June 24, 2014

The following comment was left on the post "Adam, the first of all human beings":

1. The phrase is found tucked away in a glossary and is clearly not the emphasis of the pamphlet. The body of the pamphlet itself uses this verbiage: "Adam and Eve were the first of God’s children to come to earth". This verbiage is consistent with repeated official proclamations on the subject proclaiming that "Adam is the primal parent of our race". The pamphlet's glossary, and Elder Amado's comments, somewhat overstep official doctrine on the subject.

2. The evidence for man's shared biological heritage with primates is overwhelming. For instance, we see evidence of our biological heritage in the form of atavisms and vestigial organs. How can you explain how these curious features of our anatomy map to our evolutionary lineage and not across divergent lineages (i.e., why do we not share vestigal organs or atavisms with lineages that developed after evolutionary divergence, say with features unique to birds or squid.). Stated another way, we share (often broken) genes with primates but we do not share genes or structures with lineages that diverged after we shared a common ancestor (see here for a more developed argument). Some examples:

* goose bumps are associated with responses that only make sense if our ancestors were once covered with hair!

* ear wiggling muscles: Why are we able to wiggle our ears? (besides entertaining young children in conference)

* remnants of a third eyelid, including non-functional muscles (the plica semilunaris is a remnant of a nictitating membrane)

* the palmar grasp reflex

* true tails

* the point in many people's ear (Darwin's tubercle)

Why did God give some people a point in their ear at exactly the same location as would map to a primate's ear? If we do not share biological ancestry, we would expect instances of extra tissue to be randomly located around the ear. Instead, we observe that ~10% of the human population has extra thickening at the same location as would be found in other mammalian ears. How to explain this, except by invoking common ancestry?

If you dig through the molecular genetic evidence, the case for common biological ancestry is equally strong. Here are a couple of my favorites:

* Great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. Chromosome two was formed by a fusion of two chromosomes. However, sequence around the fusion event still bears resemblance to the end of the chromosome, pointing strongly to an evolutionary heritage.

* Loss of the functional gene to synthesize vitamin C tracks evolutionary lineage (we have the gene, but it is broken) see here

3. I am familiar with the evolutionary views of many professors at BYU in the sciences. These are individuals intimately familiar with both the scriptural/prophetic canon and the biological evidence. Without exception, every one of them of which I am aware accepts as fact that we share a common biological lineage with primates (and while still harmonizing this with official statements). In fact, I have never met a latter-day-saint with intimate knowledge of modern biology who does not accept as fact our common biological lineage with primates, and this is a topic I have discussed with many LDS.

4. The idea that mankind was the direct offspring of God the Father (I'm assuming that is what you believe) directly contradicts scripture (Mosiah 26:2). How can you countenance such a view and still profess belief in the Book of Mormon? I'm aware of attempts to explain this verse away as divine investure of authority, but it seems a blatant contradiction of this very plain scripture coupling Jesus Christ's redemptive power to the fact that he created mankind (through evolutionary means, I would postulate).

While I cannot yet explain exactly how, there are very good arguments from a faithful LDS perspective for believing that Adam was the primal parent of our race, and that he shared a common ancestor with primates.