for the LDS - Science and Religion co-exist for us (Jesus Christ, priest)

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by Sola'lor

Yeah, that pretty much covers it. LIke with those moths than adapted to their environment change and they became black. Now there are white and black moths. But those black months didn't evolve to become strange new creatures. They just adapted as moths.

That's fine, but how about answering my question with regard to the fish in our hypothetical lake? I only bring this up because in isolated speciation this has occured in the past. The level of a body of water drops enough to isolate populations of the species in seperate ponds. Conditions in each pond may different and mutations that occur in one pond are not spread to the others. What results is a series of variations that occur only within the invidual ponds. After enough time and enough mutation/natural selection/whatever the fish of the same species in each pond are genetically different enough to be unable to reproduce to produce fertile offspring, if they were ever to meet again. There we have not a change into some strange new creature, but new species arising from a single one due to a geographical separation. For variation to take place but no evolution, every mutation that occurs in one pond would have to also happen in the others, which is staggeringly unlikely.

- David

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by Hexaqua_David(II)

That's fine, but how about answering my question with regard to the fish in our hypothetical lake? I only bring this up because in isolated speciation this has occured in the past. The level of a body of water drops enough to isolate populations of the species in seperate ponds. Conditions in each pond may different and mutations that occur in one pond are not spread to the others. What results is a series of variations that occur only within the invidual ponds. After enough time and enough mutation/natural selection/whatever the fish of the same species in each pond are genetically different enough to be unable to reproduce to produce fertile offspring, if they were ever to meet again. There we have not a change into some strange new creature, but new species arising from a single one due to a geographical separation. For variation to take place but no evolution, every mutation that occurs in one pond would have to also happen in the others, which is staggeringly unlikely.

I have no problem with this. If species is being defined as one type of animal that is incapable of breeding with another then I have no problem with a life form changing into another species. What I am saying is that those fish in those ponds wouldn't change into frogs, or other things. They would still remain fish.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Sola'lor

What I am saying is that those fish in those ponds wouldn't change into frogs, or other things. They would still remain fish.

Give 'em long enough and they just may become frogs. (Probably not frogs per se, but something just as different from a fish as a frog is).

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by Sola'lor

I have no problem with this. If species is being defined as one type of animal that is incapable of breeding with another then I have no problem with a life form changing into another species. What I am saying is that those fish in those ponds wouldn't change into frogs, or other things. They would still remain fish.

You can't know that... Given enough time one of the isolates could evolve into anything! You just have to think on a larger time scale. Evolution takes place over millions of years and the amount of genetic change possible in that amount of time is massive. Birds are evolved from reptiles, which are obviously quite different. Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

If you'd like to learn more about allopatric speciation, read this article on Darwin's Finches! Darwin's finches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- David

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by trinity2359

I think science and religion co-exist quite nicely within the LDS faith. Given that there is limited evidence for the historic nature of the Book of Mormon events doesn't seem to bother those who have a testimony of its truthfulness.

When the Holy Ghost tells you that something is true, then you don't worry about it. You just know that eventually all those questions will be answered.

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by Starfish

When the Holy Ghost tells you that something is true, then you don't worry about it. You just know that eventually all those questions will be answered.

What if every piece of evidence collected suggests that it is not true?

- David

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Hexaqua_David(II)

What if every piece of evidence collected suggests that it is not true?

- David

That might be a problem, if it were true. But it isn't.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Science tells us to reject only that which has been falsified. I don't see the problem in this case.

I would say that science tells us to accept only that which cannot be falsified through testing. We can feel free to reject lots of things if they're simply speculation totally lacking in evidence.

Originally Posted by Soyleche

Give 'em long enough and they just may become frogs. (Probably not frogs per se, but something just as different from a fish as a frog is).

Meh, I see what you mean but evolution isn't totally random. A fish has a limit to the the paths it can take, chiefly it can stay in the water or it can take to the land. The latter will by definition be amphibian and will almost certainly be something similar to a lungfish in the early stages.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Meh, I see what you mean but evolution isn't totally random. A fish has a limit to the the paths it can take, chiefly it can stay in the water or it can take to the land. The latter will by definition be amphibian and will almost certainly be something similar to a lungfish in the early stages.

Give 'em a bit longer