Deseret News | U. scientist says human evolution is going strong

Reader comments
U. scientist says human evolution is going strong

Page:
< Previous
1
2

agnostic aggie | 3:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

whats funny is organized religion, virgin birth, seeing stones, rituals, underwear etc. it is easier to explain the earth than explaining that gobbledygook.

truthmonger | 4:15 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evolutionists need to answer two questions:

1. Can they prove something can change into something else entirely over time. This has never been proved. This must proved in a lab. Tests have been done with flies and after thousands of generations they are still flies. Also remember the evelutionary chart of the horse in text books - well a horse is still a horse of course.

2. How did life start originally, don't tell stories or theories or hypothesis, but actaully give proof, and not just on earth but also via the "big bang." This must also be proved in a lab.

JB | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The real short coming of the Theory of Evolution is that one beneficial gene mutation has to be followed by no changes or another beneficial mutation, and on and on , and on.... One destructive mutation like cancer will kill the creature. Creation and Evolution are very simular except who or what controls the factors that increase the probability of success. If you take the look at all of the mutations that would have to occur in order to evolve from pond scum to a human being, without any intellegent intervention, the probability for total failure (species that can not mate, can not digest food, hearts can not handle required volume, etc - all equal death and an end to the species)becomes highly probable. A species does not have 10,000 years to fix a genetic error. Today cancer, heart disease, diabeties, etc can be treated.

If you then look at the probability of successful creation having an intellegent creator the chance for success becomes great.

I believe that the Theory of Evolution is science trying to explain creation with out recognizing God's hand. A sientist friend of mine stated that he was looking forward to Celestial Biology 101.

Comments continue below

truthmonger | 4:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Mormons believe earth was created out of existing matter.

It relatively modern interpretations of the bible that the six periods are called days. A more accurate interpretion is just six periods. Which could very well be of some indeterminate length. Or not. Or could be that what has been dug up was in the existing matter.

It is one thing to get a darker skin or learn to like milk, It is another to become something entirely different.

by design | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Elder Russell M. Nelson once said in a speech ("The Magnificence of Man")that believing the human body evolved is like believing an explosion in a print shop produced a dictionary--a dictionary that could heal its own torn pages and reprint its own subsequent editions.

Google the speech. It's great.

dkj | 4:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I've studied evolutionary science and the scriptures and I just don't see why they canï¿½t coexist. I think the creation story from Abraham is very enlightening with phrases such as:

ï¿½And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have lifeï¿½ï¿½

ï¿½And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyedï¿½ï¿½

I have enough spiritual evidence that I can firmly state I ï¿½knowï¿½ God created the earth. Iï¿½ve also studied evolutionary biology enough to say that I strongly suspect that evolution, in some respect, has occurred.

Who am I to tell God how to create the earth? If He chose to use evolution as the means to create life on earth, fine with me.

I imagine some of the more pharisaical Mormons will be a little surprised when evolution comes up in their Celestial Biology 101 class.

truthmonger | 5:25 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

NO one isn't saying there some limited adaptation going on.

But changing from one species into a completely different one has never been proved. (see previous comment)

And just finding some interesting looking bones and and making up stories about them does not prove anything. Science must be able to prove it in a lab. Or it is nothing more than a scientific guess.

science vs religion | 5:49 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

There is no truth to the Theory of Evolution. Neither is God a "scientist".
He is an Eternal Father and a Great High Priest.
Remove the Priesthood from this "telestial" planet and it will fall to pieces.
Jesus Christ is a God. He commands this earth, as it is his footstool.
His healing miracles were an alteration in DNA on the spot, as it is estimated that one in four Jewish males of his day were born blind, deaf, crippled, because of the constant intermarraige among these people(Joseph and Mary were cousins)
Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of this world,
does not need slow evolutionary processes to create enough food to feed 5000 people out of five loaves and two fishes, etc etc.
Sorry if I am not dazzled by the so-called modern age of science. I believe there is something much bigger out there, and I am content to wait until God himself reveals it.
Those of you who want to put your faith in evolution, and do not have the courage to think outside their telestial "box", all I can say is that it is your loss.

Anonymous | 6:18 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evolution doesn't need to find an adulterer to be its prophet.

Thomas | 7:01 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

"Science vs. religion" --

Great. So I presume that the next time you get sick, you won't go to the doctor.

There's something dishonest about accepting the fruits of science when it helps us, but rejecting the methods of science (which made those fruits possible!) when it conflicts with what we want to believe.

God doesnt roll dice-A. Einstein | 7:11 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evolution's theory of life development reminds me of the story about the tornado that spins through a junk/used parts supply yard, and creates a 500 SL Mercedes...
I would like to order 3...

legalese | 8:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Juan, Joseph Smith may have taught continental drift in the 19th century, but he wasn't the first. Francis Bacon hypothesized on it in the 16th century, and so did Pellegrini-Snyder (18th century I think). Bacon and Snyder based their ideas on the geometric fit between the Americas and Europe-Africa. In the early 20th century the meteorologist Alfred Wegener revived the idea, and supported it with geologic data showing similarities between rock types and fossils in continents now separated by oceans. The problem with all these hypotheses was that none could provide a physical mechanism by which continents could move. Only in the 1960's, with the discovery of sea-floor spreading at ocean ridges, and sea-floor consumption at oceanic trenches, was the hypothesis of continental drift confirmed.
Sorry to be long-winded, but the point of this is that scientists don't BELIEVE in hypotheses; they accept them when data are adequate, and reject them when the data require.
For an excellent discussion of the scientific method, see Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

dw | 9:12 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

thanks for your censorship...

Why is it... | 10:07 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

...that any story about anything scientific ALWAYS becomes a "Mormons bashing Non-Mormons" and "Non-Mormons bashing the Mormons" fest?? One day we will all die and then God himself can tell us what the right answer is...Evolution, Magic, or Something else that we didn't even think of yet.

Illinois Cougar | 10:33 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Mr. Earnest T. Bass- Well, see I don't need anyone to tell me what to belief. I actually do read. I have come to understand that the Global Warming crisis is the latest Bandwagon issue.

Generate a small amount circumstanial evidence,hype it to a bunch of highschool dropouts with public indecency fetishes. Hola!, you get a Great Big Bandwagon careening down the hill. Unfortunately, the bandwagon doesn't have steering or brakes. Eventually it will smash up on the rocks and someone else will start back up the hill to build another bandwagon. Best way to make something really important is to get a hollywood dogooder to start worrying about it.

In 1978, St. Helens blew, throwing millions of pounds of "Greenhouse" gas(and other "stuff") into the atmosphere. A number of the same scientists yelling about global warming now, were just as sure we were in for an iceage.

When 10,000 UN climatologists, Al Gore, and others quit flying in private jets to Indoniesia for "conferences", I'll give it a second thought.

Einstein | 11:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I grew up ranked #1 in all of my courses, have a few degrees and have said "no thanks" to MENSA many times. That said, I know I don't have all of the answers. Anyone who says macro-evolution is a 100% absolute fact either doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying to make a point.
Global warming? No doubt it exists. Some of it caused by mankind? Sure. How much? No one knows. Did Al Gore (inventor of the internet) exaggerate (again) for personal gain? Of course. Doesn't make the message less important, but spare me the scaremongering. For crying out loud, now they don't want us to have Christmas lights because it hurts the environment. Please, get real.

Science vs Religion | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

To Thomas:
My real dissatisfaction with today's science began with my career as a medical professional where the MD back office, medical records, among other things were available to me, and my own experience as a cancer survivor. ( I was a Lab Med Tech -Very Scientific-and had a personal business with
collecting Doctor bill's on the side).
And you are right on, I will never go to a Doctor of Medicine for any reason any time!!!!
I cured myself of the cancer, by the way.

Science vs Religion | 11:42 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

To Thomas:
I just wanted to add that I think you describe yourself very well.

LDS Scientist | 12:19 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

For those Latter-Day Saints involved in this discussion, you would be well-advised to stick with the Church's official positions on evolution and the age of the earth. That position is decidedly neutral on evolution--in fact, it says nothing at all about evolution of plants & animals--and there is no position on the age of the earth. You can find the BYU Library Packet on Evolution on the web. It is signed by the BYU Board of Trustees, which includes the First Presidency. All other statements are opinion, not doctrine.

I, for one, find no conflict between science and revealed religion. The only conflicts arise when we misunderstand or misrepresent one or the other.

Sad People | 12:49 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

There is nowhere in the scriptures that say evolution is not valid. They also do not say it is valid either. If you are arguing against it, leave your religion out of it, and base it on your own opinion.

Science vs Religion | 3:36 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

To LDS Scientist and Sad:
Elder Russell M Nelson seems to have no trouble with taking on the theory of evolution as bunk, as he did in an interview this year. He also said no other Apostle gave it any credence, either.
One doesn't always need a "revelation" concerning matters that can be determined by common sense and reasoning ability.

LDS Scientist | 4:28 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

"Science vs Religion" did exactly the wrong thing--rely on personal opinion. Try relying on official position, and you'll be on a firmer foundation.

I could also provide opinions of many other General Authorities that support evolution (including some from Russel M. Nelson), but that accomplishes nothing. Only the Church's official position matters.

truthmonger | 5:36 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I'm still waiting for laboratory proof that one species can turn into another, or that the big bang created life, anyone? bueller ? bueller?

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.