Elder Nelson on Evolution "incomprehensible"?

[_Morley]

Yes, but at no time, according to evolution does one species give birth to a different species.

Speciation is not quite as simple nor reductionist as this.

[_SteelHead]

Macro allows for one species to eventually become another.

So each after his own kind, until they eventually become another kind.

Yes, but at no time, according to evolution does one species give birth to a different species. See the above primer starting at about 5:32 for a good illustration of this.

I suggest you quit poorly interpreting things you watch on you tube, or disingenuously representing them. Whichever may be the case. I mean, this may be the result of poor comprehension of what the video is saying, but I doubt it.

Did you really not understand what the nice narrator said about the divergence of two populations of the same species into separate species driven by isolation at about 5:32?

Then did you not hear what he said about being dishonest starting at around 9:00?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wikipedia+macro+evolution

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[7] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]
Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]

[_Zelder]

I actually find it disturbing that a man that holds a Medical Doctorate could be so ignorant -- willfully ignorant -- of the basic tenants of biology. He MUST have studied this at some point during his career, either in his course work or in the paper he should have read to stay informed on his field. What on earth did he do with all of that knowledge?

Of course he studied it. I'm sure he is fully aware of the theories backing the various aspects and definitions of evolution. He simply does not believe it.

[_Runtu]

Of course he studied it. I'm sure he is fully aware of the theories backing the various aspects and definitions of evolution. He simply does not believe it.

Then he should have said that instead of the foolish thing he did say.

[_Zelder]

It's nice to know, though, that the origins of the human race---which is a fundamental issue in the Plan of Salvation---is on the same level of importance as gourmet cooking or baseball statistics.

I think Mormon teachings on natural history have been pretty clear in the past and I would be surprised if any of the top Mormon leaders do not believe in a young earth. They now avoid the subject because of PR issues and they are keenly aware of the cog-dis that members feel and they are trying to mitigate that as much as possible.

I think that about half of the Mormon population cannot cope with what the church has taught regarding the origins of life so they don't teach it anymore. And as BCSpace has pointed out on other threads, they even provide an outlet now that they don't have a position on that subject anymore.

The winds of the current mainstream scientific thought are too strong, so they have ducked behind a rock for safety. I don't blame them.

[_Buffalo]

It's too bad those ignoramus general authorities don't seem to know what evolution is, eh wot?

Indeed. Some apostles don't seem to know what evolution is and therefore, their criticism of it doesn't bite.

They also don't seem to know anything about homosexuality, and therefore, their criticism of it doesn't bite. :)

[_Buffalo]

I actually find it disturbing that a man that holds a Medical Doctorate could be so ignorant -- willfully ignorant -- of the basic tenants of biology. He MUST have studied this at some point during his career, either in his course work or in the paper he should have read to stay informed on his field. What on earth did he do with all of that knowledge?

His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

[_Buffalo]

It's nice to know, though, that the origins of the human race---which is a fundamental issue in the Plan of Salvation---is on the same level of importance as gourmet cooking or baseball statistics.

The only fundamental requirements regarding origins are that God is the father of our spirits and our physical bodies are created in His image. Evolution precludes neither.

It precludes the latter - evolution is a process of random mutation and natural selection. Homo sapiens are not the inevitable end result of such a process.

[_Sethbag]

Macro allows for one species to eventually become another.

So each after his own kind, until they eventually become another kind.

On that note, are carnivorous post flood tigers of "the same kind" as non carnivorous pre flood tigers?

Something needs to be interjected to this conversation:
There's really no such thing as a species. That's right, in nature there's really no such thing as a species. At all.

The word "species" is merely an abstraction that we human beings created in an attempt to help us divide the animal and plant kingdoms (and the fungi and whatever else, geez) into recognizable groupings in order to be able to talk about certain aspects of living things in an easier and more coherent way.

But in nature there's no such thing. And the concept has weaknesses, such as that you can start with an animal we would say very clearly belongs to species A and demonstrate a long chain of perhaps thousands of generations of animals in a single unbroken lineage, until you finally show an example of an animal in that lineage which is now clearly what we would call species B. And at the same time, every single animal instance in that long lineage between species A and species B was born as the same species as its parents! These two apparently contradictory statements are in fact true, and that is because the word "species" denotes an arbitrary designation of particular gene pools of animals.

[_Sethbag]

Yes, but at no time, according to evolution does one species give birth to a different species.

Speciation is not quite as simple nor reductionist as this.

BCSpace actually spoke the truth here. Every animal ever born was the same species as its parents. Only after sufficient genetic divergence in the lineage, as compared from one point in a given lineage to some other point later on down the lineage, do we impose the arbitrary definition of a species.