My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_EAllusion]

I would rebut the argument by pointing out that "survival of the fittest" is a very poor summation of the theory of evolution that was only borrowed by Darwin in the fifth edition of Origin of the Species. It is such a dumbed-down metaphor that it isn't even worth defending. Ridicule it all you want, if that's the very best you can do.

He's arguing that the concept of "fitness" is a tautology. That is more central to evolutionary biology now. The term owes its origin to a saying that you correctly state is oversimplified, but that doesn't mean the concept of a fitness landscape isn't worth defending. Will is arguing that the concept of natural selection a tautology because saying organisms who are more fit in a given environment are more likely to propagate through time is a tautology. In his mind "fit" just means, "those that propagate through time." That's not true, and rather obviously so if you are armed with a real basic understanding of the idea, but that's where he's coming from.

[_Jason Bourne]

So if I understand you correctly, you have no issues with the insertion of a soul into A/E. Follow up questions just for you:

Yes it could be a plausible explanation.

1. Did A/E have physical human-animal parents.

Possibly.

If so, how are they first flesh? If they were the first humans to have Elohim approved souls in some fashion, this does not explain that they inherited their flesh from their parents.

This could be figurative. Perhaps the first flesh approved by God.

2. What happened to the soul-less human animals that they descended from? Did they get souls after A/E, interbreed with Elohim humanity, or go extinct?

No they did not get soles nor do I think they interbred but perhaps they did. There lines would eventually become extinct.

I will note this is all speculation.

3. Why aren't they mentioned?

No idea.

Why would they be?

Were they created before A/E and on what day? When god was looking around asking if man is to be found on the Earth, why is the answer no?

Because man is we know him now was not on earth.

On the second point, God covenanting with humans with souls:

2. What happened to the humans with souls but did not covenant with Elohim? Again, interbreed, go extinct, etc. Also, are they saved?

I am not clear as to whom or what you are referring to.

[_The Dude]

He's arguing that the concept of "fitness" is a tautology.

in my opinion you give him way too much credit. He knows the phrase "survival of the fittest", not real concepts like fitness landscapes. How can he attack the real deal when he cannot even descrive it? Simple as that.








X

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Thank you, JB. I will pick through your responses.

1. I like how you concede uncertainty. However, does this mean your response to the issue is to ignore the problem or wait for more information? How do you react to the apparent problems in the present. There seems to be a lot of contradictions involved.

2. You seem to be answering the problem by resorting to a less literal reading of the story. You can add whatever interpretations you wish, but they are not supported by a literal reading of the texts. A/E are not the first flesh approved of or chosen by God. That's what Abraham was. There are no qualifiers regarding "first flesh" or whether man was found on the Earth. If someone looked around to see if there was man, he would see several species of bipedal, tool producing, language using, cultural animals. Does this present a problem to you?

3. If there were human animals, with or without souls, and God made covenants with A/E making them our "first parents", what about their parents and all the other humans? How do they fit into history and the plan of salvation? How or why would their lines die out, they would have outnumbered A/E's families quite a bit.

4. If the simplest explanation is usually the best one, why go to such trouble to justify a literal interpretation of the stories? Hard as it may be, I think this one shows the Church is not what it claims to be, from a rational POV.

[_Scottie]

Humans are APES people, not monkeys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--szrOHtR6U

[_Jason Bourne]

Sethbag

I understand that this topic and some of my responses leaves LDS prophets getting a lot wrong. I understand that there may well have never been an Adam and Eve and that it is all mythical and fidurative. I am ok with this as well. I know where I am at and where my faith is and know that some questions cannot be settled at least now.

[_William Schryver]

How would you rebut the argument? How is “survival of the fittest” not a tautology?

I would rebut the argument by pointing out that "survival of the fittest" is a very poor summation of the theory of evolution that was only borrowed by Darwin in the fifth edition of Origin of the Species. It is such a dumbed-down metaphor that it isn't even worth defending. Ridicule it all you want, if that's the very best you can do.

I don't disagree with you at all, as a matter of fact. I only made the argument back 2006 in response to someone's comments concerning the notion of "survival of the fittest." Of course, Huxley was fond of the expression, and for many decades it did represent a popular "summation of the theory of evolution." Of course, it's since been largely abandoned by Darwinist ideologues. Why? Well, because it IS clearly a tautology. That is my only point. Period. "Survival of the fittest" has no real meaning whatsoever. Those species who "survive" are those who reproduce most successfully. Like Muslims in Europe.

[_AlmaBound]

Like Muslims in Europe.

Or Minneapolis.

[_William Schryver]

He's arguing that the concept of "fitness" is a tautology.

in my opinion you give him way too much credit. He knows the phrase "survival of the fittest", not real concepts like fitness landscapes. How can he attack the real deal when he cannot even descrive it? Simple as that.

The Big Arrogance shows his true colors once again.

Yes, it's so difficult to "descrive" these complex arguments when one's brain is so clouded by the fog of superstition.

But apparently you are still willing to advocate some form of the principle "descrived" by the phrase "survival of the fittest." Please do so. Please "descrive" the "real deal" for us intellectual Lilliputians.

[_Sethbag]

Sethbag

I understand that this topic and some of my responses leaves LDS prophets getting a lot wrong. I understand that there may well have never been an Adam and Eve and that it is all mythical and fidurative. I am ok with this as well. I know where I am at and where my faith is and know that some questions cannot be settled at least now.

But the question of whether or not the LDS Prophets and scriptures are credible can be settled right now.

I have a question for you. Would it fly if the bishop asked you whether you paid your tithing, and you answered that the decision whether to pay or not was being deferred until such time as you can be sure of the credibility of the Prophets who commanded it?

If the bishop asked if you kept the word of wisdom, and you answered that that decision had to be deferred until God came down and clarified what was meant by mild drinks made from barley?

They demand obedience today, and you think it's OK to defer deciding whether they are credible or not indefinitely. I'm guessing you're making a Pascalesque wager that they somehow manage to be true Prophets despite their track record of failure.