Evolution and Genesis - Page 5 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SoonerCoug · 07-11-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I do not believe that a lengthy series of truly random mutations from a single-celled organism to a human being is a mathematical certainty.

I completely agree. Random mutations from a single-celled organism resulted in many millions of species, not just in the creation of humans. It's quite beautiful, actually. Why is this inconsistent with creation by God?

What would have happened if God had to wait an additional 5 billion years for a humanoid to arise?

Do you realize that time is completely concocted by human beings, and that time does not actually exist?

Did you ever consider that God might have known what was in the stew to begin with and that ultimately a human would arise? Did you ever wonder how many other worlds he might have created in this universe which has more galaxies than grains of sand are on the earth? Did you ever consider how many stars and solar systems are within each galaxy?

SoonerCoug · 07-11-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Newton first formulated his ideas on gravity in 1687.
Darwin first published his theory on evolution in 1859.

No one doubts gravity anymore. It's generally accepted by everyone. Yet questions/debates about evolution continue.

Maybe the Darwinists just need to wait another 170 years or so.

Darwin published the theory of natural selection. Darwin did not come up with the concept of evolution.

Are you suggesting that we've made no advancements since Darwin? Incorporation of 20th century genetics and molecular biology with the theory of natural selection has solidified this unifying theory.

Archaea · 07-11-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I completely agree. Random mutations from a single-celled organism resulted in many millions of species, not just in the creation of humans. It's quite beautiful, actually. Why is this inconsistent with creation by God?

What would have happened if God had to wait an additional 5 billion years for a humanoid to arise?

Do you realize that time is completely concocted by human beings, and that time does not actually exist?

Did you ever consider that God might have known what was in the stew to begin with and that ultimately a human would arise? Did you ever wonder how many other worlds he might have created in this universe which has more galaxies than grains of sand are on the earth? Did you ever consider how many stars and solar systems are within each galaxy?

Does God stir the stew in billions of worlds, with some failures and some successes?

SoonerCoug · 07-11-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Does God stir the stew in billions of worlds, with some failures and some successes?

I guess that depends on how "omniscient" God might be.

We certainly know that he created millions of divergent species which have since gone extinct. Was this for fun? Was it for our study of the earth? Was he trying to "throw off the scientists" as Joseph Fielding Smith would suggest?

Tex · 07-11-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Darwin published the theory of natural selection. Darwin did not come up with the concept of evolution.

Are you suggesting that we've made no advancements since Darwin? Incorporation of 20th century genetics and molecular biology with the theory of natural selection has solidified this unifying theory.

Natural selection ... yes, that's what I meant.

No advancements? No, I'm not suggesting that. Maybe I'm suggesting we haven't made enough.

SoonerCoug · 07-11-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Natural selection ... yes, that's what I meant.

No advancements? No, I'm not suggesting that. Maybe I'm suggesting we haven't made enough.

Sequencing the genomes from multiple species wasn't enough for you? Identification of thousands of proteins and their functions?

Come on, Tex. We didn't even know about DNA till the 1950s. Darwin's theory was great from a population standpoint, but the union of his concepts with modern biological sciences has only solidified his theory of natural selection as fact.

Indy Coug · 07-11-2007, 05:57 PM

One of the mathematical implications of random walks or Brownian motion is that after enough random outcomes, the universe of possible future outcomes is smaller than the universe of possible future outcomes was at time t=0.

Model enough random walks and you will see different walks yield mutually exclusive future outcome universes.

How are we to conclude that truly random mutations will by mathematical necessity produce homo sapiens?

That's even without taking into account the archeaological record of numerous mass extinctions, often precipitated by catastrophic natural disasters, which can drastically alter the universe of future outcomes in a short span of time and is completely external of the process of natural selection.

creekster · 07-11-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Newton first formulated his ideas on gravity in 1687.
Darwin first published his theory on evolution in 1859.

No one doubts gravity anymore. It's generally accepted by everyone. Yet questions/debates about evolution continue.

Maybe the Darwinists just need to wait another 170 years or so.

That makes no sense. Doubting gravity would be like doubting air, whether or not anyone had described it scientifically. The only reason we 'doubt' evolution is becaseu our life spans are too short to allow us to see it happen. If we lived for a million years, it would be as obvious as an apple falling from a tree.

Tex · 07-11-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Sequencing the genomes from multiple species wasn't enough for you? Identification of thousands of proteins and their functions?

Come on, Tex. We didn't even know about DNA till the 1950s. Darwin's theory was great from a population standpoint, but the union of his concepts with modern biological sciences has only solidified his theory of natural selection as fact.

You're responding to me as if I'm your adversary on this. Have I given my personal opinion?

I'm only noting that evolution is not as widely accepted in the public as is gravity, regardless of the advances we've made. I'm not familiar enough with the history of gravity to say whether or not it was as widely disputed in its day, but it isn't anymore. I assume you're not disputing that notion.

Thus, I'm suggesting that science has a distance yet to cross in order to gain as broad acceptance.

Indy Coug · 07-11-2007, 06:04 PM

How did Jesus feed the 5,000 with a basket full of food? At some point, raw elements were spontaneously reorganized into bread and fish.

Given that very simple example and given my comments above about the mathematical uncertainty of random walks, is there any way we can exclude with 100% certainty the possibility that mankind was created independent of any other species?

07-11-2007, 06:04 PM	#50
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	How did Jesus feed the 5,000 with a basket full of food? At some point, raw elements were spontaneously reorganized into bread and fish. Given that very simple example and given my comments above about the mathematical uncertainty of random walks, is there any way we can exclude with 100% certainty the possibility that mankind was created independent of any other species? Last edited by Indy Coug; 07-11-2007 at 06:14 PM.

07-11-2007, 05:57 PM	#47
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	One of the mathematical implications of random walks or Brownian motion is that after enough random outcomes, the universe of possible future outcomes is smaller than the universe of possible future outcomes was at time t=0. Model enough random walks and you will see different walks yield mutually exclusive future outcome universes. How are we to conclude that truly random mutations will by mathematical necessity produce homo sapiens? That's even without taking into account the archeaological record of numerous mass extinctions, often precipitated by catastrophic natural disasters, which can drastically alter the universe of future outcomes in a short span of time and is completely external of the process of natural selection.