Evolution and Genesis

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't profess a literal belief in Genesis ... and neither does Indy or Tex by the way.

Here is the problem in my mind. The only problem with taking aspects of genesis literally is when this approach causes people to deny facts and evidence.

I am not saying this next paragraph applies to you or anyone else on this board. But it does a disservice to members of the Church when they are taught to believe something that denies the undeniable facts that surround us. Joseph Smith taught us to seek and embrace truth. Accepting facts of creation or the origin of most Native Americans does not negate the truths taught by the prophets or in scripture. Denying the facts ultimately causes greater problems.

What happens when children grow up and find out that things in the world aren't really as they were described? In this respect, religious fundamentalism has created a very dangerous mixture of fact and falsehood. In the end, people sometimes abandon the good that religion offers when they realize that religious people in their lives have been professing ludicrous falsehoods.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Then you must accept the fact that God created all kinds of humanoids that were capable of generating art and using tools, but were not human (and went extinct).

Never said I didn't. But I do believe that my species existed along side those humanoids and not as a result of them.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think you're misapplying the notion of "species" - it's an artificial term describing the present-day end result of a long-term differentiation in organisms.

I'm not a scientist, but I don't believe there's a "poof" moment when one species turns into a different species. I think the call for a single "missing link" is perpetuated by people who don't understand or don't believe the process.

Fossilization, and the the discovery of and accurate identification of a fossil, is a very rare and complex process. It's not a process that's going to yield a complete picture of evolution. Scientists are taking bits and pieces in the attempt to put together a big picture.

The bits and pieces that have been found tend to support the principles of natural selection and "theory of evolution."

You said it better than I did.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think you're misapplying the notion of "species" - it's an artificial term describing the present-day end result of a long-term differentiation in organisms.

I'm not a scientist, but I don't believe there's a "poof" moment when one species turns into a different species. I think the call for a single "missing link" is perpetuated by people who don't understand or don't believe the process.

Fossilization, and the the discovery of and accurate identification of a fossil, is a very rare and complex process. It's not a process that's going to yield a complete picture of evolution. Scientists are taking bits and pieces in the attempt to put together a big picture.

The bits and pieces that have been found tend to support the principles of natural selection and "theory of evolution."

Actually, separation of species usually occurs in a poof moment, where they can interbreed in one generation, but not in the next. What I mean to say is...sometimes evolution can occur in a rapid fashion---major changes in a single generation.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Never said I didn't. But I do believe that my species existed along side those humanoids and not as a result of them.

And perhaps both?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Actually, separation of species usually occurs in a poof moment, where they can interbreed in one generation, but not in the next. What I mean to say is...sometimes evolution can occur in a rapid fashion---major changes in a single generation.

For example...hairy to mostly hairless could easily be a single generation change.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Here is the problem in my mind. The only problem with taking aspects of genesis literally is when this approach causes people to deny facts and evidence.

I am not saying this next paragraph applies to you or anyone else on this board. But it does a disservice to members of the Church when they are taught to believe something that denies the undeniable facts that surround us. Joseph Smith taught us to seek and embrace truth. Accepting facts of creation of the origin of most Native Americans does not negate the truths taught by the prophets or in scripture. Denying the facts ultimately causes greater problems.

What happens when children grow up and find out that things in the world aren't really as they were described? In this respect, religious fundamentalism has created a very dangerous mixture of fact and falsehood. In the end, people sometimes abandon the good that religion offers when they realize that religious people in their lives have been professing ludicrous falsehoods.

But most of the facts and evidence you are siting are fluid and ever changing ... and we should no fear the litteral truths that can be found in Genesis.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But most of the facts and evidence you are siting are fluid and ever changing ... and we should no fear the litteral truths that can be found in Genesis.

Do you mean the literal truths you earlier disavowed or other literal truths that are not germane to this discussion? Just a little joke.

I respectfully disagree. Most of the facts cited do not change, if any at all. Some of the intperpretations might change, but not even many of those seem likely to.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think you're misapplying the notion of "species" - it's an artificial term describing the present-day end result of a long-term differentiation in organisms.

I'm not a scientist, but I don't believe there's a "poof" moment when one species turns into a different species. I think the call for a single "missing link" is perpetuated by people who don't understand or don't believe the process.

Fossilization, and the the discovery of and accurate identification of a fossil, is a very rare and complex process. It's not a process that's going to yield a complete picture of evolution. Scientists are taking bits and pieces in the attempt to put together a big picture.

The bits and pieces that have been found tend to support the principles of natural selection and "theory of evolution."

I do not disagree with your comments but I do take exception to the notion the the "call for a single missing link is perpetuated by people who don't understand or believe the process"

in order to prove the theory as currently accepted valid we must find the 'missing link' or discover the 'poof' moment ... otherwise as I have suggested the application of the theory is incorrect. As a scientific society we are walking the wrong path. Would it not be in our best interest to then look at the theory differently as opposed to hold out hope for that 'poof' moment.

EVERY peice of scientific literature I have ever read zealously clings to that 'poof' moment bonanza. Ironically the faith produced in the 'poof' moment renders the scientist an evangelist!

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Actually, separation of species usually occurs in a poof moment, where they can interbreed in one generation, but not in the next. What I mean to say is...sometimes evolution can occur in a rapid fashion---major changes in a single generation.

I need to rephrase this. I shouldn't have said "usually." My main point is that scientists are finding that evolution often occurs in spurts over just one or a few generations where there is an intense environmental pressure. The cholera example with cystic fibrosis that I used earlier would be a good example. If a mutation prevents interbreeding, and this mutation become prevalent after just a single generation, then you suddenly end up with a new species.