Neanderthal DNA & Theology

[byu71]

Most Mormons, certainly more than enough of the ones who count, are fully satisfied with the answers their leaders give them.

How would you know. How many mormons do you actively associate with on a weekly basis?

I would agree if you mean, satisfied with answers to most of their questions.

[woot]

I mentioned this is the other two threads, but yes, this finding should get rid of any talk about neandertals being a separate species. Species definitions are a little dicey, but the most commonly accepted one is reproductive isolation, which we and neandertals apparently didn't have. It's not too often that test is available for fossil species, so pretty cool.

As for the affect it might have on theology, maybe I'm getting the point. If Homo erectus, et al. didn't cause problems, why would neandertals? Is it because they're stereotypically thought of as brutes and savages? So were the members of our subspecies back then. Neandertals had slightly larger brains, on average, than we do today too. Some of them did have weak chins, which is often associated with a lack of intelligence due to some unfortunate pseudo-science, but it could be that they were quite intelligent folks.

[pellegrino]

Odd's are if you find a liberal mormon, he/she will be a college professor.

this is a good rule of thumb for Utah Mormons. Outside of Utah and particularly in the East, this is not a good standard.

[fusnik]

Our SP spoke during sacrament meeting today. He retold the creation story, the stages of creation, light/dark, plants, animals, Adam and finally Eve. He said the master scientist and creator left his seminal creation for last. The point is, I don't think LDS theology gives a shit about what some scientists think that are digging in the dust.

[pellegrino]

I mentioned this is the other two threads, but yes, this finding should get rid of any talk about neandertals being a separate species. Species definitions are a little dicey, but the most commonly accepted one is reproductive isolation, which we and neandertals apparently didn't have. It's not too often that test is available for fossil species, so pretty cool.

As for the affect it might have on theology, maybe I'm getting the point. If Homo erectus, et al. didn't cause problems, why would neandertals? Is it because they're stereotypically thought of as brutes and savages? So were the members of our subspecies back then. Neandertals had slightly larger brains, on average, than we do today too. Some of them did have weak chins, which is often associated with a lack of intelligence due to some unfortunate pseudo-science, but it could be that they were quite intelligent folks.

so you're saying Adam was a Neandertal?

[SoonerCoug]

I could see creationists embracing this evidence. Some creationists love to explain away fossil hominids by categorizing everything as either human or ape instead of acknowledging the evolutionary relationships.

[tooblue]

The more we see the less we know.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ns-425432.html

[SeattleUte]

The more we see the less we know.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ns-425432.html

Yeah, thank God for science or we'd be forever kidding ourselves.

So does this mean that Genesis is back in the game?

[SeattleUte]

Our SP spoke during sacrament meeting today. He retold the creation story, the stages of creation, light/dark, plants, animals, Adam and finally Eve. He said the master scientist and creator left his seminal creation for last. The point is, I don't think LDS theology gives a shit about what some scientists think that are digging in the dust.

If you take the cretionism out of LDS theology I'm not sure what you've got left.

[woot]

SU, are implying that evolution and LDS theology are incompatible?

Take the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on Evolution:
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

"The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33)."

As a further example, about 14 years ago I attended a small Q&A/fireside setting of college students, where Elder Oaks stated that the LDS Church has no official position on the theory of evolution.

There's still a lot of room left for creationism within LDS theologym without excluding the possibility of evolution.

As I stated in another recent post about my college years:


fusnik's exactly right, whatever evolution's status among the scientific community, it doesn't affect LDS theology. The "how" of man's origin will be revealed after the Second Advent. Until then, for a person living by faith, evolution is just an interesting distraction.

I don't think it's in dispute that the LDS church, since David O McKay, at least, has no official position on evolution. What is at issue is that it's very difficult to make sense of the central LDS teachings in the light of evolution. The old "we know he did it but don't know how did it" chestnut is certainly a giant step up from previous LDS opinions on the matter, but it doesn't address the great problems that evolution introduces into the tidy story of Michael = Adam, fall --> atonement, etc.

[tooblue]

Michael = Adam, fall --> atonement, etc.

What you have stated above could be construed as a form of evolution. And is not evolution of the human soul a central tenet of LDS teachings? Why then is it difficult to make sense of the central LDS teachings in the light of evolution?