I must apologize I did not respond to this over the weekend. I wanted to give a thoughtful response and did not have time over the weekend. Also this is a long response but I felt it necessary.
First, you have never answered my original question. Have you read Charles Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species”?
Second, the word theory is not a theological word; he word creation is theological position. There is no evidence for creation. With billions of people on earth believing in creation not a single person has been able to give any evidence for the position. Hence why it is a theological stance, a position of faith and therefore is not a “theory” in the scientific use of the word.
This edition of annual review of anthropology shows many scientists doubt evolution is as valid as everyone claims. The evidence doesn’t match up all the way.
The link you posted lead me to a portion of an abstract, which if you desire to read the entire document you have to pay a fee… (no thank you)
In addition it references the lack of evidence from “observational science” for evolution. However, observational science or in this (fossil record) can be used to show links between mammals but that is not the only use of fossil record.
Side note: looking to poke a hole in the evidence of evolution by fossil record? Find one fossil that is out of its order. All simple fossils are found below more complex fossils. Here is a great video explaining this aspect of fossil evidence for the progression from simple to complex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5RQT66TvY
Curtis using lack of evidence from fossil record as an argument against evolution is exposing your lack of understanding of the subject. I do not say this to be insulting, just to point out that you are making a stance on something of which you have very little understanding.
I would encourage you to read up on the other aspects of science that have much more compelling arguments for the theory of evolution:
Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full) , 80% with cows (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/522.full), 75% with mice (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112). This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.
The amount of evidence within the genetic community in favor of evolution is so overwhelming; ignoring it is paramount to ignoring the sun as a source of power.
Common traits in embryos: Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered “chordates” because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
http://hjerison.bol.ucla.edu/pdf/neocortex.pdf this scientist believes if anything modern humans are a de-evolved species since we do not have as many cognitive abilities in our senses as other primates.
Curtis, I am not sure you read this entire document. This is a document that goes into great detail about how the efficiency of a brain corresponds with the size of a brain. Within the realm of evolution the brain gives up space for efficiency. The brain may well give up “unnecessary functionality” for efficiency as well. Why? Because over thousands of years brains that are more efficiency have hosts that survive with less effort. Those hosts, which required more effort during times when food was scarce, well… didn’t survive. The hosts who survived were successful in passing their genes along.
In addition I do not think the scientific community supports your conclusion.
What I believe is there is irrefutable evidence life existed on earth long before Adam and Eve were here. When God “made” things he set laws in motion that allowed life to appear. When that life filled it’s reason for being it was wiped out to make room for the next life God wanted here. This way creation follows an order or dispensation then transitions to the next. So I do not subscribe to the modern Christian way of creationism. I believe man like creatures and life were here long before Adam and Eve.
You do stand apart from the LDS church official doctoring on this point (that may not be a problem for you).
Joseph Smith taught that Adam and Eve walked out of the Garden of Eden in Jackson County Missouri approximately 6K years ago. Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that there was no death on earth until after the fall. Therefore, all fossil evidence and the diversity of the DNA on earth must be rejected.
An informative link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman
I think it is becoming more and more common for biblical scholars to look at the Adam and Eve story as a copycat or a re-write of a Sumerian Myth. So, I agree with you that life was on earth long before the story of Adam and Eve was supposed to have taken place. I just part from your thoughts about how the life got here.
Most anthropology and entomology show that life doesn’t constantly go through small incremental changes yet keeps the same patterns until a burst of innovation happens that changes things. Science shows the ability to speak and write seemed to just appear rather than slowly improve over time. Many languages just seemed to appear near the same time rather than slowly changed.
I am not sure where you are getting your information in order to make a claim like this. But this is verifiably false. Of course when an event takes place (meteorite strikes the earth, major climate change, earthquake separating continents…) the amount of change is exaggerated, or accelerated for those people, animals or so on that were better equipped to survive, those that where not equipped to survive did not. Read Charles Darwin’s book for starters. “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.”
As another example of slight changes to adaptations you can look to the misquotes found underground in the tunnels of London England. As humans were forced underground during the Second World War the mosquito ended up in an environment different then their above ground relatives. They were forced to adapted (not innovate as you stated) over the years in order to survive their new environment. These two environments over the last 75 or so years have produced two different species of mosquito. They can no longer bread with each other. This of course is only one of billions of examples where adaptation happens slowly over a long time. Given millions of years this slight adaptation can produce much more then two different species of misquotes.
Pigmentation of the skin has also been shown as a slight adaptation of our response to the sun and not a difference of species. In essence there is no such thing as race, just different skin pigmentations in response to location relative to the equator.
I have not studied a great deal on the development of language. However, in order to understand when humans developed language we can use casts of the skull to determine when the prefrontal cortex was developed enough. We can also look to writing, which would have also required even further development. It is more complex to write then it is to speak.
In fact, if you read the writings of justin martyr ( or saint justin who lived around 100 ad) he states the early Christian church didn’t believe that God created everything out of nothing like most Christians believe today. That ideas doesn’t take firm hold in the church until the fourth century.
Around the turn of the century most Christians believe that God took “stuff” that was there and organized it to create life.
It’s a neat idea… But there is no evidence.