My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _beastie »

You’re in completely over your head here, baby. You don’t have a freaking clue what is even going on. You’re just here for what you believe is a circle-jerk pile on, with me as the target.

But if you’d like to attempt to disprove my assessment, feel free to restate, or even directly quote, those instances where anyone has demonstrated that "natural selection" (absent the influence of external forces, such as described above) amounts to anything more than "those who reproduce best are selected." I’m quite confident you cannot do it. The best you can hope for is to play cheerleader for someone else who might try. So grab your pompoms, beastlie baby, and cheer on your boys.

I am convinced that no single group of humans can be more wilfully blind and dogmatic than is the overwhelmingly majority of LDS apostates. Fortunately, catastrophic events, such as the one presumed to have deselected the dinosaurs, can forcibly bring reproduction to an end. That’s what will happen to apostates at the second coming. And, believe me, deselection will never have come more deserved.


Look, “baby”, I may not have a degree in biology the way some folks here do, but I have long had an interest in evolution and have read quite a few books on the subject. In fact, I’m more than willing to list all the books I’ve read on the subject if you’ll do the same.

But here's one simple post that I think you have not fully grasped, since you keep repeating your same arguments:

EA, quoting from another source:
Survivial of the fittest refers to the idea that organismal forms that are more likey to survive and reproduce viable offspring in a given environment will be more likely to propagate through time. What makes something "fit" isn't the simply that it survives, but that it has traits that are conducive to survival.


And from the same post:
Consider the formula: May the best man win. It seems harmless, but the creationist now points out that we determine which team is best by seeing which wins. If that is what it means to be "best," then the expressed wish seems to reduce to "May the team that wins be the team that wins." It is thus vacuous dogma, objects the creationist, to subsequently explain who won in terms of one team's being "better" than the other. However, we sports fans are not fooled into abandoning the game by such arguments. Of course we do determine which is the best team by looking at its record of wins, and we would certainly explain why it won the trophy by noting its superior record over its rivals. But we understand that this is not the end of the story...even though we do judge on the basis of record, we do not doubt that it is the physical traits of a team, its superior characteristics and playing ability, that make it better than the others. Understanding this, we also understand that it is possible that the best team might not win...This parallels the distinction that biologists make between evolution by natural selection and evolution by natural drift, and the mere fact that we recognize such distinctions is by itself sufficient to show that the tautology objection does not hold in either sports or evolutionary theory. (Pennock 1999:101)

Pennock is pointing out what Mills and Beatty (1979:11) explicitly state: that the fitness of an organism is best described in terms of the organism's propensity to leave offspring, not in terms of its actual reproductive success, which can be affected by pure happenstance. To put it simply, a moose with all of the "right" genes can still get clocked on the head by a meteorite before it gets lucky, while its sickly neighbor goes on to sow its seed far and wide. Since propensities do not automatically translate into actual reproductive success, the idea of fitness, and the natural selection of the fittest, cannot be tautologous.

(ii) To its credit, the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis advises against using this argument.
References


Look at the sentences I bolded. There may be circumstances in which an organism that does not possess traits that enhance survival and reproduction in a certain habitat still manages to survive and reproduce, while the organism that does possess such traits may not survive to reproduce. Hence, the fittest did not “win” in this scenario.

So why do the preferential traits still manage to be overwhelmingly replicated in the population? It’s because we’re not talking about individual organisms, but rather the larger pool of population, and the likelihood and probability of traits enhancing survival and reproduction being seen in increasing rates in future generations, rather than whether or not those same traits will ensure survival and reproduction for one single organism.

The fittest – in terms of specific individuals - do not always survive. Traits that enhance survival and reproduction within a population will become more prevalent in that given population over time.

Let me know when you’re ready to compare texts we’ve read on the subject. In fact, I may already have compiled a list from a conversation in the past, very much like this one.

by the way, how did your argument morph from this:
No, let's see you describe "natural selection" such that it becomes something more than "those who reproduce best are selected."


Into this:
Now your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstate how “natural selection” is able to produce such results absent the influence of external factors—through random mutations or whatnot.
Last edited by Tator on Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _William Schryver »

The Little Dude:
1. Natural variation occurs among the individuals in a population (for DNA this is due to mutation).

I’ve got no problem with that.

2. Some differences affect survival of a particular individual.

Very possibly. But let’s take a specific example—what you feel is a typical example—and explore it a little further, shall we?

3. Individuals that have better odds of survival have better odds of reproducing.

4. If the trait that gives better odds of survival and reproduction is heritable, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of individuals in the next generation with that trait.

Logically sound. If, indeed, a variation can be directly related to survival, the odds of reproducing are increased. However, it then becomes essential to pass on that particular variation. As you well know, variations in an individual may enhance that individual’s survivability, but there is no guarantee that the variation will be passed on in the reproductive process. It might be, but favorable mutations have no distinct advantage over unfavorable ones when it comes to the next generation. So, again, let’s take a specific example—what you feel is a typical example—and explore it a little further, shall we? Let’s see if you can establish a chain of “selected” traits over many generations of a species. And then … (see below).

Over repeated cycles, the natural environment selects for heritable traits that confer survival and reproductive advantages, causing evolution of the population.

Possible, but again, I don’t believe you can demonstrate, with evidence, that traits conferring advantages related to survival and reproduction are necessarily (and naturally) favored in any appreciable fashion.

But here’s your real problem, as I see it. It is not sufficient to demonstrate how the teeth of a population of beavers, over the course of several generations, will adapt themselves to the peculiar challenges of a new, and dominant, type of tree in their forest. You have to demonstrate how the mechanism you describe, which is actually a very conservative model of evolution (and one with which I really have no problem at all) can be used to explain the variety of species currently on the planet.

That is where I am convinced your conception of “evolution” breaks down. You cannot demonstrate how, absent deliberate, intelligent direction, a giraffe and a butterfly can trace their lineage back to the primordial ooze. What Darwinist ideologues try to do is say that billions and billions and years were required to produce the variety we now see. I respond by saying that there is no evidence to substantiate either the immense scope of time they assert, or the unbelievably numerous and diverse transitional forms that must have necessarily been passed through along the way.
.
.
.
(And I now sign off for the day. I’ve got better things to do for now.)
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _Some Schmo »

William Schryver wrote: Is it really possible that you can write the above and yet not see how you have just served to support/substantiate my entire argument?

Nope, because it doesn't support your argumant (and I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually have one, or that it changes with each passing post). You completely ignored the distinction I made. You keep repeating that natural selection is about the species that are best at reproducing, and that's simply not true. Period.

William Schryver wrote: The Schmo has now consented that “natural selection” is, much more often than not, dependent on external forces/factors. The Schmo lists: “…environmental changes (changes in food supply, food location, temperature, migration of other species, natural disasters, etc etc”. And I agree that all of those things are valid factors.

Well, I'm not the first one to allude to this in this thread, yet this seems to be the first time you're acknowledging it. How many times did EAllusion have to say "a given environment" before you got it?

William Schryver wrote: Now your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstate how “natural selection” is able to produce such results absent the influence of external factors—through random mutations or whatnot.

Why would I do that? I'm not in the business of redefining natural selection.

Random mutations are random mutations, and natural selection is natural selection. Why are you conflating the two?

Did you miss the post on the distinction between natural selection and genetic drift?

It's really quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about, and that your point is as muddled as your ability to articulate it.
Last edited by Alf'Omega on Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _beastie »

In fact, I easily found my old list:

So here are the books that I own, and have read, about evolution. This list does not include books I have checked out from the library in the past, nor does it include online articles. The list is likely incomplete, since I don’t feel like updating it by scouring my shelves again. It’s complete enough to serve the purpose.

The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins
Darwin’s Ghost by Steve Jones
The Spark of Life by Christopher Wills and Jeffery Bada
The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by
Miller
Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett
The Moral Animal by Robert Wright
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim Berra
Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty by Nancy Etcoff
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle by Amtoz and Avishag Zahavi
The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
The Red Queen – Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley
The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share and Follow the Golden Rule – by Michael Shermer
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea – Evolution and the Meanings of Life – by Daniel C. Dennett

Books not solely devoted to evolution, but dealing heavily with it:
Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan
NonZero by Robert Wright
How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science by Michael Shermer
Why God Won’t Go Away by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquilli and Vince Rause
Skeptics and True Believers by Chet Raymo (a particularly beautiful and poetic text, by the way)

Of course this is self-education. I am a layperson who has simply tried to educate myself on the basics of evolution. Of course people like EA and The Dude are far better equipped to answer questions, but I do understand the basics.

by the way, anyone else noticing that Will seems to be abandoning his tautology argument?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _Sethbag »

You seem to overlook, Will, that evolution is occurring, independently, within all living things at the same time. It is this independence that leads to the variety of life we see. That and the fact that there are more ecological niches to be filled than there are species which can fill them all at the same time. The sheer variety of ways in which life can exist, and thrive, on Earth pretty much guarantees a wide variety of species.

Life originated somehow. We don't know exactly how. Once it did, it found itself within a particular environment. Those individuals within that environment were in competition with each other. Some succeeded in competing in that environment. Slowly, around the periphery, individuals moved into other environments. These other environments had their own set of challenges and opportunities, and the competitions between individuals in these new environments resulted in success for different types of heritable traits, resulting in speciation - that is, the population of successful genes in the new environment were sufficiently different from the "old" population in the original environment, that we humans, in our need to give names to things, would say they are now different species.

Indeed, the "old" species in the original environment might well no longer be the same as it was when the first individuals left that environment and went into the new one, thus the new species may well be cousins, not ancestor/descendent.

Do this many times, with many new environments, many ecological niches, over the whole world, for a billion years or so, and we see what we get.

Will, while your mind may have trouble comprehending how this might be, geneticists have actually seen the evidence for all of this as they have studied the genomes of many species, and compared them. The evidence is there - you can fight against it, or you can try to understand it. Your call.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _The Dude »

July 20, 2009:

Will: Natural selection is logically absurd.

Dude: Let me see your argument.

Will: No, let me see you describe natural selection in a way that isn't logically absurd.

Dude: No problem. Step 1, 2, 3, 4.

Will: No problem. Very possible. Logically sound.

Dude: YES!!! I win the match. That wasn't so hard.

Will: Not so fast. Now you have to convince me that natural selection was sufficient, absent any deliberate intelligent intervention, to provide all the transitional forms and variety of species on the planet today, starting from the origins of a primordial ooze. There is no evidence for this. Yeah,, um... that's where your concept of "evolution" breaks down. Okay, gotta run. I have better things to do!



And that, folks, is classic William Schryver!
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _Sethbag »

Dude++;
Will--;
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _cinepro »

My favorite defense of the theory/doctrine of "No Death Before the Fall" is at the NDBF blog. That guy is fighting the good fight, and I almost feel sorry for him :sad: .

And lest we assume Church publications have been silent on the relationship between faith and science, let's not forget this classic article from the Ensign almost 30 years ago:

The Gospel and the Scientific View: How the World Came to Be

Revelations given through modern prophets do in fact confirm the truths of Genesis and other scripture: there was a creation, a fall, a flood, and a necessary atonement. It was revealed anew that the prophets who recorded the ancient scriptures were able to see through time and record future events. The restored gospel teaches that God is intimately associated with nature both as its Creator and Sustainer. And miracles show his power over the natural order.


Thus, it may be that the problem with uniformity as scientists know it is simply one of generalizing too soon, upon too small a sample. If, instead of a period of a few hundred years, the sample period were taken over enough thousands of years to include the whole life cycle of a world like ours, from creation to glorification, allowing for the operations of the power of God to bring about the desired changes throughout that whole period, then the principle of uniformity might seem to be perfectly sound, at least so far as it appears to us from modern revelation.

Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth “abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).
_mikwut
_Emeritus
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:20 am

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _mikwut »

Gadianton Plumber,

Some minor points:

(1) The world outside of Mormonism includes the self same ignorance and lack of sophistication towards evolution that this thread is an example of.

(2) although I can agree that many times apologetic responses to these type of questions can turn doctrine into jell-o; you must admit the Mormon, Christian, or theist is under no obligation (even with a belief in continuing revelatory experience) to state with specificity exactly and literally what occurred in these scenarios, for example skeptics and apologists readily accept the overwhelming position of believers is a admitted limited understanding of for example, the 'atonement', and skeptics readily admit they fully do not understand for example 'conciousness'.

(3) even within Mormonism mystery remains integral to the very meaning of 'religion' even in its subsets, Mormonism being only one.

(4) Genesis 1 and 3 (and the Mormon corresponding scriptures, i.e. Moses etc.) are obviously not to be taken literally, we have empirical evidence of this - the texts themselves are different.

(5) Symbolism is integral to the religious understanding, in Mormonism this is vitally true at the highest sacred places of understanding. Mormons themselves betray themselves by attempting to believe symbol is some kind of dodge of the skeptics barbs.

(6) Notions of quantum cosmology, consciousness, personhood, including consciousness of God, mystical awareness, moral awareness and refinement, the concept of sin, the spirit or soul, have not been apprehended within the biological sciences to warrant a demarcation with reason when a believer speculates in to the mystery of the first humans.

(7) There are plausible and well thought out constructions to your questions, such as humans as the first morally aware hominids that John Polkinghorne (an admitted here non-Mormon) makes. An apologist could find this appealing or remain in mystery, either one would not violate the religous beliefs or faith of the individual. So when you inquire of for example myself, a believer, Adam and Eve are the first humans, parents of all flesh- yet, they existed in a state of innocence until they chose to choose (somehow). I understand the Mormon is seemingly constricted to a more literal mythos about these matters, but I see no reason why the 'myth' (I don't use that in the sense of it being not true) cannot extend beyond "literal and individual persons" it is one of the greatest mysteries, beliefs, and symbols of the faith itself.

(8) Your inquiry becomes one of simple propositions being labeled and reducing faith, religion, and mystery to mere 'belief'. Jason Bourne's simple 'I don't know' suffices within a religous context to answer your inquiry.

my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
_Gadianton Plumber

Re: My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

Post by _Gadianton Plumber »

Mikwut, thank you for entering the discussion. You bring up some good points I have not considered. Since you also like to make lists, I will engage your ideas.

(1) The world outside of Mormonism includes the self same ignorance and lack of sophistication towards evolution that this thread is an example of.


I don't doubt this at all. I am mostly interested in the Mormons, since they are "my people." I confess a considerable amount of ignorance with EV's or other religious traditions.

(2) although I can agree that many times apologetic responses to these type of questions can turn doctrine into jell-o; you must admit the Mormon, Christian, or theist is under no obligation (even with a belief in continuing revelatory experience) to state with specificity exactly and literally what occurred in these scenarios, for example skeptics and apologists readily accept the overwhelming position of believers is a admitted limited understanding of for example, the 'atonement', and skeptics readily admit they fully do not understand for example 'conciousness'.


I disagree. Whenever a theist claims to be rational or scientific, or claims to have an insight into the nature of universe, especially when it may or may not condemn me to hell, he has left his safe little sandbox to play with the big boys. He has chosen to enter a world of logic and science. In addition, they don't tend to say "I don't know" in connection to difficult subjects, that's not what theism is about. It's about giving answers to questions. Science is about trying to give answers to questions. Science is not disproven if it is stumped, a prophet is.

(3) even within Mormonism mystery remains integral to the very meaning of 'religion' even in its subsets, Mormonism being only one.


I don't see it that way. Again, it is about giving answers, not letting mysteries exist. Otherwise there is no need to come up with a "god" in the first place. Why is there life? We don't have the answer so god is why.

(4) Genesis 1 and 3 (and the Mormon corresponding scriptures, i.e. Moses etc.) are obviously not to be taken literally, we have empirical evidence of this - the texts themselves are different.


This is a very liberal view that is not supported by any of the church's teachings. I agree they are probably meant to be read as such, but literalism is the point. If the Church was capable of being symbolic at the right time, there would be no Church to speak of. Is the Book of Mormon symbolic etc. I admit this is maybe a little dichotomous, I am but a product of my culture.

(5) Symbolism is integral to the religious understanding, in Mormonism this is vitally true at the highest sacred places of understanding. Mormons themselves betray themselves by attempting to believe symbol is some kind of dodge of the skeptics barbs.


I think if there is such thing as healthy religion, it would deal in symbolism and moderation, not absolutes. However, this is not the case. Symbolism is, in my estimation, the refuge of bad ideas. It would not work in science, or in any rational discourse. Bigfoot may not exist, but he symbolized male virility, so keep believing in him or you will go to hell.

(6) Notions of quantum cosmology, consciousness, personhood, including consciousness of God, mystical awareness, moral awareness and refinement, the concept of sin, the spirit or soul, have not been apprehended within the biological sciences to warrant a demarcation with reason when a believer speculates in to the mystery of the first humans.


I respectfully disagree. Just a question of what value you wish to assign to the event.

(7) There are plausible and well thought out constructions to your questions, such as humans as the first morally aware hominids that John Polkinghorne (an admitted here non-Mormon) makes. An apologist could find this appealing or remain in mystery, either one would not violate the religous beliefs or faith of the individual. So when you inquire of for example myself, a believer, Adam and Eve are the first humans, parents of all flesh- yet, they existed in a state of innocence until they chose to choose (somehow). I understand the Mormon is seemingly constricted to a more literal mythos about these matters, but I see no reason why the 'myth' (I don't use that in the sense of it being not true) cannot extend beyond "literal and individual persons" it is one of the greatest mysteries, beliefs, and symbols of the faith itself.


There are serious problems with this idea. Where is the line? Were A/E's parents without morals? Also, these "theories" are merely attempts to retain belief in a disproven thesis. I mean, you could assign symbolism to the whole process of moral realization, but WHY have the literal myth? There ARE not A/E. There was no fall. Why confuse the person with falsehood, especially when you are not being clear it's meant to be taken as a story/myth? When has this view ever been acceptable in Mormonism.

(8) Your inquiry becomes one of simple propositions being labeled and reducing faith, religion, and mystery to mere 'belief'. Jason Bourne's simple 'I don't know' suffices within a religous context to answer your inquiry.


Like this: Does Mormonism teach a literal A/E? Yes. Did A/E ever exist? No. Should I subject my life to this way of thinking? I don't think so.

I accept JB's way of looking at things because he has not sacrificed his mind to oblivion. I respect him when he says he doesn't know, but that is NOT the way Mormonism is structured. Not even a tiny little bit.
Post Reply