Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

No. If anything, judging by comparative cranial capacity, the Homo neanderthalensis were possibly smarter than the Homo sapiens of the time.

Guesswork at it's finest. Typical of evolutionary scientists.

[MrShorty]

I'm not sure I'd call it guesswork. It seems more like a perfectly reasonable application of that most basic principle of modern science (dare I utter the word) uniformitarianism  (cough cough) uniformitarianism. As Vort pointed out, we clearly and easily observe a solid correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence in modern mammals and hominids. It is a perfectly natural and normal extension under the principle of uniformitarianism to make such a conclusion about prehistoric hominids based on these observations of modern mammals.

Of course, it seems that this is ultimately what creationists want to get to. They don't want to accept uniformitarianism as a scientific principle. When all is said and done, I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about this. Modern science is built on uniformitarianism, and I don't think anything creationists can say will ever change that.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure I'd call it guesswork. It seems more like a perfectly reasonable application of that most basic principle of modern science (dare I utter the word) uniformitarianism  (cough cough) uniformitarianism. As Vort pointed out, we clearly and easily observe a solid correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence in modern mammals and hominids. It is a perfectly natural and normal extension under the principle of uniformitarianism to make such a conclusion about prehistoric hominids based on these observations of modern mammals.

Of course, it seems that this is ultimately what creationists want to get to. They don't want to accept uniformitarianism as a scientific principle. When all is said and done, I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about this. Modern science is built on uniformitarianism, and I don't think anything creationists can say will ever change that.

Something that is perfectly natural, even a normal extension, can still be guesswork. The conclusion often is the guesswork.

As pertaining to the example given by @Vort with larger dogs vs. toy dogs, there are different studies that speak otherwise and has more to do with the breed of the dog, not its size. A study done in New Zealand from a professor provided this about why larger (actually medium sized dogs) appear smarter or more intelligent, "Really small dogs are hard to train. . . Really big dogs on the other hand are really hard to physically handle. . . Hence medium dogs, the Goldilocks’ dog, are seen as being the most intelligent. This does not mean they actually are the most intelligent, they are just perceived to be."

Another quote, ""These may look like intelligence, or bias someone towards thinking some breed is more intelligent than another, but the difference is a result of physical-shape differences, not inherent intellectual or cognitive capacity."

From a different article, "In the Coren listing of canine intelligence, which ranks the main hundred or so dog breeds from top to bottom in order of intelligence, the dogs that make up the top twenty or so members on the list have very little in common in terms of their size and build. Both small, medium and large dogs rub shoulders across every part of the list, indicating that there really is no brain or head size rule when it comes to measuring canine intelligence."

So this "easily [observabble and] solid correlation" of a given example doesn't appear to be as solid as you might think. As I have shared before, there was a solid correlation given in one research article that everyone had "free will", unitl the other guy used the same evidence to provide solid correlation for "determinism."

Scientist, as with other people (if not "common") pick and choose what they support, or can use the same evidence to support their theory.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure I'd call it guesswork. It seems more like a perfectly reasonable application of that most basic principle of modern science (dare I utter the word) uniformitarianism  (cough cough) uniformitarianism. As Vort pointed out, we clearly and easily observe a solid correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence in modern mammals and hominids. It is a perfectly natural and normal extension under the principle of uniformitarianism to make such a conclusion about prehistoric hominids based on these observations of modern mammals.

Of course, it seems that this is ultimately what creationists want to get to. They don't want to accept uniformitarianism as a scientific principle. When all is said and done, I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about this. Modern science is built on uniformitarianism, and I don't think anything creationists can say will ever change that.

The present is definitely not the key to the past. Our scriptures testify as a witness of catastrophism.

[Highlander]

Quote

On 8/1/2018 at 12:55 PM, Scott said:

Let's just use this definition:

organic evolution The process by which changes in the genetic composition of populations of organisms occur in response to environmental changes.  Dictionary of Biology

 

Yes, I believe in organic evolution. It's evident just in analysing phenotypes of animals, there are plenty of mutations found in humans and genetic adaptions that humans have made to fit their environments.

Organic evolution doesn't disprove the creation. I don’t think we evolved from apes over millions of years. Science is just a way we view and understand Gods creations.

[FoolsMock]

I don't, however I have no problem admitting I'm wrong.  Imagining us in a room with Heavenly Father, if Heavenly Father said "you were wrong on this, organic evolution is reaL", I would gladly say "okay, I was wrong.  I was feeling like part of Satan's mission is to confuse our identity and connection to God The Father, and I felt some of the angles of organic evolution and how they were taught by the philosophies of men went along with that desire of Satan.  But I was wrong, and I can admit it"

 

I have no issue admitting if I'm wrong, at this point in time, with how the Book of Mormon testifies of secret combinations and their power and with how Godless the philosophies of man are and how organic evolution can be used to imply we originated as tiny organisms and grew into these concepts of humans over time (were we not made in the image of God The Father in the pre-earth life?), I get red flags

[SpiritDragon]

I haven't read through yet, just the beginning and have to admit that I don't care in the context being discussed. However, if pressed for an answer I would say yes I believe carbon containing products such as crude oil can evolve into more pure products like gasoline 😄

[MrShorty]

(At the risk of reopening this wound before it has healed) @Scott

(and others) who is "just curious about the numbers" -- you may find this recent publication interesting: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205798&type=printable

 

[NeuroTypical]

Irony: Some of the more passionate voices rejecting evolution, can be appropriately given the nickname "dinosaurs". 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

(At the risk of reopening this wound before it has healed) @Scott

(and others) who is "just curious about the numbers" -- you may find this recent publication interesting: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205798&type=printable

I notice that a primary contributor to that paper was Dr. Bradshaw.  He was the primary source that led me to my acceptance of evolution to the level that I do accept it.

[mikbone]

That “paper” is a survey

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, mikbone said:

That “paper” is a survey

Do you really want to pick at straws here?  I'll win, I assure you.

[mikbone]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you really want to pick at straws here?  I'll win, I assure you.

Win what?  Its pseudo research.  Surveys directed at undergrads.  Don’t know that I would call it science.  Just saying.

Of what is it to convince me of?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Win what?  Its pseudo research.  Surveys directed at undergrads.  Don’t know that I would call it science.  Just saying.

Of what is it to convince me of?

Bait and switch.

[MrShorty]

Calling it "just a survey" I think understates what it represents. Yes the paper is a compilation of "just a survey" results -- surveys given to multiple BYU undergrads over ~30 years. The demographic is kind of narrow (BYU undergrads -- mostly freshmen I expect -- only). The intriguing things about the survey results, are how they appear to have changed and stayed the same over time.

I'm not always sure what constitutes true science (or true religion for that matter), but measuring the trends in the opinions of BYU freshmen over 30 years seems like more than "just a survey", and seems like just the kind of data that an accredited educational religious institution might be interested in tracking and understanding. This particular thread started with a poll question and the OP described himself as being interested in these kind of numbers, so I thought he (and others) would be interested in the numbers as well.

Edited November 14, 2018 by MrShorty

[mikbone]

In the medical literature, clinical trials and research study articles are arranged in a ranking system called "levels of evidence".  This system has been developed to help physicians and medical researchers recognize the reliability of the material.  Level I is the best type of study, and Level V is probably just a step above tissue paper (although sometimes much worse).[1]  

Level I: High-quality randomized controlled prospective studies

Level II: Original retrospective cohort studies, and low-quality randomized controlled prospective studies (i.e. <80% follow-up).

Level III: Case control studies, non-consecutive studies. Good-quality observational surveys with >80% response rate.

Level IV: Case series and poor-quality cohort and case-control studies. Poor-quality observational surveys with less than 80% response rate.

Level V: Expert opinion without evidence-based critical appraisal

 

---

[1] Wright, James G. MD, Introducing Levels of Evidence to the journal, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Jan 2003, Vol 85, Issue 1, p. 1-3

 

The Scientific Method is a procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Survey's don't really have much experimentation.  Essentially just end user answers to questionnaires with statistical manipulation.

Most Freshmen in college don't even have a basic understanding of the theory of evolution.  

Now if you were to have the same study among GA's over the past 30 years that I would find interesting.  Still not science though...

[mikbone]

[T]here was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it. I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death.[1]

 

---

[1] Jeffery R. Holland, "Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet," April 2015 General Conference.

 

I can't really explain it better than this.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, mikbone said:

[T]here was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it. I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death.[1]

---

[1] Jeffery R. Holland, "Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet," April 2015 General Conference.

I can't really explain it better than this.

The problem is that all faithful Saints believe the above, including those who accept organic evolution.

38 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Level I: High-quality randomized controlled prospective studies

Level II: Original retrospective cohort studies, and low-quality randomized controlled prospective studies (i.e. <80% follow-up).

Level III: Case control studies, non-consecutive studies. Good-quality observational surveys with >80% response rate.

Level IV: Case series and poor-quality cohort and case-control studies. Poor-quality observational surveys with less than 80% response rate.

Level V: Expert opinion without evidence-based critical appraisal

The gap between III and IV is the huge chasm.

[Guest MormonGator]

Has anyone ever had their mind changed in the "debate" between evolution and creationism in online forums? Oh sure, I know someone will say "Just by talking to me, I can show them the error of their ways and change their mind!" but really-that never happens. 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

In the medical literature, clinical trials and research study articles are arranged in a ranking system called "levels of evidence".

So, the only valid definitions and rankings for science are those given in a medical (specifically looking at surgical methods) journal? As a chemist, I am well aware of some of the disdain that we in the hard sciences can express towards those in the social sciences. If we want, we can branch into our own bash on the social sciences thread. When all gets said and done, though, I'm not sure it is appropriate to stubbornly insist that surveys like this are not science, when they are a perfectly good, scientific way to measure people's (in general or a specific demographic) attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. Certainly they can be done well, or they can be done poorly, some have better methodology than others, and there can be real value in critiquing someone's methodology (and they frequently do). For those who are interested in how members of the Church view evolution (and some of the theological challenges and nuances that science versus religion bring), the survey results should prove interesting.

[mikbone]

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So, the only valid definitions and rankings for science are those given in a medical (specifically looking at surgical methods) journal? As a chemist, I am well aware of some of the disdain that we in the hard sciences can express towards those in the social sciences. If we want, we can branch into our own bash on the social sciences thread. When all gets said and done, though, I'm not sure it is appropriate to stubbornly insist that surveys like this are not science, when they are a perfectly good, scientific way to measure people's (in general or a specific demographic) attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. Certainly they can be done well, or they can be done poorly, some have better methodology than others, and there can be real value in critiquing someone's methodology (and they frequently do). For those who are interested in how members of the Church view evolution (and some of the theological challenges and nuances that science versus religion bring), the survey results should prove interesting.

If you are only interested in freshman responses.  I don’t think that you can associate this ‘study’ with how “members of the Church view evolution.”

They could have sent the questionnaires out to a regular cross section of the membership.  But they didn’t, it went to a hostage focus group that likely were required to fill out the paperwork.

 

And unfortunately there are too many orthopaedic basic science studies in JBJS.  Bench studies blah!

Edited November 14, 2018 by mikbone

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Has anyone ever had their mind changed in the "debate" between evolution and creationism in online forums? Oh sure, I know someone will say "Just by talking to me, I can show them the error of their ways and change their mind!" but really-that never happens. 

Many years ago Dr. Bradshaw (Biology professor at BYU) made his case to approximately 600 students regarding the synergy between the creation stories we know of in scriptures with the qualities of evolution that are hard to deny.  During the same semester, my Pearl of Great Price professor was vehemently arguing against it.  And he made an excellent case as well. So, I got a good dose of both sides during the same semester. 

Because of that experience of hearing everything on both sides, I was able to merge the ideas in my mind to a point where I felt at peace with the balanced picture I saw.    Since then I haven't really heard reasoned discussion on the matter.  A lot of yelling and insulting each others' intellect or lack of information.  And I don't see a whole lot of listening.

Since I find myself in the middle, I do get a kick out of listening to the debate.

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

(At the risk of reopening this wound before it has healed) @Scott

(and others) who is "just curious about the numbers" -- you may find this recent publication interesting: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205798&amp;type=printable

 

I disagree with their assessment that because LDS students are more acceptable to evolution it must mean the k-12 instruction is better. What a bunch of hogwash! They basically are saying that belief in an actual Creator makes you stupid whereas believing in what scientists say on the other hand makes you smarter. Ridiculous! How do we know our kids are just plain dumber now and that's why it's easier to pull the wool over their eyes?

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I do get a kick out of listening to the debate.

I do as well, I just don't think peoples mind change while listening. 

[mikbone]

If you take the stance that this mortal experience is simply a virtual simulation then both evolution and creationist are incorrect.