Evolutionary dead ends

[ERCougar]

I know this is a sort of tired discussion, but I'll start it up again anyway.

So do these bother any of you? By "these", I mean the thousands of species that pop up and then just disappear. They're not a transition to anything, they just disappear. The dinosaurs are an obvious example, and I think a little troubling themselves, but the ones that bother me more are the hominid species like homo erectus. I guess there is still some debate over whether H erectus is an ancestor of H sapiens, but it seems unlikely (I wish woot were here to weigh in).

It just seems strange to have a God whose chief purpose is the creation of man, yet seems so random and purposeless in the path to that creation. A God who allegedly values life so highly and yet is so wanton in its destruction.

Random thoughts on an early morning. Indulge me.

[jay santos]

I don't remember a good evolution thread here. I think we could have a great discussion.

I'm interested in a) how the concept of scientific evolution and belief in God are compatible and b) how do we make sense of scriptural events and commonly held Judeo-Christian beliefs in light of scientific evidence?

[CardiacCoug]

As usual, it just makes a lot more sense to just say there is no God.

Yeah, evolution is really fascinating and the vast majority of evolutionary roads are dead ends. I think of it as an amoeba probing every nook and cranny of a room. It makes sense to me that this would mostly lead to dead ends -- and yeah it's a good argument against "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creation" or whatever people are calling it these days.

[CardiacCoug]

Mormon FAIL.

[Indy Coug]

It just seems strange to have a God whose chief purpose is the creation of man, yet seems so random and purposeless in the path to that creation. A God who allegedly values life so highly and yet is so wanton in its destruction.

Destruction? If life is truly eternal, there is no destruction -- unless you are talking about spiritual fates.

[jay santos]

Mormon FAIL.

Is there a distinction between "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" in this poll? I'd say most Mormons accept evolution science and explain it with the Intelligent Design concept. If you don't believe God had a hand in creating the world, then what good are any of these religions? I don't see it as a FAIL.

[TripletDaddy]

woot could post for days on this topic. Where is he anyway?

[clackamascoug]

I imagine that if I was a God creating things, the evolutionary path would be one of the funniest aspects of the task. Like a gardener who tills the soil, plants the seeds, nurtures the crop, and harvests. As he does this, he learns what he wants to do next season, and plants more corn and less okra.

One thought on evolution. Why do we not use 100% of our brain. What past circumstance would enable mankind to develop a huge brain, and then not use all of it all the time? I think the big brain comes into play with the resurrection. Just like I'll have a full head of hair, my brain will be unlocked, ready to be used at full function, like a good terrestrial should.

[creekster]

Mormon FAIL.

I am not sure that is an accurate conclusion. The chart reflects those who accept evolution to explain the ORIGIN of human life as opposed to accept evolution as a mechanism in the planned unfolding of events.

[creekster]

It just seems strange to have a God whose chief purpose is the creation of man, yet seems so random and purposeless in the path to that creation. A God who allegedly values life so highly and yet is so wanton in its destruction.

If god is using evolution as his mechanism the. What you see happening is not random. Moreover the extinction of a species is not an example of wanton death any more than any other death of any individual.

If god is using evolution as a mechanism there is no way for us to know if these extinct species were needed to provide competition In a niche or to keep levels of some other population down etc. IOW, If we assume god could use evolution then it is impossible to conclude that what we see in evolution was not a necessary or useful part of his plan.

[ERCougar]

As usual, it just makes a lot more sense to just say there is no God.

Yeah, evolution is really fascinating and the vast majority of evolutionary roads are dead ends. I think of it as an amoeba probing every nook and cranny of a room. It makes sense to me that this would mostly lead to dead ends -- and yeah it's a good argument against "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creation" or whatever people are calling it these days.

I imagine that if I was a God creating things, the evolutionary path would be one of the funniest aspects of the task. Like a gardener who tills the soil, plants the seeds, nurtures the crop, and harvests. As he does this, he learns what he wants to do next season, and plants more corn and less okra.

One thought on evolution. Why do we not use 100% of our brain. What past circumstance would enable mankind to develop a huge brain, and then not use all of it all the time? I think the big brain comes into play with the resurrection. Just like I'll have a full head of hair, my brain will be unlocked, ready to be used at full function, like a good terrestrial should.

I can understand short dead ends in the process, but some of these extend tens of thousands (or millions) of years, and involving species with much the same awareness of life and pain and social connections and maybe even afterlife as we do. That's a little disturbing, and the idea of a God playing "gardener" with that even more so.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is an interesting thought. I think a lot of people think of human evolution as a slow steady change towards homo sapiens with the only branch being our ape cousins and maybe the neanderthals. It is quite remarkable how many humanoid species there were which eventually died out.

[creekster]

That is an interesting thought. I think a lot of people think of human evolution as a slow steady change towards homo sapiens with the only branch being our ape cousins and maybe the neanderthals. It is quite remarkable how many humanoid species there were which eventually died out.

But that chart is deceiving. Many of those species didn't disappear. They evolved. They are still here. As us.

[ERCougar]

Destruction? If life is truly eternal, there is no destruction -- unless you are talking about spiritual fates.

So...Stalin, Hitler, and co. aren't all that bad because they didn't truly destroy anything.

Actually, I think that's the best answer to the theodicy issue--that this life just doesn't have the same significance as we sometimes think it does, from an eternal perspective.

I don't remember a good evolution thread here. I think we could have a great discussion.

I'm interested in a) how the concept of scientific evolution and belief in God are compatible and b) how do we make sense of scriptural events and commonly held Judeo-Christian beliefs in light of scientific evidence?

The Fall opens a whole other bag of worms. We have to both discard a LOT of prophetic statements on the subject and view the temple ceremony VERY symbolically, IMO.

If god is using evolution as his mechanism the. What you see happening is not random. Moreover the extinction of a species is not an example of wanton death any more than any other death of any individual.

If god is using evolution as a mechanism there is no way for us to know if these extinct species were needed to provide competition In a niche or to keep levels of some other population down etc. IOW, If we assume god could use evolution then it is impossible to conclude that what we see in evolution was not a necessary or useful part of his plan.

I think this is a decent explanation. I don't know that it explains tens of millions of years of dinosaurs and the like, but other hominids? Maybe. It does put them in a bit of an expendable light that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with.

Another thought--Maybe each of these species has a certain plan of salvation, a progression of states, and they each needed to be created?

[ERCougar]

That is an interesting thought. I think a lot of people think of human evolution as a slow steady change towards homo sapiens with the only branch being our ape cousins and maybe the neanderthals. It is quite remarkable how many humanoid species there were which eventually died out.

Dang...I was looking for a chart like that but couldn't find a good one this morning. Good find.

To Creekster--I don't have an issue with the intermediate steps towards us. But H erectus? That's tens of thousands of years of existence that suddenly...stops.