Mormonism and Evolution

[_Franktalk]

If airplanes are so great, then how come they can't make burritos? Huh? Answer me that, if you can!

Actually this is what I am driving at. There is a disconnect between what some think or know they feel and the process of evolution and what it can actually make.

Evolution either explains everything in life or it does not. If it does not then there is a problem with assigning evolution as the mechanism that made all of life's finer qualities. Science has said that life came from the process of evolution, they point to a pile of bones and say "see it is true". But I want to point at the higher order functions of life and ask the obvious question. Just how did this process make these complex life qualities? They either exist or it is a lie. If it is a lie we should be able to show that it is. We are told that evolution can make burritos, but can it also make an airplane?

[_schreech]

Evolution either explains everything in life or it does not.

How does evolution explain gravity? water discovered on the moon? sunspots? paris hilton?

We are told that evolution can make burritos, but can it also make an airplane?

Who told you that evolution can make burritos? Does elohim make all the burritos? How are elohim's carnitas?....

I think you have, somehow, managed to outdo the ridiculousness of your previous posts.

[_Franktalk]

I think you have, somehow, managed to outdo the ridiculousness of your previous posts.

My questions are simple but the answers evidently are impossible. I think there is some value in finding aspects of life that evolution can't explain. If that statement is in error then please supply me with a detailed answer to my question. But to distract from the question with this kind of sideline response just shows how weak your position really is.

[_Buffalo]

"Purpose" is entirely subjective, and the domain of sentient creatures. Decide your own purpose for yourself. Evolution is a purposeless process. Pretending your purpose was assigned to you by god is no more meaningful than choosing one for yourself - in fact, it's a lot less meaningful. But if you feel you're not up to it, and you need a third party to plan your life for you, I'm happy to help. From now on your purpose is to serve as a warning to others.

Blah blah blah. Are you going to describe to me how evolution made a purpose to life and meaning to life or are you just going to avoid the question. If evolution is a purposeless process then how did we get one? If you embrace that evolution can't make a purpose to life then what we feel must be false. A big lie made by chemicals to trick us into certain actions that are needed by our god "natural selection".

So which is it? Do we have a purpose from somewhere we don't know where? Or are we tricked into thinking we have a purpose when in fact we do not? And the third option is that evolution gave us a purpose, just tell me how?

I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer.

If germ theory explains why we get colds, why doesn't it also tell us what the meaning of life is? That's basically what you're asking me.

[_Darth J]

If airplanes are so great, then how come they can't make burritos? Huh? Answer me that, if you can!

Actually this is what I am driving at. There is a disconnect between what some think or know they feel and the process of evolution and what it can actually make.

Evolution either explains everything in life or it does not. If it does not then there is a problem with assigning evolution as the mechanism that made all of life's finer qualities. Science has said that life came from the process of evolution, they point to a pile of bones and say "see it is true". But I want to point at the higher order functions of life and ask the obvious question. Just how did this process make these complex life qualities? They either exist or it is a lie. If it is a lie we should be able to show that it is. We are told that evolution can make burritos, but can it also make an airplane?

Franktalk:

Why do you keep insisting that the theory of evolution purports to address:

1. the origin of life, as opposed to the origin of species;

2. whether there is any meaning or purpose to life, and what that might be;

3. the aesthetic value of life?

And why do you think that the failure of evolutionary theory to answer questions it never purported to address is a valid basis for rejecting the theory?

[_EAllusion]

I don't think people can just arbitrarily decide what gives them purpose. What gives people meaning in life is fulfilling their drives. And people are born with brains that are predisposed to certain drives. Those drives are further shaped by experience and opportunity. So I don't think people can just will whatever purpose in life they wish and have it give them meaning. Meaning in one's life requires a certain degree of self-discovery. I can't just will myself into believing that my purpose in life is to cook great tasting anchovies anymore than I can will myself into believing that the moon is populated with pygmy elephants. There's an underlying reality that my will has a relationship with, but does not determine.

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Why do you keep insisting that the theory of evolution purports to address:

1. the origin of life, as opposed to the origin of species;

2. whether there is any meaning or purpose to life, and what that might be;

3. the aesthetic value of life?

And why do you think that the failure of evolutionary theory to answer questions it never purported to address is a valid basis for rejecting the theory?

Buffalo stated:

"It's fallacious to assume that one must be assigned a purpose from some third party (god) in order to have one. We each must determine our own purpose ourselves."

If we can indeed find our own purpose then we have a purpose. The ability to obtain a purpose using the tools that evolution has supplied means something. Or it is a lie if we don't have the ability and we just fool our self.

The theory is not valid unless it explains the species it is supposed to make. If the theory fails in any area then the theory is false and must be replaced with some new theory that better explains the species. Or at least the theory should be taught with the caveat that some things are not explained by the theory. But I know that many in the scientific community accept the theory as a matter of faith and will not consider any data which leads to any other conclusions. The same can be said of other fields in science. Arp has pretty much proved the redshift distance relationship to be false but many still cling to the old formula.

The science community is a tight knit group, much tighter than the data they say that binds them. A study of anomalies will show holes in many theories yet the anomalies are ignored. You may ignore them as well that is your choice.

The theory of evolution states that species adapt and get better over time yet we know that the human species is falling apart from deleterious mutations that gather from one generation to the next. How can this be true and the theory still be valid? Most true believers just look the other way. Is this the science you embrace?

[_Morley]

....
The theory is not valid unless it explains the species it is supposed to make.
....
The theory of evolution states that species adapt and get better over time yet we know that the human species is falling apart from deleterious mutations that gather from one generation to the next.
....

Where do you get this stuff?

[_Franktalk]

....
The theory is not valid unless it explains the species it is supposed to make.
....
The theory of evolution states that species adapt and get better over time yet we know that the human species is falling apart from deleterious mutations that gather from one generation to the next.
....

Where do you get this stuff?

Science likes to model aspects of natural. Then using the model we look to see what the model shows us. Then we go back and see if the real world reacts like the model or if we need to modify our model. Evolution is no different. As we examine the aspect of nature, in this case humans or some other complex creature we make a list of all of the things the subject can do. I see no violation of standard practices in asking my questions the way I have. What is telling to me is that it seems no one has thought of these issues and if so has brushed them aside. How can a group brush aside the complex qualities of complex life and say the theory stands without their consideration?

The current thinking on mutations gathering comes from many studies done in the field. These do not support the general consensus so they are ignored.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

"Because most complex traits in humans have very high heritabilities (54), the concern then is that unique aspects of human culture, religion, and other social interactions with well intentioned short-term benefits will eventually lead to the long-term genetic deterioration of the human gene pool. Of course, a substantial fraction of the human population still has never visited a doctor of any sort, never eaten processed food, and never used an automobile, computer, or cell phone, so natural selection on unconditionally deleterious mutations certainly has not been completely relaxed in humans. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that we are progressively moving in this direction."

Or as I would put it "The sky is falling".

Since I have read this many places and the sources are pretty good I must believe that our current research has led us to this conclusion. But I know that no one wants to be the first to say "we can't get there from here" in the sense that the theory made complex life the way it is currently understood. So year after year will go by and the core of science will look the other way. Yet people point their finger at me and say I don't know what I am talking about. Yet it is they who refuse to open their collective eyes. So just go back and join the others who deny the data. Have your parties and say how blessed we are to have natural selection.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo stated:

"It's fallacious to assume that one must be assigned a purpose from some third party (god) in order to have one. We each must determine our own purpose ourselves."

If we can indeed find our own purpose then we have a purpose. The ability to obtain a purpose using the tools that evolution has supplied means something. Or it is a lie if we don't have the ability and we just fool our self.

The theory is not valid unless it explains the species it is supposed to make. If the theory fails in any area then the theory is false and must be replaced with some new theory that better explains the species. Or at least the theory should be taught with the caveat that some things are not explained by the theory. But I know that many in the scientific community accept the theory as a matter of faith and will not consider any data which leads to any other conclusions. The same can be said of other fields in science. Arp has pretty much proved the redshift distance relationship to be false but many still cling to the old formula.

The science community is a tight knit group, much tighter than the data they say that binds them. A study of anomalies will show holes in many theories yet the anomalies are ignored. You may ignore them as well that is your choice.

The theory of evolution states that species adapt and get better over time yet we know that the human species is falling apart from deleterious mutations that gather from one generation to the next. How can this be true and the theory still be valid? Most true believers just look the other way. Is this the science you embrace?

The study of aerodynamics is not a valid field of study until scientists can explain what makes people choose to become pilots.

Also, physics remains invalid until someone can explain why astronaut food tastes so bad.

Chemistry remains unsatisfying because it doesn't explain the human need for Sandra Bullock movies.