Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?


DennisTate
 Share

Are LDS open to the idea of Theistic Evolutionary Theory?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Latter day Saints open to some variation of Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    • No
      4
    • Yes
      5
    • Perhaps... but that will depend on the wording for the explanation.
      5


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Dismatt said:

Well, compare this to what's said in Abraham (4:20-21):

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

...

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

A few things I find interesting here: the waters/earth are described as being "prepared" to bring forth "after their/his kind". Based on this description it doesn't appear to me that whales or the living creatures were created on the spot but that the environment was prepared to to be brought forth and the Gods watch and see that they were obeyed. Also in v2 it states "and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters." An 1828 dictionary of "Brood" gives: "To sit on and cover, as a fowl on her eggs for the purpose of warming them and hatching chickens, or as a hen over her chickens, to warm and protect them."

Notice also the creation of man is described separately.

I only find this interesting, I don't expect to understand the creation process and I know evolution has been denied by Church leaders but currently takes no stance. I just find it interesting that this sounds very similar to the general consensus among scientists.

I understand the theories you are mentioning; however, it appears to be a stretch of scripture. I can "prepare" a chicken coop in order to put chickens in the coop, and for them to have the opportunity to produce after their kind. This doesn't mean the chickens will evolve in the coop and then become chickens. So, I don't see how it "appears" as you have theorized.

The farmer prepared the chicken coops that they might bring forth more chickens after their kind. So, I honestly don't see the connection unless someone is trying to force a theory in scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2020 at 1:57 PM, Anddenex said:

Here is a good article to read from a First Presidency of the Church given in 1909, "Origin of Man."

 

Thank you immensely for this.......

Here is a statement from a near death experiencer that I think Latter day Saints will tend to take more seriously and understand better than most Evangelical Christians will tend to do.

 

https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/richard-eby-and-secomd-coming-of-christ.html#a03

 

Dr. Richard Eby:

 

Quote

 

Jesus hesitated as I tried to capture the immensity of his explanations.

"You must understand, my son, that original creation mirrored the composition and perfection of Person-God. All creation vibrated in unison with us! There was total accord and harmony everywhere as the whole creation was resonating with and in God!

"Each separate thing or being thus carried out an appointed task in our scheme for the universe. A heaven-form of music resulted as even the stars sang in their appointed circuits. Here in paradise you are hearing these melodious vibrations directly upon your new mind, undistorted. On Earth you heard distorted sounds through the air waves. Throughout heaven the music flows from my throne, uninterrupted, undefiled, and peace-giving."

Jesus paused again.

"My book tells of the time when Lucifer's rebellion in heaven changed some things. He sought to usurp my Father's throne, assume his position as the most high God, and to rule the universe. For that blasphemy Lucifer was cast from heaven to Earth; in fact, I saw him fall as a bolt of lightning! In a tantrum of hate and rage over being deposed so fast he and his fallen angels disfigured our perfect Earth. It became void and uninhabitable. For punishment befitting his enemy of God, Lucifer was given a new name, Satan, since he was the self-appointed 'adversary' of the Almighty. Anything that God had made, Satan would attempt to destroy from then on. As Lucifer he had been created the highest angel about the throne, one of his assignments and talents being the chief musician in charge of worship and music. In his rebellious anger he set about destroying harmony on and in the Earth from then on. That is why the Earth where he operates now is out of harmony with God's other creations. In my book we call this disharmony 'sin', because it defies God's will that even the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show his handiwork.

"But be of good cheer, my son. The Father has permitted me to overcome Satan's world system of sin, and to destroy the works of Satan, and to re-establish righteousness in the hearts of my friends. Eventually in his chosen time he will restore all creation as it once was, in him!"

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dismatt said:

Well, compare this to what's said in Abraham (4:20-21):

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

...

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

A few things I find interesting here: the waters/earth are described as being "prepared" to bring forth "after their/his kind". Based on this description it doesn't appear to me that whales or the living creatures were created on the spot but that the environment was prepared to to be brought forth and the Gods watch and see that they were obeyed. Also in v2 it states "and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters." An 1828 dictionary of "Brood" gives: "To sit on and cover, as a fowl on her eggs for the purpose of warming them and hatching chickens, or as a hen over her chickens, to warm and protect them."

Notice also the creation of man is described separately.

I only find this interesting, I don't expect to understand the creation process and I know evolution has been denied by Church leaders but currently takes no stance. I just find it interesting that this sounds very similar to the general consensus among scientists.

 

 

 

Wow!!!

 

Thank you immensely for this because this is exactly the type of material that I suspected that might be there in LDS scriptures and other writings. 

 

One near death experiencer was shown that the Elohim of Genesis 1:26 and 27 was the Seven Spirits of God but....  there really were fourteen because they were twins.....  one male and one female. 

I actually do not believe in the ability of a species to evolve into a truly different species...... my idea is that God evolved or learned over infinite time in the past. .... so I am partly agreeing with those who believe in evolution..... but only partly. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2020 at 1:48 PM, Traveler said:

 

It is my understanding that the concept of "creation" in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not ex nihilo or out of "nothing" but more of a concept of intelligent engineering of change or to organize.    To be honest, I cannot think of a better definition or statement of evolution than that idea of constant vigil of intelligent oversight in maintaining order in a universe capable of change - especially change defined by the second law of thermal dynamics. 

I have argued with many fellow scientists - that believing life can evolve by chance from singularity is infinitely more far fetched and improbable than the probability of a G-d.  But then my atheists friends say - that such does not answer where G-d came from - to which I say they missed the whole point that intelligence evolves.  Since we know intelligence exist because we are intelligent - that evolution defines at its foundation that G-d is a possibility that cannot be discounted without explicit proof.

 

The Traveler

Yup. The Hebrew word for create, bara, doesn't mean to create something out of nothing. It more appropriately means to organize, the same way a man might assemble raw material to "create" a vehicle. This seems to be in alignment with the law of conservation of mass, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. God was not creating ex nihilo as  you say, he was simply organizing matter that already existed. 
 

Microevolution is a scientific fact. There's no denying that. It's observable, it's repeatable, it's testable. We can see this within the canine and feline families. The macro side of evolution is the one where people have trouble wrapping their heads around. Believing that the offspring of one taxonomic group can change to another group is very difficult to reconcile. I believe in evolution in the sense that things change over time. But, I believe there are limits within each species. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

To reconcile with what?

Macroevolution, the idea that essentially one animal can change into another kind. That's much, much different than microevolution, which is something like horses, and donkeys, and zebras all deriving from the same common ancestor. But, that's where the evolution stops. You don't cross over into other kinds. At least we don't have any evidence for this. Some like to argue that it takes millions and millions of years to see the results of macroevolution; they'll say it's basically microevolution + microevolution + microevolution... a thousand times over. Okay, I get that. But, there's still no evidence for it. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the offspring of a parent will produce something other than its own kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

Macroevolution, the idea that essentially one animal can change into another kind. That's much, much different than microevolution, which is something like horses, and donkeys, and zebras all deriving from the same common ancestor. But, that's where the evolution stops. You don't cross over into other kinds. At least we don't have any evidence for this. Some like to argue that it takes millions and millions of years to see the results of macroevolution; they'll say it's basically microevolution + microevolution + microevolution... a thousand times over. Okay, I get that. But, there's still no evidence for it. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the offspring of a parent will produce something other than its own kid.

You and I share a common understanding of evolution. Evolution, at its core, is factual (simply a change of alleles). In that light, evolution can be observed from father/mother to son/daughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

Macroevolution, the idea that essentially one animal can change into another kind. That's much, much different than microevolution, which is something like horses, and donkeys, and zebras all deriving from the same common ancestor. But, that's where the evolution stops. You don't cross over into other kinds. At least we don't have any evidence for this. Some like to argue that it takes millions and millions of years to see the results of macroevolution; they'll say it's basically microevolution + microevolution + microevolution... a thousand times over. Okay, I get that. But, there's still no evidence for it. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the offspring of a parent will produce something other than its own kid.

A few questions to help me understand, offered as sincere questions and not as some sort of setup to a killing blow.

How are you defining a "kind" of animal? For example, you seem to consider horses and donkeys to be "of a kind", even though they're clearly different types of animals. Are lions and tigers "of a kind"? Seals and walruses? Dolphins and pilot whales? Crocodiles and alligators? Gorillas and orangutans? Coho salmon and chinook salmon? Houseflies and horse flies?

You can find a wide tropical bay around which six distinct types of finches live, called (for this example) A, B, C, D, E, and F. Finch A lives on one side of the bay's wide outlet, and Finch F lives on the opposite side. Finches A and B can and do interbreed successfully, as do Finches B and C, C and D, D and E, and E and F. Finches A and C can sometimes successfully interbreed, as can B and D, C and E, and D and F. Fertility continues dropping as the populations get further separated. A and F cannot successfully interbreed, and in fact are morphologically distinct from each other. No one would confuse Finch A with Finch F, any more than people might confuse a horse with a donkey. Are these finches of a common kind?

What is the basis of your belief that successive generations of animals cannot diverge and develop into startlingly different kinds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Macroevolution, the idea that essentially one animal can change into another kind. That's much, much different than microevolution, which is something like horses, and donkeys, and zebras all deriving from the same common ancestor. But, that's where the evolution stops. You don't cross over into other kinds. At least we don't have any evidence for this. Some like to argue that it takes millions and millions of years to see the results of macroevolution; they'll say it's basically microevolution + microevolution + microevolution... a thousand times over. Okay, I get that. But, there's still no evidence for it. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the offspring of a parent will produce something other than its own kid.

This is exactly what I think as well.....

but unlike most "Orthodox Christians" I do believe that God learns at get better and better and better and better at creating life forms in all dimensions of space and time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

A few questions to help me understand, offered as sincere questions and not as some sort of setup to a killing blow.

How are you defining a "kind" of animal? For example, you seem to consider horses and donkeys to be "of a kind", even though they're clearly different types of animals. Are lions and tigers "of a kind"? Seals and walruses? Dolphins and pilot whales? Crocodiles and alligators? Gorillas and orangutans? Coho salmon and chinook salmon? Houseflies and horse flies?

You can find a wide tropical bay around which six distinct types of finches live, called (for this example) A, B, C, D, E, and F. Finch A lives on one side of the bay's wide outlet, and Finch F lives on the opposite side. Finches A and B can and do interbreed successfully, as do Finches B and C, C and D, D and E, and E and F. Finches A and C can sometimes successfully interbreed, as can B and D, C and E, and D and F. Fertility continues dropping as the populations get further separated. A and F cannot successfully interbreed, and in fact are morphologically distinct from each other. No one would confuse Finch A with Finch F, any more than people might confuse a horse with a donkey. Are these finches of a common kind?

What is the basis of your belief that successive generations of animals cannot diverge and develop into startlingly different kinds?

So, when I mentioned zebras,  donkeys, and horses, they all come from equidae family. None of their offspring, IMO, will ever change taxonomic families. Can you create new breeds? Sure, of course. That is a part of microevolution. It happens all the time. But, all of those new breeds are confined to the equidae family. Macroevolution is something wildly different. It is crossing over from one taxonomic group to another. Although, I'm not on board with all of the classifications for taxonomic families. Humans, for example, are considered to be a part of the same family as gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and apes. I don't believe in the least bit that we share a common ancestor with the other species in the hominidae family.

So yes, I believe in evolution. But there are restraints to how far a species can evolve. A fish, for example, will never evolve into a monkey, or anything like unto it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ldsguy422 said:

So, when I mentioned zebras,  donkeys, and horses, they all come from equidae family. None of their offspring, IMO, will ever change taxonomic families.

I think that the underlying question from @Vort can be answered by looking at the bolded.  If we can get technical, are you specifically saying that life-forms cannot have eventual descendants who will be an entirely different "taxonomic family" -- as opposed to phyla, classes, orders, genus, etc.  If not, would there be such a technically specific categorization that you would consider "kind"?  Or is it just a general, non-specific "kind"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using horses as an example of micro but not macro evolution strikes me as interesting. It has been a long time, but I still recall the day in an evolution class where we talked about the evidences that whales are evolved from ungulates. A quick browse of Wikipedia's entry, suggests they were even-toed ungulates (like cows) where horses are odd-toed ungulates. The cladogram at Wikipedia claims that hippos are the closest evolutionary relatives to whales, cows and other even toed ungulates would be a little more distantly related, and, eventually, you would get back to a point where horses and whales have a common ancestor.

In a completely different case, many biologists consider birds and dinosaurs (theropods, specifically) to be of the same type. If we are going to limit ourselves to microevolution, are we comfortable saying that ducks and chickens and robins and starlings are the same type but different breeds in the same group as tyrannosaurs and allosaurs?

For me, the final death knell for my early rejection of macroevolution was that day in this same evolution class when the professor brought out his ape and hominid skulls, talked about the differences between ape and human "types" and then we wnet through his collection and saw how some hominids were more ape like than modern humans, but they were also clearly hominids and not pure apes.

It is easy enough to claim that macroevolution does not happen, but merely asserting it as fact does not adequately address the many fossil evidences that are given for macroevolution. We can claim that the evidence for macroevolution is weak, or that it is biased by the researchers desire to validate their theories, or that it is misguided. We can challenge the evidence or reject the evidence as we will, but I don't think we can simply assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

The macro side of evolution is the one where people have trouble wrapping their heads around. Believing that the offspring of one taxonomic group can change to another group is very difficult to reconcile. I believe in evolution in the sense that things change over time. But, I believe there are limits within each species. 

If we accept the scriptures as being accurate, the Ark of Noah is not large enough to hold all the known current species of worms.  I have great difficulty wrapping my head around those that claim to literally believe the Biblical version of the Noah epoch that do not believe the macro side of evolution. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DennisTate said:

This is exactly what I think as well.....

but unlike most "Orthodox Christians" I do believe that God learns at get better and better and better and better at creating life forms in all dimensions of space and time.  

Interesting thoughts - but do you realize that G-d created the shark before he created the dinosaurs and has not improved on its basic design since then.  Also that many consider mankind to be his greatest creative achievement - but he used himself for that design - which is a design what existed long before even the shark?  Why did he wait so long to create man - when he already a working prototype?

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I think that the underlying question from @Vort can be answered by looking at the bolded.  If we can get technical, are you specifically saying that life-forms cannot have eventual descendants who will be an entirely different "taxonomic family" -- as opposed to phyla, classes, orders, genus, etc.  If not, would there be such a technically specific categorization that you would consider "kind"?  Or is it just a general, non-specific "kind"?

When we look at the basic structure of all living things - we could say that all living things are basically the same kind of thing.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

If we accept the scriptures as being accurate, the Ark of Noah is not large enough to hold all the known current species of worms.  I have great difficulty wrapping my head around those that claim to literally believe the Biblical version of the Noah epoch that do not believe the macro side of evolution. 

 

The Traveler

Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution. I believe there's a wide range of variation within each family. Hence, new species are created all the time. That's a fact. But, I believe there are natural limits to genetic change; an organism can only vary so much. The microevolutionary variations are horizontal. The macroevolutionary variations would be vertical, completing crossing over into different taxonomic groups altogether. That's the part I have trouble accepting. 

Another thing to consider, is Moses 4:1

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore alook, and I will show thee the bworkmanship of mine chands; but not all, for my dworks are without eend, and also my fwords, for they never cease.

 I've always assumed this meant works and creations on other planets. But, part of me feels like some of the creations were formed and organized after Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said this before and I will say it again:  Even if it were that macro-evolution of species is a true principle, at best, it is no longer a necessary characteristic of the creation process and, in fact, would be an inefficient mechanism in the creation of an earth.  Why?  Since evolution requires death and gradual adaptation over millions of years, once the process is completed a single time, why would you start it all over again?  If we agree that God has created 'worlds without number' and that Moses did indeed see the vast expanse of his creations, would it not be more efficient for God to simply relocate plants, animals, and all manner of living creatures - including mankind - from one planet to another?  If so, then while evolution may have been used at one point in eternities past, it was not needful or prudent to begin it anew for the creation of our world.  Would a perfect God not also be perfectly efficient?  I believe he would!

Let us consider another perspective:  Suppose for a moment that you were tasked to create something new; however, this something new would already have many similarities to something that already exists.  Would you not use your knowledge of what already exists to create this new thing?  If God created man, could he not decide to create monkeys with similar features?  If God knows that an animal will need a heart, lungs, kidneys, mouth, eyes, etc, could he not have simply designed his own creatures using this knowledge?  Do we not have artists in our world today who have taken what they know of our earth and designed fictitious creatures in the likeness of other creatures?  Of course we do.  If we, as imperfect and fallen man, are capable of such designs, surely God is capable of so much more.

I return to my original premise.  Regardless of whether or not macro-evolution is ultimately revealed as a true principle, it was certainly not necessary for the creation of man on this earth because man already existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ldsguy422 said:

Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution. I believe there's a wide range of variation within each family. Hence, new species are created all the time. That's a fact. But, I believe there are natural limits to genetic change; an organism can only vary so much. The microevolutionary variations are horizontal. The macroevolutionary variations would be vertical, completing crossing over into different taxonomic groups altogether. That's the part I have trouble accepting. 

Another thing to consider, is Moses 4:1

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore alook, and I will show thee the bworkmanship of mine chands; but not all, for my dworks are without eend, and also my fwords, for they never cease.

 I've always assumed this meant works and creations on other planets. But, part of me feels like some of the creations were formed and organized after Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden. 

Thanks for the little discussion.  For the record - As we consider creation of life - any limitation we place on how it occurs is a direct limitation on G-d.  What he can do as well as what he does do.  I am of the mind that until I know for sure - I tend towards the preponderance of empirical evidence.  That is - that all life has a singular intelligent source - without such understanding, life is the single greatest mystery and probability enigma of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics that life is the most complex and rare commodity of our universe. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have said this before and I will say it again:  Even if it were that macro-evolution of species is a true principle, at best, it is no longer a necessary characteristic of the creation process and, in fact, would be an inefficient mechanism in the creation of an earth.  Why?  Since evolution requires death and gradual adaptation over millions of years, once the process is completed a single time, why would you start it all over again?  If we agree that God has created 'worlds without number' and that Moses did indeed see the vast expanse of his creations, would it not be more efficient for God to simply relocate plants, animals, and all manner of living creatures - including mankind - from one planet to another?  If so, then while evolution may have been used at one point in eternities past, it was not needful or prudent to begin it anew for the creation of our world.  Would a perfect God not also be perfectly efficient?  I believe he would!

Let us consider another perspective:  Suppose for a moment that you were tasked to create something new; however, this something new would already have many similarities to something that already exists.  Would you not use your knowledge of what already exists to create this new thing?  If God created man, could he not decide to create monkeys with similar features?  If God knows that an animal will need a heart, lungs, kidneys, mouth, eyes, etc, could he not have simply designed his own creatures using this knowledge?  Do we not have artists in our world today who have taken what they know of our earth and designed fictitious creatures in the likeness of other creatures?  Of course we do.  If we, as imperfect and fallen man, are capable of such designs, surely God is capable of so much more.

I return to my original premise.  Regardless of whether or not macro-evolution is ultimately revealed as a true principle, it was certainly not necessary for the creation of man on this earth because man already existed.

It would be much easier to take a single seed of life from which all other life could spring than than billions of possibilities.

Also death is not necessary for evolution.  All life as we know is constructed from the building blocks of cells.  When a cell divides there is diversity - not just between the two resulting cells but from the original cell - that did not die but no longer exists.  That fact that you age is a process of evolution.  And you were created as a single cell creature that evolved into something quite different - and you never died.

What many fail to realize is that evolution is defined as change.  The scriptures are quite interesting in that by faith and covenant we evolve (change) and become a "new" creature.  I would also suggest (thought I do not know it) that it is quite possible that the resurrection by the very definition of evolution and all we understand - to be an evolutionary process.  An evolution where the same genetic type humans evolve - some into Celestial, others Terrestrial and still others as Telestial beings.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

When we look at the basic structure of all living things - we could say that all living things are basically the same kind of thing.

 

The Traveler

Sure.  We're all made of protons, neutrons, and electrons -- which makes any discussion about differentiation of species moot.

😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

It would be much easier to take a single seed of life from which all other life could spring. . .

That directly validates my point that if macro-evolution were a true principle, it would have needed only to happen once, hence there is no reason to believe that our earth's inhabitants were generated via the process of evolution.

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Also death is not necessary for evolution.

A mutation occurs by 'chance' and that mutation turns out to be beneficial; those with the mutation thrive and in many cases, those without it, die.  Hence the mutation doesn't die out, only because it is advantageous.  Mutations that lack advantage die out, because the mutation is not desirable to the population.  Modern medicine works to overcome this.

Without mortality, mutation would not occur.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

And you were created as a single cell creature that evolved into something quite different - and you never died.

You are using the word evolution to represent what is colloquially referred to as growth.  No one is arguing against growth.  The embryo already has within it all information about what it will grow into; a human embryo doesn't change into some creature other than human.

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What many fail to realize is that evolution is defined as change.

Yes, most people know that; It has been repeated often and is essentially the same as your position on an embryo growing into a human.  Not what anyone else in this thread talking about when referring to evolution

Quote

“I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God. Since then I have become acquainted with what to me is a far more important and wonderful kind of evolution. It is the evolution of men and women as the sons and daughters of God, and of our marvelous potential for growth as children of our Creator.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

If macro-evolution were real in the eternal sense without mortality being needed, why would evolution stop?  Why do we identify glorified man as the ultimate perfection?  Are there more advantageous mutations that will occur?  Our scriptures indicate that God is a man.  You would have to suggest that there could be beings greater than God either now or in the future eternities; that is not something I am willing to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, person0 said:

would it not be more efficient for God to simply relocate plants, animals, and all manner of living creatures - including mankind - from one planet to another?  If so, then while evolution may have been used at one point in eternities past

It's an interesting idea. Some questions that come to mind:

Does this hypothesis fit better into an eternally existing static universe? How would this fit into a cosmology where the universe's age is finite (our current estimates are about 13 billion years)? Or is the idea of "eternities past" referring to time/space outside of our universe?

If I assume that the idea is about transporting existing living things from one point in our universe to another, and considering the age of the universe, is it possible that we are the planet where the evolutionary processes are taking place, and that our planet will provide the "seed organisms" used to populate other planets?

Is there enough time between the appearance of larger atoms (like carbon, iron, silicon, etc.) that dominate the makeup of our rocky planet in the early universe for another solar system to go through the complete process of evolution to provide the "seed organisms" for our planet? Even if there is enough time, it suggests that we are only one or two generations after the initial, but I still wonder if maybe we are the first.

Of course, a lot of that assumes the universe is self-contained and we are products of this universe. What are the implications if we are transplants from outside of the universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Why?

The issue for me with macroevolution is it's not observable, it's not repeatable, it's not testable. It also defies logic and reason, for me at least, that a fish could ever evolve into a mammal. 

We descended from humans, right? No other species was ever involved. And we can create new races, such at Latinos, a mixture of European and Native American blood. But, our ancestors and descendants will always be humans. The same goes for canines. Dogs and wolves can have a wide range of variation between them - and inevitably we'll see more breeds over time.  But, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population can only vary so much. This is consistent with Mendel's Laws.

And there really aren't any positive mutations that can form into complex entities, is there? At least I'm not aware of any that have been observed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Using horses as an example of micro but not macro evolution strikes me as interesting. It has been a long time, but I still recall the day in an evolution class where we talked about the evidences that whales are evolved from ungulates. A quick browse of Wikipedia's entry, suggests they were even-toed ungulates (like cows) where horses are odd-toed ungulates. The cladogram at Wikipedia claims that hippos are the closest evolutionary relatives to whales, cows and other even toed ungulates would be a little more distantly related, and, eventually, you would get back to a point where horses and whales have a common ancestor.

In a completely different case, many biologists consider birds and dinosaurs (theropods, specifically) to be of the same type. If we are going to limit ourselves to microevolution, are we comfortable saying that ducks and chickens and robins and starlings are the same type but different breeds in the same group as tyrannosaurs and allosaurs?

For me, the final death knell for my early rejection of macroevolution was that day in this same evolution class when the professor brought out his ape and hominid skulls, talked about the differences between ape and human "types" and then we wnet through his collection and saw how some hominids were more ape like than modern humans, but they were also clearly hominids and not pure apes.

It is easy enough to claim that macroevolution does not happen, but merely asserting it as fact does not adequately address the many fossil evidences that are given for macroevolution. We can claim that the evidence for macroevolution is weak, or that it is biased by the researchers desire to validate their theories, or that it is misguided. We can challenge the evidence or reject the evidence as we will, but I don't think we can simply assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution.

I think the difficulties in accepting macro-evolution on that type of scale is that we have not yet actually had an observation of it occurring (that I know of).  We have not seen the evolution of a Bird to a Tiger, or even greater, of a plant to an animal.

We HAVE seen things (and maybe full macroevolution) regarding that on microbial scales (viruses, bacteria, etc).  It's a lot easier and possible as their generations pass and move much faster than that of the creatures higher up on the scale (such as mammals).

Thus, it is a theory that we are still trying to verify with hard evidence.  Much like there were many theories (and we still use some of those theories for spaceflight) that were hypothetical in our missions to space and to the moon (for example, we only had ideas and theories, even if very STRONG theories, of whether there was any breathable environment on the moon...etc) which were verified as fact once we were able to go there (go to space...go to the moon), evolution may be very similar in some aspects (or could even be disproven).

I tend to think that in regards to our aging of the universe we have taken a more Darwin approach (Darwin originally thought that evolution only took several thousand years in comparison to the millions of years we have now) and that instead of Billions of years it is possible that our universe may actually be Trillions of years (if not older) of years old.  We can only see so far with our measurements and with those we evaluate that the universe is 13 Billion years (give or take a few million), but how can we be certain without at least taking measurements and visiting the original origination of the Big Bang's location?  It could be we are still off on how long evolution may have taken or other various aspects of evolution (much like we were with some aspects of space travel and even the moon, though our theories were largely correct in many ways, unexpected things also occurred which we did not know about).

Until we can actually observe it (macroevolution on higher creatures such as mammals) in action and have it repeatable as either experiment or on other viewings, it can be difficult to move it from being a theory in some areas (such as the Leakey theories and such).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share