Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/herschel-walker-evolution_n_6230b08ce4b0fe0944dc0e65
Herschel Walker Skeptical Of Evolution: 'Why Are There Still Apes? Think About It' The former NFL player, who is now running for Senate in Georgia, gets some basic facts wrong.
Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker cast doubt on the theory of evolution in recent remarks, saying the fact that apes and humans coexist disproves accepted science.
“At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not? ... If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it,” Herschel said in an appearance at Sugar Hill Church in Georgia on Sunday.
“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Herschel,” lead pastor Chuck Allen responded.“
#1. Humans ARE apes.
#2. DNA evidence proves we are 98.8% identical to chimpanzees and Bonobos, and all 3 species had a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
#3. Christianity is not (necessarily) incompatible with the theory of evolution. There are plenty of Christians who accept the theory of evolution, like Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian, who also accepts the theory of evolution and mapped the Human Genome. He just believes that God initiated and directs evolution.
Herschel Walker Skeptical Of Evolution: 'Why Are There Still Apes? Think About It' The former NFL player, who is now running for Senate in Georgia, gets some basic facts wrong.
Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker cast doubt on the theory of evolution in recent remarks, saying the fact that apes and humans coexist disproves accepted science.
“At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not? ... If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it,” Herschel said in an appearance at Sugar Hill Church in Georgia on Sunday.
“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Herschel,” lead pastor Chuck Allen responded.“
#1. Humans ARE apes.
#2. DNA evidence proves we are 98.8% identical to chimpanzees and Bonobos, and all 3 species had a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
#3. Christianity is not (necessarily) incompatible with the theory of evolution. There are plenty of Christians who accept the theory of evolution, like Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian, who also accepts the theory of evolution and mapped the Human Genome. He just believes that God initiated and directs evolution.
I read this earlier before you posted it. It didn't even enter my mind to post a link to it on RFM. I figure people can read the news on their own. Plus it isn't really on topic as far as recovering from mormonism.
You read the same article and posted a link to it. What was the motivation for that? Honestly curious.
You read the same article and posted a link to it. What was the motivation for that? Honestly curious.
IMO evolution is a fair topic for a board focused on religion (broadly,) and Mormonism (specifically,) especially a denomination that historically has held that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
If you are anything like me you get into discussions with Christians who say these kinds of things. Given the fact Walker is the leading contender for the position he is running for, there are a lot of people who still think like him. I find it’s good discuss current events, here anonymously, especially when it concerns the origin of life on Earth.
I have found in my recovery from MORmONism it is important to constantly try to articulate a more tenable world view in order to answer questions people have about life.
‘Why are there still apes?’ Is a really stupid question, given the fact we are all apes, but people tend to ignore that fact.
I like to remind people of that and our kinship with other species.
I have found in my recovery from MORmONism it is important to constantly try to articulate a more tenable world view in order to answer questions people have about life.
‘Why are there still apes?’ Is a really stupid question, given the fact we are all apes, but people tend to ignore that fact.
I like to remind people of that and our kinship with other species.
Fair enough, thanks.
I think evolution is a spot on topic for mormons.
The same with DNA research.
Mormons were boxed into the young earth theory and creationism when Joseph Fielding Smith declared it doctrine.
The science proved not only the age of the earth, but debunks the Adam theory.
If the was no Adam 6,000 years ago tye was no fall.
If there was no fall there is no need for redemption.
If there is no need for redemption there is no need for the blood sacrifice of the priest king.
If there was no need for christ there is no need for religion.
A true prophet could stand up and explain the contradictions between myth and science.
Science also disproves the book of mormon. The keystone to mormonism.
The better informed we are, the better we can explain things, the better we can help others be free.
The same with DNA research.
Mormons were boxed into the young earth theory and creationism when Joseph Fielding Smith declared it doctrine.
The science proved not only the age of the earth, but debunks the Adam theory.
If the was no Adam 6,000 years ago tye was no fall.
If there was no fall there is no need for redemption.
If there is no need for redemption there is no need for the blood sacrifice of the priest king.
If there was no need for christ there is no need for religion.
A true prophet could stand up and explain the contradictions between myth and science.
Science also disproves the book of mormon. The keystone to mormonism.
The better informed we are, the better we can explain things, the better we can help others be free.
"Plus it isn't really on topic as far as recovering from mormonism... What was the motivation for that? Honestly curious."
I think it can be tied in with RMN's quote quite easily: "...to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys."
Yup. God's One True Prophet on Earth.™
I think it can be tied in with RMN's quote quite easily: "...to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys."
Yup. God's One True Prophet on Earth.™
If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves?
Wolves are dogs.
anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t
No I don’t mean that.
I mean wolves are dogs aka canines.
And domesticated dogs are also canines, although hybridized by us, not natural selection.
“The dog or domestic dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf which is characterized by an upturning tail. The dog is derived from an ancient, extinct wolf, and the modern wolf is the dog's nearest living relative.The dog was the first species to be domesticated, by hunter–gatherers over 15,000 years ago, before the development of agriculture.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
“The wolf (Canis lupus), also known as the gray wolf or grey wolf, is a large canine native to Eurasia and North America. More than thirty subspecies of Canis lupus have been recognized, and gray wolves, as popularly understood, comprise wild subspecies. The wolf is the largest extant member of the family Canidae. It is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed ears and muzzle, as well as a shorter torso and a longer tail. The wolf is nonetheless related closely enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them.”
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t
No I don’t mean that.
I mean wolves are dogs aka canines.
And domesticated dogs are also canines, although hybridized by us, not natural selection.
“The dog or domestic dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf which is characterized by an upturning tail. The dog is derived from an ancient, extinct wolf, and the modern wolf is the dog's nearest living relative.The dog was the first species to be domesticated, by hunter–gatherers over 15,000 years ago, before the development of agriculture.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
“The wolf (Canis lupus), also known as the gray wolf or grey wolf, is a large canine native to Eurasia and North America. More than thirty subspecies of Canis lupus have been recognized, and gray wolves, as popularly understood, comprise wild subspecies. The wolf is the largest extant member of the family Canidae. It is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed ears and muzzle, as well as a shorter torso and a longer tail. The wolf is nonetheless related closely enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them.”
> “The dog or domestic dog (Canis familiaris or
> Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated
> descendant of the wolf . . .
That's exactly what anybody said.
> Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated
> descendant of the wolf . . .
That's exactly what anybody said.
She said dogs are evolved from wolves.
Domestic dogs and wolves are both canines, meaning, dogs.
Domestic dogs didn’t ’evolve’ from wolves, we selectively bred (hybridized) them.
https://etymologeek.com/lat/canis
Domestic dogs and wolves are both canines, meaning, dogs.
Domestic dogs didn’t ’evolve’ from wolves, we selectively bred (hybridized) them.
https://etymologeek.com/lat/canis
Kori,
Do you think no one will notice when you contradict yourself?
You had it right with your first source. It said,“The dog or domestic dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf..." That is correct. Wolves existed long before dogs did; and dogs descended from them.
Etymology does not matter. What matters is the way the Latin is employed by scientists. In this case the genus is Canis and the species is "Lupus Familiaris"--literally meaning "domesticated wolf." Genetics indicate the same thing: dogs are domesticated wolves.
As for your assertion that an animal that is bred is not subject to natural selection, that's just stupid. Species are always one of the mechanisms of natural selection.
I'll never understand your ineluctable need to double down on mistakes. It's sad.
Do you think no one will notice when you contradict yourself?
You had it right with your first source. It said,“The dog or domestic dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf..." That is correct. Wolves existed long before dogs did; and dogs descended from them.
Etymology does not matter. What matters is the way the Latin is employed by scientists. In this case the genus is Canis and the species is "Lupus Familiaris"--literally meaning "domesticated wolf." Genetics indicate the same thing: dogs are domesticated wolves.
As for your assertion that an animal that is bred is not subject to natural selection, that's just stupid. Species are always one of the mechanisms of natural selection.
I'll never understand your ineluctable need to double down on mistakes. It's sad.
"domesticated dogs are also canines, although hybridized by us, not natural selection"
So are humans hybridized? Genetically altered by artificial means? Maybe this is what Walker was alluding to. Or maybe he was just dumb. We may never know.
So are humans hybridized? Genetically altered by artificial means? Maybe this is what Walker was alluding to. Or maybe he was just dumb. We may never know.
This is par for the course.
I recall, during the 2012 election cycle, the debate moderator (Chris Wallace I think) asking the dozen or so Republican candidates to raise their hand if they accepted evolution. Out of the entire group, the only two to respond affirmatively were the two mormons – Romney and Huntsman.
Pride in ignorance and science denial on the right isn't a bug. It's a feature.
I recall, during the 2012 election cycle, the debate moderator (Chris Wallace I think) asking the dozen or so Republican candidates to raise their hand if they accepted evolution. Out of the entire group, the only two to respond affirmatively were the two mormons – Romney and Huntsman.
Pride in ignorance and science denial on the right isn't a bug. It's a feature.
41% of Americans believe humans were created less than 10,000 yrs ago.
The majority of R’s (68%) reject evolution.
The majority of D’s (57%) accept evolution.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
Being pragmatic about that question might be why Romney/Huntsman didn’t win.
Walker is just appealing to the lowest common denominator in his party and might just win because of it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2022 06:51PM by Tevai.
The majority of R’s (68%) reject evolution.
The majority of D’s (57%) accept evolution.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
Being pragmatic about that question might be why Romney/Huntsman didn’t win.
Walker is just appealing to the lowest common denominator in his party and might just win because of it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2022 06:51PM by Tevai.
“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Herschel,” lead pastor Chuck Allen responded.“
I'd give him the "critical thinking" vote.
I'd give him the "critical thinking" vote.
Walker is an idiot !
And that's his better points.
And that's his better points.
CTE is not your friend.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I have no clue what CTE is, and I suspect I am not alone. Google was no help either, giving several options, none of which seemed to fit the context.
Humans ARE apes but a dumb ass like Walker is too stupid to know this.
If U.S.A came from England then why is there still an England ?
If U.S.A came from England then why is there still an England ?
There will always be an England!
Cue Vera Lynn.
The English Professor Who Dared To Flunk Herschel Walker
So why did she sue administrators of the school she loved? "Cleaning up corruption at the University of Georgia and protecting students is my primary purpose," she said on the eve of her trial. "I don't want student athletes knocking on my door five years from now offering to rake my leaves when they could have had an education."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/02/15/jan-kemp-and-the-georgia-judgement/2b999dd0-3d73-406a-b8a7-4b412b2c26cd/
So why did she sue administrators of the school she loved? "Cleaning up corruption at the University of Georgia and protecting students is my primary purpose," she said on the eve of her trial. "I don't want student athletes knocking on my door five years from now offering to rake my leaves when they could have had an education."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/02/15/jan-kemp-and-the-georgia-judgement/2b999dd0-3d73-406a-b8a7-4b412b2c26cd/
Apparently Walker has never noticed how tree branches work.
If one tree branch exists, how can another tree branch exist?
If one tree branch exists, how can another tree branch exist?
If evolution is real, why are there still smug Christian nut jobs?
Apparently Walker is proof that not all of human kind evolved at the same rate. Which should make him a shoo-in for office.
“At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not?”
“At one time?”
As if the theory of evolution has been disproven so now science relies on the far superior theory of creationism to make life saving vaccines?
Anybody who didn’t flunk out of 7th Grade science class can tell you humans didn’t “come from apes”. Humans ARE apes, albeit naked apes.
“At one time?”
As if the theory of evolution has been disproven so now science relies on the far superior theory of creationism to make life saving vaccines?
Anybody who didn’t flunk out of 7th Grade science class can tell you humans didn’t “come from apes”. Humans ARE apes, albeit naked apes.
If water bears can exist in super extreme environments, how come regular bears can't?
The really sad thing about Walker's "insight" is not that it is so profoundly clueless about evolution, but that he is absolutely convinced that he has discovered an insight that has completely eluded the so-called intellectuals.
It's right up there with "what climate change? Look, I made a snowball."
Dunning-Kruger. He is completely unaware of how much he does not understand.
It's right up there with "what climate change? Look, I made a snowball."
Dunning-Kruger. He is completely unaware of how much he does not understand.
Also seems right up there with Kirk Cameron's banana.
Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also seems right up there with Kirk Cameron's
> banana.
Didn't Ray Comfort, who is *easily* in the running for dumbest person alive, originally come up with that? I'm pretty sure Cameron, who is also outrageously stupid and a possible contender for said ignominious award, ran with it, though.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also seems right up there with Kirk Cameron's
> banana.
Didn't Ray Comfort, who is *easily* in the running for dumbest person alive, originally come up with that? I'm pretty sure Cameron, who is also outrageously stupid and a possible contender for said ignominious award, ran with it, though.
Exactly.
Like I said, Walker has never noticed how tree branches work.
How can one branch exist if another branch exists?
Like I said, Walker has never noticed how tree branches work.
How can one branch exist if another branch exists?
If Herschel Walker's offspring exist, why does Herschel Walker still exist? The questions are so profound that it boggles the mind.
HH =)
HH =)
“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Happy_Heretic,”
Obviously the guy is a moron.
The fact that in the most technologically advanced society in human history the notion of "skeptical of evolution" is even a thing is a testament to human stupidity. Or at least an indication our educational system is failing miserably.
Space Pineapple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that in the most technologically advanced
> society in human history the notion of "skeptical
> of evolution" is even a thing is a testament to
> human stupidity. Or at least an indication our
> educational system is failing miserably.
I have a different take on this.
I come from a family where the maternal side was [past tense: those people I knew and am talking about here are all now deceased] genuinely, and to the innards of every atom in every one of their bodies, totally and irretrievably racist. That side of my family was SO PROUD of "our" slave-holding ancestors, and proud of just how much [so I was told] those ancestors ostensibly cared about [and LOVED!!!] their slaves--and my then-living relatives kept telling me that I ought to be SO PROUD of those same ancestors, because "our" family's former slaves had been so tearfully distraught at being freed that they BEGGED our family members to continue their prior owner/owned relationship(s), because they loved our family so much.
I deeply doubt that I was the only kid growing up who was told this.
As I was growing up, and well into my adulthood, my Mom, my maternal side aunts and uncles, my maternal side grandparents, and my Mom's entire side the family were--in their hearts and souls and minds--STILL "good" slaveholders, and this existed for all of the time I knew each of them.
It wasn't until I was a teenager that I think this even began to change in American families who, like my family, also had slaveholding forebears. (I have good reason to believe that this pro-slavery acceptance was still true for many of my cousins, who were/are my age peers, who continue to live in slaveholding-friendly parts of the country.)
It's changing now--faster for some of my relatives than for others, but it took a WHOLE long while (a century) for this to even begin to happen.
I think it may be the same with evolution.
This isn't a matter of intelligence (I had several relatives on my maternal side who were above-average intelligent and, frequently, were fully educated as well). My Mom was pretty smart (much smarter than she knew, actually).
Things like racism and evolution aren't necessarily connected to level of intelligence (I'm sure that some percentage of actual slaveholders were, by the standards of their time, highly intelligent). Instead, I think things like racism and evolution can be deeply connected to much more subtle anchors, such as the culture a given person most intimately identifies with.
Things like racism and evolution are not, in many cases, simple problems, and the "answers" to these kinds of problems are often far more complex than I think most people realize.
If you draw your own personal sense of identification from deep-set cultural anchors such as racism and opposition to the concept of evolution, it may take at least two or three generations (minimum) before these kinds of cultural identifications and biases can begin to be extricated from a continuing family line.
This isn't easy.
It isn't pretty.
It is frequently ugly...but somehow, at least in the USA I am familiar with, we do seem to eventually get to where we ought to optimally be.
Hopefully.
It is a process, and frequently it takes a whole long time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2022 01:14AM by Tevai.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that in the most technologically advanced
> society in human history the notion of "skeptical
> of evolution" is even a thing is a testament to
> human stupidity. Or at least an indication our
> educational system is failing miserably.
I have a different take on this.
I come from a family where the maternal side was [past tense: those people I knew and am talking about here are all now deceased] genuinely, and to the innards of every atom in every one of their bodies, totally and irretrievably racist. That side of my family was SO PROUD of "our" slave-holding ancestors, and proud of just how much [so I was told] those ancestors ostensibly cared about [and LOVED!!!] their slaves--and my then-living relatives kept telling me that I ought to be SO PROUD of those same ancestors, because "our" family's former slaves had been so tearfully distraught at being freed that they BEGGED our family members to continue their prior owner/owned relationship(s), because they loved our family so much.
I deeply doubt that I was the only kid growing up who was told this.
As I was growing up, and well into my adulthood, my Mom, my maternal side aunts and uncles, my maternal side grandparents, and my Mom's entire side the family were--in their hearts and souls and minds--STILL "good" slaveholders, and this existed for all of the time I knew each of them.
It wasn't until I was a teenager that I think this even began to change in American families who, like my family, also had slaveholding forebears. (I have good reason to believe that this pro-slavery acceptance was still true for many of my cousins, who were/are my age peers, who continue to live in slaveholding-friendly parts of the country.)
It's changing now--faster for some of my relatives than for others, but it took a WHOLE long while (a century) for this to even begin to happen.
I think it may be the same with evolution.
This isn't a matter of intelligence (I had several relatives on my maternal side who were above-average intelligent and, frequently, were fully educated as well). My Mom was pretty smart (much smarter than she knew, actually).
Things like racism and evolution aren't necessarily connected to level of intelligence (I'm sure that some percentage of actual slaveholders were, by the standards of their time, highly intelligent). Instead, I think things like racism and evolution can be deeply connected to much more subtle anchors, such as the culture a given person most intimately identifies with.
Things like racism and evolution are not, in many cases, simple problems, and the "answers" to these kinds of problems are often far more complex than I think most people realize.
If you draw your own personal sense of identification from deep-set cultural anchors such as racism and opposition to the concept of evolution, it may take at least two or three generations (minimum) before these kinds of cultural identifications and biases can begin to be extricated from a continuing family line.
This isn't easy.
It isn't pretty.
It is frequently ugly...but somehow, at least in the USA I am familiar with, we do seem to eventually get to where we ought to optimally be.
Hopefully.
It is a process, and frequently it takes a whole long time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2022 01:14AM by Tevai.
The process is also reversible. There was a time when Germany was one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the Western world. That changed as nationalism spread across Europe in the late 19th century and eventuated in Nazism and the Holocaust.
We have witnessed the same thing in the United States. The racially-motivated violence of the last several years would have been unthinkable for three or four previous decades. Racism was never eradicated, to be sure, but it was socially and politically unacceptable and hence went underground for a while.
Vigilance.
We have witnessed the same thing in the United States. The racially-motivated violence of the last several years would have been unthinkable for three or four previous decades. Racism was never eradicated, to be sure, but it was socially and politically unacceptable and hence went underground for a while.
Vigilance.
Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I come from a family where the maternal side was
> genuinely, and to the innards of every atom in
> every one of their bodies, totally and
> irretrievably racist. That side of my family was
> SO PROUD of "our" slave-holding ancestors
So, in other words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg&ab_channel=099tuber1
My point remains. If one, circa 2022, in the developed world, cannot grasp or accept evolutionary biology, congratulations, you are a complete and utter idiot. Period.
Slavery is even more obvious, unless one is completely gone mentally and morally. How anyone, anywhere, at any time, can't get the notion that being slave sucks is beyond me. It would take an utterly depraved mind to own another human being as chattel. A notion, I might add, that is (allegedly) divinely, and enthusiastically, endorsed in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. (And I'd add JS, that sack of fecal matter, defended slavery in print in 1836. What a shock.)
And before the word "faith" is trotted out, keep in mind that almost any proposition, including some pretty horrific ideas, can be defended on faith. It is simply not a reliable path to truth. Get that and things will become real clear, real fast.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I come from a family where the maternal side was
> genuinely, and to the innards of every atom in
> every one of their bodies, totally and
> irretrievably racist. That side of my family was
> SO PROUD of "our" slave-holding ancestors
So, in other words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg&ab_channel=099tuber1
My point remains. If one, circa 2022, in the developed world, cannot grasp or accept evolutionary biology, congratulations, you are a complete and utter idiot. Period.
Slavery is even more obvious, unless one is completely gone mentally and morally. How anyone, anywhere, at any time, can't get the notion that being slave sucks is beyond me. It would take an utterly depraved mind to own another human being as chattel. A notion, I might add, that is (allegedly) divinely, and enthusiastically, endorsed in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. (And I'd add JS, that sack of fecal matter, defended slavery in print in 1836. What a shock.)
And before the word "faith" is trotted out, keep in mind that almost any proposition, including some pretty horrific ideas, can be defended on faith. It is simply not a reliable path to truth. Get that and things will become real clear, real fast.
Ha ha ha.