal into its varied forms. (this is my speculation)  In other words a fox and a polar bear might really be of the original creation line of what ended up being Carnivora (interestingly no meat eating in the Garden of Eden), so the pre-Fall Carnivora animal might be the primal parent of both the bear and the fox which may be the "kind" it will be in resurrection.  We don't know how grouped or divided those lines are other than Adam named them all, which makes it seem like there weren't thousands or millions of "kinds".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is understood, at least from what I remember reading, the horse and zebra, as we see them today, resulted from a common ancestor a horselike animal.  Alright, as mentioned, I an accept this.  They still resemble each other, within the same kind.

 

What resemblance do I have of a fish?  We have bones, we have blood, we have DNA.  When asked about these questions and someone gives an example the new species is always in likeness of the previous example.  A mosquito, new species of mosquito.  Fine, I accept.  We have observation and replication.  A new species of plants, which is still in the likeness of its parent. 

 

I am not against evolution, just think its interesting when people call it a scientific fact without any evidence to back up a change in kind.  All species produce after their kind, this is scripture.  Now, what is their kind?  This is still an unknown as to what was actually meant.  However, when it comes to accepting the First Presidencies message regarding the human specifies not evolving from any lower life-form -- well, not a question for me.

 

I sort of think that is being picky. Really all we are talking about is time. You can take something through a series of steps, each one having a resemblance to the step before it, and end up with something that doesn't in any way resemble the original step. 

@I forgot who mentioned hybrids

I don't think hybrid's really demonstrate evolution. In my understanding an idea of evolution (more specifically modern synthesis) is that we trace back to one single ancestor, this ancestor didn't have other species to breed with. That can not have been a means of speciation when it requires sexual reproduction and multiple species. Hybrid's are very, very rare in the wild. 

Edited by jerome1232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of think that is being picky. Really all we are talking about is time. You can take something through a series of steps, each one having a resemblance to the step before it, and end up with something that doesn't in any way resemble the original step. 

 

 

Exactly right. I think speciation skeptics often fail to grasp the enormity of the time period over which macroevolution occurs. Think about it, less than one million years ago our ancestors were living in trees. Animal life on earth has been around for over half a billion years. Think about the changes that could take place in that time period. Fish develop lungs and legs, eventually becoming reptiles and amphibians. Some of those reptilian species evolved into the first mammals. Others evolved to become dinosaurs and birds (you'd be surprised how closely related the two are).

 

So to say that humans evolved from fish is technically correct in the grand scheme of things, but it leaves out hundreds (probably thousands) of evolutionary branches in between us and them. The evolution of modern life is not linear. It's a very large and incredibly complex tree from which all life can be traced to common ancestors. Skeletal structure would suggest that birds and reptiles are very closely related. Our origins can be traced back to rodent-like mammals, which evolved from rodent-like reptiles. The fact that some mammals can lay eggs isn't a coincidence, neither is the existence of aquatic mammals like whales and dolphins. If you go far enough back, we all have common lineage that ultimately took us in very different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a biologist, I like to remind everyone of the simple concept that manifest evolution; that is random genetic change that increases reproductive success!  That is evolution at its basic core.  I use this example to demonstrate in class; take a bacterial infection of 1,000,000 cells, apply an antibiotic and kill 99.99%.  That leaves 0.01% of 1,000,000 that survived the antibiotic based on random mutations in its DNA that provided resistance to the antibiotic.  That is evolution in real time!  Godless makes a good point above; evolution is a LONG term processes!  Also, species DO NOT evolve from each other, rather they share a common ancestor based upon common characteristics. Most of the time we do not know what the common ancestor was because the fossil record only goes back so far! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a biologist, I like to remind everyone of the simple concept that manifest evolution; that is random genetic change that increases reproductive success!  That is evolution at its basic core.  I use this example to demonstrate in class; take a bacterial infection of 1,000,000 cells, apply an antibiotic and kill 99.99%.  That leaves 0.01% of 1,000,000 that survived the antibiotic based on random mutations in its DNA that provided resistance to the antibiotic.  That is evolution in real time!  Godless makes a good point above; evolution is a LONG term processes!  Also, species DO NOT evolve from each other, rather they share a common ancestor based upon common characteristics. Most of the time we do not know what the common ancestor was because the fossil record only goes back so far! 

 

Isn't this example technically adaptation, not evolution.  Evolution requires the change of alleles from parent to offspring, not an adaption or immunity to anitibiotics.

 

Now, this immunity for this small percent will be passed down, but this doesn't mean their will be a change in the alleles specifying a new species to occur.

 

Yet, will adaptation correlate with evolution, sure I couldn't argue this.  A species must adapt to survive.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, @jerome1232, and @Godless -- this isn't missed.  I understand the "long process" claimed for evolution, and I understand the fish to human wasn't the first evolutionary step.  I am simply specifying a known beginning for the theory of evolution to a known end -- fish to human.  No need to go into detail, a fish >> some animal >> some animal >> many years which can't be replicated >> human.

 

Leaves a lot open for debate.  Is it to picky to expect science to produce actual evidence for a theory for this long process?  I think not, but then again this is just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a biologist, I like to remind everyone of the simple concept that manifest evolution; that is random genetic change that increases reproductive success!  That is evolution at its basic core.  I use this example to demonstrate in class; take a bacterial infection of 1,000,000 cells, apply an antibiotic and kill 99.99%.  That leaves 0.01% of 1,000,000 that survived the antibiotic based on random mutations in its DNA that provided resistance to the antibiotic.  That is evolution in real time!  Godless makes a good point above; evolution is a LONG term processes!  Also, species DO NOT evolve from each other, rather they share a common ancestor based upon common characteristics. Most of the time we do not know what the common ancestor was because the fossil record only goes back so far! 

In other words, corruption is at the core of evolution, as you said "genetic change". 

 

Not so much change is described in the scriptures as "express image"; Hebrews; "

 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"

 

D&C 138; " 40 Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam."

 

Change may be okay for this world but better yet is to be not to far off the original copy, Adam and the Father, which is what the restoration from resurrection entails, reversing the effects of the Fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, @jerome1232, and @Godless -- this isn't missed.  I understand the "long process" claimed for evolution, and I understand the fish to human wasn't the first evolutionary step.  I am simply specifying a known beginning for the theory of evolution to a known end -- fish to human.  No need to go into detail, a fish >> some animal >> some animal >> many years which can't be replicated >> human.

 

Leaves a lot open for debate.  Is it to picky to expect science to produce actual evidence for a theory for this long process?  I think not, but then again this is just me.

From a gospel doctrine stand point, what is missed if our temporary body (mortal body) was pre-formed through some kind of a controlled evolutionary process?  After all this mortal body is not the same as the body of God that is eternal and is not the same as the one created in the Garden of Eden, this is not a heavenly body or a paradisiacal body.  Nor does this body by itself, naturally, have the potential to be heavenly or eternal.  So long as it returns to dust from where it came, why does it matter if the physical body came from whatever source or method, we are still spiritual children of God. 

 

How would it change your gospel understanding if the mortal body (by itself is not "man") did come from a fish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a gospel doctrine stand point, what is missed if our temporary body (mortal body) was pre-formed through some kind of a controlled evolutionary process?  After all this mortal body is not the same as the body of God that is eternal and is not the same as the one created in the Garden of Eden, this is not a heavenly body or a paradisiacal body.  Nor does this body by itself, naturally, have the potential to be heavenly or eternal.  So long as it returns to dust from where it came, why does it matter if the physical body came from whatever source or method, we are still spiritual children of God. 

 

How would it change your gospel understanding if the mortal body (by itself is not "man") did come from a fish?

 

It doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaves a lot open for debate.  Is it to picky to expect science to produce actual evidence for a theory for this long process?  I think not, but then again this is just me.

 

I agree, too many people scream "It's a fact!!" and if you notice I was arguing earlier that it wasn't proven. I do however think the argument that evolution occurs "within kind" but doesn't lead to speciation doesn't hold. Where do you draw this arbitrary line when each step resembles the step before it?

edit: I make a lot of mistakes when I'm distracted haha, oh boy.

Edited by jerome1232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this