Rational Christianity

[a-train]

I have little doubt that there exists common perceptions among the LDS people that will be understood as false doctrine at some future date.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

Are you able to tell us what those are? I'm genuinely curious as I am coming across a few things on this forum which confuse me when compared to what I am being/have been taught at Ward level.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by ztodd

We learned something interesting from the DVD from

BookofMormonEvidence.org - the study of mitochondrial DNA showed that the first woman who is the ancestor of all other women lived about 6000 years ago

I went to the website you referenced, and I have to say it reminded me of the religious zealot who starts writing books that stray from doctrine, such as archeological evidence that is really the author's opinion, but has never been sanctioned by the Church.


I find these types of "evidences" very concerning, because a number of members will be persuaded, and in my opinion, exploited. Although I have not seen the DVD, this is a very good example of what I am talking about.

On the other hand, it is their choice to buy, or not buy, into the products. They are adults, and can do what they want.

I'm am confused as to whether you are saying this women is the ancestor of "all" the women who lived at the same time as she, which would be about 4000 bce, or that she is the ancestor of all women, period.

One very serious problem is that human women had been on the planet for approximately 150,000 years. Therefore, there is no way this woman was the ancestor of “all” the women who lived at the same time as she.

I realize people like to dismiss the archeological record, but there is no denying the skeletons, etc., exist.

Elphaba

[WANDERER]

Chiming in with my total state of ignorance on almost all things, but as a 'living' church, growth and change seem to be an integral part of that concept in some ways, I would think.

[ztodd]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I went to the website you referenced, and I have to say it reminded me of the religious zealot who starts writing books that stray from doctrine, such as archeological evidence that is really the author's opinion, but has never been sanctioned by the Church.


I find these types of "evidences" very concerning, because a number of members will be persuaded, and in my opinion, exploited. Although I have not seen the DVD, this is a very good example of what I am talking about.

On the other hand, it is their choice to buy, or not buy, into the products. They are adults, and can do what they want.

I'm am confused as to whether you are saying this women is the ancestor of "all" the women who lived at the same time as she, which would be about 4000 bce, or that she is the ancestor of all women, period.

One very serious problem is that human women had been on the planet for approximately 150,000 years. Therefore, there is no way this woman was the ancestor of “all” the women who lived at the same time as she.

I realize people like to dismiss the archeological record, but there is no denying the skeletons, etc., exist.

Elphaba

Just reporting what the latest data has shown.

This is from How Old is Humanity? :

Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.

This calculation is done in the following way. Let us consider two randomly chosen human beings, assuming all human beings initially have identical mitochondrial DNA. After 33 generations, two such random humans will probably differ by two mutations, since there will be two separate lines of inheritance and probably one mutation along each line. After 66 generations, two randomly chosen humans will differ by about four mutations. After 100 generations, they will differ by about six mutations. After 300 generations, they will differ by about 18 mutations, which is about the observed value.

We see that the mathematics is extremely simple. However, this timetable would revolutionize the history of humanity from a scientific standpoint, so biologists attempt to explain away the data. They do this in the following way: They assume that in this control region, most of the mutations are harmful. This means that individuals having more mutations are more likely to die, so that among surviving individuals, the number of mutations increases more slowly.

However, this explanation is implausible for the following reasons. First, we know that the control region does not code for any protein or RNA, so it is unlikely that mutations there would be harmful. Second, the fact that there is a lot of variation between individuals in this region suggests that mutations there do not have a harmful effect. Finally, one study noted that humans evolve (that is, accumulate mutations) 1.8 times faster in the control region than in silent sites in the mitochondrial DNA. (See ``Recent African origin of modern humans revealed by complete sequences of hominoid mitochondrial DNAs'' by S. Horai, K. Hayasaka, R. Kondo, K. Tsugane, and N. Takahata, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995 Jan 17;92(2):532-536.) Silent sites do not affect the amino acid coded for, and so they generally do not have much of an effect. The fact that the control region evolves 1.8 times faster (that is, mutations accumulate 1.8 times faster) indicates that the control region has even less of an influence than the silent sites, also making it unlikely that mutations in the control region are harmful. A similar result was found for ducks, in which the control region evolves 4.4 times faster than the mitochondrial DNA in general. See Michael D. Sorenson and Robert C. Fleischer, Multiple independent transpositions of mitochondrial DNA control region sequences to the nucleus, PNAS 1996 93: pp. 15239-15243. This is additional evidence that the control region is not constrained much, and that mutations there are not very harmful.

Despite the sensational impact of this calculation on the chronology of the human race, we see that the most reasonable interpretation of the data is to assume that the human race is in fact about 6000 years old.

Now what do we have here... we have an old theory that the human race is much older, but now we have new data that says humans are about 6000 years old.

Which will you go with- Are you going to go with this latest scientific data, or are you going to stick with your previous theory of an older human race?

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by ztodd

Just reporting what the latest data has shown.

This is from How Old is Humanity? :. . . .Which will you go with- Are you going to go with this latest scientific data, or are you going to stick with your previous theory of an older human race?

The latest scientific data? From a computer programmer who can’t make a website that doesn’t look 20-years old? Who thinks all living females are related via MtDNA to a woman who lived in 4000 bce? You can't be serious!

What is it on this board that people think they can send me an amateur web-site as “proof,” and I will be ignorant enough to accept it as such?

But I’ll be honest, after this egotistic blathering, I was done!

One can understand in evolutionary terms why there should be animals such as apes that are so close to humans. But why would God create a creature that is so close to a human, but not quite? To answer this, we have to reason from what we know or can infer about God's motives in the creation. This may lead us to considerations that seem far removed from those that are expected in this context. The original creation was intended to contribute to the happiness of man and animal. We can assume that in many cases the Lord created animals that would be a delight to man, and created man to be a blessing to the animals. Even today, both children and adults enjoy seeing gorillas and chimpanzees in zoos. It is reasonable to assume that these creatures were partly made for just this reason, to be a joy and entertainment to us. In a similar way, we can speculate in unorthodox terms that an animal such as the koala bear was created because of its cuddly appearance, which is a delight to children and many adults. Even if such creatures don't seem well adapted from our viewpoint, they serve their purposes very well.

Someone needs to tell your arrogant friend Koalas are not a bear.

If this man expects anyone to take him seriously, he needs to publish an article or essay in a peer-reviewed, reputable journal. Otherwise, he is just one more fruitcake on a sloppy looking page in the internet.

Are you going to go with this latest scientific data, or are you going to stick with your previous theory of an older human race?

The latest scientific data indicates the human race is 150,000 years old.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Someone needs to tell your arrogant friend Koalas are not a bear.

Ray's Wiki:

Ko-ala bear. Another version of "Teddy Bear". No relation however. Because of similarity in appearance, some speculated there was a connection through "bear" genetics. It was later discovered that while Teddy Bears were lifeless, Koalas were real animals native to Australia, officially known as Phascolarctos cinereus. The connection between the two still persists, however.

More about the Koala (from a reliable source this time):

The koala gets its name from an ancient Aboriginal word meaning "no drink" because it receives over 90% of its hydration from the Eucalyptus leaves (also known as gum leaves) it eats, and only drinks when ill or times when there is not enough moisture in the leaves. ie during droughts etc.

Too bad they aren't as big as camels.

[ztodd]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

The latest scientific data? From a computer programmer who can’t make a website that doesn’t look 20-years old? Who thinks all living females are related via MtDNA to a woman who lived in 4000 bce? You can't be serious!

What is it on this board that people think they can send me an amateur web-site as “proof,” and I will be ignorant enough to accept it as such?

But I’ll be honest, after this egotistic blathering, I was done!

Thanks, I got a kick out of that response. Interesting that you got so defensive about wanting to defend the old theory. Also interesting that you thought this data actually came from the website programmer.

You see, the website was just a means of helping to communicate the latest scientific data. Kind of like how Joseph Smith was just the young farm boy messenger chosen to tell the world about the true character of God. There were many who scoffed at him and said, "God the Father and Jesus Christ are actually personages who look like us? You can't be serious!" After all, he was just a boy that wasn't yet 20 years old.

I was just trying to help point you in the right direction so you could do your own further researching of this latest data. If you're interested.

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Someone needs to tell your arrogant friend Koalas are not a bear.

?? I didn't see anything about koala bears... Where did that quote come from?

[Elphaba]

Too bad they aren't as big as camels.

Actually, Ray, I suspect David Plaisted, the man who claims animals are put on this earth to delight and entertain human beings, would reject the camel. That is because camels are such homely creatures, and we couldn't have "homely" in our zoo now, could we?

Such self-important arrogance, not to mention the impact this would have on the environment, is stunning in its impudence.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

Originally Posted by ztodd

I was just trying to help point you in the right direction so you could do your own further researching of this latest data. If you're interested

Todd, this isn't "the latest data", it's age old, recyled garbage. Maybe you think it is "the latest data"? The evidence for an old earth and evolution is quite stunning, IF you understand even the basic "data". It is no coincidence that we humans share more than 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. Based on that average, I'd say it's a bullseye for evolution, looking at it simplistically. If you'd care to read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, where he doesn't attack religion, you'd see how silly it is to think the world was created in seven days, or even seven thousand years.