God in the Evolutionary Gap?

[wenglund]

While researching the evolution of sexual reproduction, I was surprised to learn that scientist have been puzzled for some time as to how sex (“a mode of reproduction involving the fussion of female gamete/ovum and male gamete/spermatozoon”-see HERE) occurred and has maintained for billions of years, let alone become the predominate form of reproduction-- for 99.9% of eukaryotes (see HERE), or in other words, it is the reproductive mode for all humans, most all animals, and most plants, fungi, protists, etc. (see HERE).

They view it as a mystery because the conventional wisdom suggests that, in evolutionary terms, sex is "inferior" to asexual reproduction for two key reasons: 

: 1) typically, with sex, only half of the population (female) is capable of bearing offspring, whereas asexually 100% are capable; and 2) only half the genes of each parent may be passed on, whereas 100% of the genes are passed on asexually. (see HERE)  In other words, asexual reproduction can reproduce much more quickly than sex. (see HERE)

 

Several hypothesis have been bandied about, such as pleasure and genetically variable offspring—though there are serious challenges to both. (see HERE) Other explanations include deleterious mutation (see HERE)  and the Red Queen—i.e. sex is needed to fight disease (see HERE) However, in recent years, the theory of “sexual selection” has gained favor (see HERE and HERE), where “members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection). These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have better reproductive success than others within a population, either from being more attractive or preferring more attractive partners to produce offspring.” (ibid.)

I wonder if this mystery may be a case where God legitimately fills the gap in scientific knowledge--where God provides the answer that science has yet to consider?

We know from the scriptures that God created them, male and female created he them ( Gen. 1:27, Mt 19:4, Moses 2:27-28)  And, while this refers overtly to mankind, I think animals can be inferred from it as well, particularly given the command to Moses to gather to the ark male and female beasts (Genesis 7:2-3,9,16)

Also, In Gen. 2:18 God explains how and why he created male and female.  He created Eve using the rib of Adam--which I interpret to mean that he took the X from the XY chromosomes of the man and created the XX chromosomes for the woman.. And, his purpose in creating the woman was because the man needed a "help meet"--which I interpret to mean (borrowing from economics), specialization and comparative and absolute advantages (see HERE and HERE).

What do you think?

 Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

While researching the evolution of sexual reproduction, I was surprised to learn that scientist have been puzzled for some time as to how sex (“a mode of reproduction involving the fussion of female gamete/ovum and male gamete/spermatozoon”-see HERE) occurred and has maintained for billions of years,

It has not.

I believe you meant millions of years? Or, if you prefer, "just over" 1 Billion.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Guest

[wenglund]

On 3/27/2017 at 6:30 AM, Carborendum said:

It has not.

I believe you meant millions of years? Or, if you prefer, "just over" 1 Billion.

Hundreds of millions, or over a billion, or billions...I suppose it makes a lot of difference to some people. But, to me, it kind of misses the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

On 3/26/2017 at 8:29 PM, wenglund said:

Also, In Gen. 2:18 God explains how and why he created male and female.  He created Eve using the rib of Adam--which I interpret to mean that he took the X from the XY chromosomes of the man and created the XX chromosomes for the woman.. And, his purpose in creating the woman was because the man needed a "help meet"--which I interpret to mean (borrowing from economics), specialization and comparative and absolute advantages (see HERE and HERE).

What do you think?

I think you don't have the right authority to interpret scripture for others.

[Rob Osborn]

I think its rather absurd that science thinks they can answer this. 

[wenglund]

On 3/29/2017 at 2:44 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I think you don't have the right authority to interpret scripture for others.

That's a relief. I am not ready to take over for the Holy Spirit just yet.

Besides, I am not the one with "prophet" in my screen name. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

That's a relief. I am not ready to take over for the Holy Spirit just yet.

The Holy Spirit isn't what I'm talking about. Anyone can understand scripture through the Spirit, of course, but there are men who are authorized to interpret scriptures for the world.

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Besides, I am not the one with "prophet" in my screen name. 

??

I know it's not a serious jab, but are you implying that because I use the word prophet in my screen name (which, incidentally, Folk Prophet, was the name of my college band, and is a subtle reference to Peter and Paul of the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary) that you think that somehow makes me...what......self-righteous or something? I'm not quite getting the joke.

[Guest]

On 3/29/2017 at 2:14 PM, wenglund said:

Hundreds of millions, or over a billion, or billions...I suppose it makes a lot of difference to some people. But, to me, it kind of misses the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I'm one of them to whom this makes a big difference.  You're right in my missing the point you're trying to make.  I'm still not sure what it is.  

My point is that without sufficient time, organic evolution is missing the key ingredient of sufficient time for all of the various changes to have occurred.  This has been and will remain the strongest argument for there being a sentient creator.  But that does not mean that evolution is an incorrect principle.

I have always believed that God is involved in the affairs of mankind.  I also believe He was involved in the creation of the universe.  The evolution of species throughout time is part of that.  I don't believe he just threw some "stuff" into a singularity that eventually burst on its own and eventually became the universe we know.  I believe he properly prepared things just as a master chef would put together a meal.  He lets some things set (like bread rising prior to baking).  He actively added conditions that would not normally have been there without conscious intervention (like sticking it in the oven at the desired temperature).  Then He intervened by removing it from the oven at just the right time. 

Many of these steps are just "leave it alone for a while" type steps.  But those steps must be carried out in a logical sequence for just the right amount of time for it to work best.  And there is intervention between steps.  That requires the touch of the Master's hand.  This is why I have no problem believing evolution AND creationism can both be complementary principles.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Guest

[wenglund]

58 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The Holy Spirit isn't what I'm talking about. Anyone can understand scripture through the Spirit, of course, but there are men who are authorized to interpret scriptures for the world.

??

I know it's not a serious jab, but are you implying that because I use the word prophet in my screen name (which, incidentally, Folk Prophet, was the name of my college band, and is a subtle reference to Peter and Paul of the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary) that you think that somehow makes me...what......self-righteous or something? I'm not quite getting the joke.

I wasn't sure then, but I am now, that you mistakenly assumed that I presumed to interpret scripture for the world. I didn't. And I still don't. I simply interpreted for myself, and let others decide if they agreed or not. Before, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I mentioned the Holy Spirit.

Also, I understood all along that it is the prophets who are authorized to interpret scriptures for the world. I made not the slightest attempt to usurp their authority. In fact, I didn't even speak in their name or as a "prophet." Hence, the joke. Do you get it now?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I'm one of them to whom this makes a big difference.  You're right in my missing the point you're trying to make.  I'm still not sure what it is.  

My point is that without sufficient time, organic evolution is missing the key ingredient of sufficient time for all of the various changes to have occurred.  This has been and will remain the strongest argument for there being a sentient creator.  But that does not mean that evolution is an incorrect principle.

I have always believed that God is involved in the affairs of mankind.  I also believe He was involved in the creation of the universe.  The evolution of species throughout time is part of that.  I don't believe he just threw some "stuff" into a singularity that eventually burst on its own and eventually became the universe we know.  I believe he properly prepared things just as a master chef would put together a meal.  He lets some things set (like bread rising prior to baking).  He actively added conditions that would not normally have been there without conscious intervention (like sticking it in the oven at the desired temperature).  Then He intervened by removing it from the oven at just the right time. 

Many of these steps are just "leave it alone for a while" type steps.  But those steps must be carried out in a logical sequence for just the right amount of time for it to work best.  And there is intervention between steps.  That requires the touch of the Master's hand.  This is why I have no problem believing evolution AND creationism can both be complementary principles.

I, too, consider God to be the creator and continually involved with his creations. 

However, I recognize that there are purely secular as well as religious segments of the population, and I am attempting to present things in a way plausible to both--or at least open minds to the prospect. 

I get that my attempts may largely fail with each respective audience (evidently it has from your religious perspective), but if what I suggest enlightens just a few from either segment, it was worth it. In fact, if I, alone, see it this way, I feel blessed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[person0]

Quote

“… When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77)  Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), 19–21 (Chapter 8: The Fall)

I have no problem logically accepting that evolution and creationism can be complementary.  However, given the doctrines set forth by the teachings of the Church, it does not appear that the physical evolution of species is within the realm of possibilities if one acknowledges that evolution requires physical death and physical death requires blood/mortality.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have no problem logically accepting that evolution and creationism can be complementary.  However, given the doctrines set forth by the teachings of the Church, it does not appear that the physical evolution of species is within the realm of possibilities if one acknowledges that evolution requires physical death and physical death requires blood/mortality.

I would share that interpretation.

[wenglund]

28 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have no problem logically accepting that evolution and creationism can be complementary.  However, given the doctrines set forth by the teachings of the Church, it does not appear that the physical evolution of species is within the realm of possibilities if one acknowledges that evolution requires physical death and physical death requires blood/mortality.

What I have learned from God over the years is that He, and his ways, don't fit very well in concrete conceptual boxes as fashioned  within finite and imperfect human minds, particularly given the wealth of symbolism and figurative within the gospel. To me, the "creation" is a case in point since, it is my understanding that the creation is still ongoing. In nature, it happens each year with the changes of seasons, and it happens each day with the rising of the sun. And, most important,with humans, it happens with the birth of each new baby into mortality, though we call that proCREATION, and it will happen again by way of the resurrection. Easter time is a great reminder of all this... 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-