How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?

[The Barbarian]

They can't get the care they need on the streets.

Many do. Some cities have clinics just for that purpose. Cheaper and more effective than ER visits.

No one spoke of "danger" but you. All of them are human beings, loved by Jesus Christ, and therefore to be treated with respect and dignity. We are better off as a society if we stop leaving people to survive in inappropriate conditions, and a safe shelter is no way worse than the streets for anyone. That is, "for their own good, and ours", no perceived danger involved.

Most prefer the streets to being locked up with no control over their lives. The dignity of freedom and the right to choose risk applies to them as well. If the state can take the freedom of someone who poses no risk to others, then it can take the freedom of any of us, "for our own good."

Hence the movement to provide shelter and medical care for these people, without removing their dignity and freedom.

 

[The Barbarian]

The suggestion is that our capacity to adapt is diminishing over time, not that adaptation never occurs at all.

We all see that. The point is, the evidence shows otherwise. There are many, many human adaptations that have happened in recent times, which disposes of the belief that we are degenerating. Would you like to talk about some more of them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Many do. Some cities have clinics just for that purpose. Cheaper and more effective than ER visits.

That's fine for some, but drug and alcohol addicts may need 'in house' help. The courts used to 'sentence' troublesome drunks to REBOS facilities ('sober' spelled backward) for 14 days to sober up and dry out. Of course most returned to drinking upon discharge but at least they were off the street for a time.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's an intractable problem, but the answer is not warehousing them in institutions. That's no longer a legal way to deal with it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's an intractable problem, but the answer is not warehousing them in institutions. That's no longer a legal way to deal with it.

We have lots of such problems that we are unwilling to effectively deal with. If you want an orchard to remain healthy and productive you must prune it, otherwise it become an impossible tangled mess. Most of our social service institutions are a mess.

 

[The Barbarian]

We have lots of such problems that we are unwilling to effectively deal with. If you want an orchard to remain healthy and productive you must prune it, otherwise it become an impossible tangled mess.

The trees might not agree, if they could speak. Keeping maximum productivity may not be their objective.

Most of our social service institutions are a mess.

True, but we've drifted a long way from the point that humans continue to evolve to increase fitness in their particular environments. Instead of degenerating, these populations have become more fit, not less.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The trees might not agree, if they could speak. Keeping maximum productivity may not be their objective.

That makes my point. People don't care how big of a mess they make for themselves and for others. It's nearly 2020 and people still litter; the oceans are filled with it.

True, but we've drifted a long way from the point that humans continue to evolve to increase fitness in their particular environments. Instead of degenerating, these populations have become more fit, not less.

You're saying two different thing here. Which do you mean?

 

[The Barbarian]

True, butTrue, but we've drifted a long way from the point that humans continue to evolve to increase fitness in their particular environments. Instead of degenerating, these populations have become more fit, not less.. Instead of degenerating, these populations have become more fit, not less.

You're saying two different thing here. Which do you mean?

I said:
1. That the conversation has drifted a long way from the point: humans continue to evolve to increase fitness in their particular evironments.

2. Instead of degenerating, human populations have become more fit, not less.

They are both demonstrably true.

 

[JacquelineDeane55]

You seriously believe something as ridiculous as evolution? Please. Saying we evolved over billions of years is silly even from a logical perspective. There is no way this planet could be millions of years old. This kind of reasoning defies my logic.

Is anything more ludicrous? Mankind is so gullible he will believe anything that comes down the gullet of education for him.

Scientology is also ridiculous, but don't tell followers of that religion I said anything about it. There is only one LORD GOD, simply put. Everything else is only in your imagination and fantasies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

True, butTrue, but we've drifted a long way from the point that humans continue to evolve to increase fitness in their particular environments. Instead of degenerating, these populations have become more fit, not less.. Instead of degenerating, these populations have become more fit, not less.



I said:
1. That the conversation has drifted a long way from the point: humans continue to evolve to increase fitness in their particular evironments.

2. Instead of degenerating, human populations have become more fit, not less.

They are both demonstrably true.

Thanks. A semi-colon would have made it clear.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seriously believe something as ridiculous as evolution?

It's directly observed. Please.

Saying we evolved over billions of years is silly even from a logical perspective. There is no way this planet could be millions of years old.

It's what the evidence shows. Even many creationists are old Earth creationists because of the evidence.

Is anything more ludicrous?

Bigfoot. Lizard people secretly running our government. Young Earth Creationism. Flat Earth believers.... (long list)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

How many have a living great grandfather with money to spare (I never knew either of my grandfathers).

We had multiple generations under the same roof.

 

[Gottservant]

What if mankind can't work out how to evolve, next - will monkeys be disappointed and call mankind back to the old pack (of monkeys)?

 

[Gottservant]

I think what irritates me, is that the notion that a creature can evolve into another creature is a conceit. And you say "what about caterpillars?" Do caterpillars produce a different creature, every time, or only ever "butterflies"? Where is there evidence that caterpillars will one day lead to something other than a butterfly??

Where is the evidence?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Most prefer the streets to being locked up with no control over their lives.

Just as no one mentioned "danger" except you, no one mentioned "locked up", except you.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Where is the evidence?

It is sitting next to some assumptions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just as no one mentioned "danger" except you, no one mentioned "locked up", except you.

How do you intend to keep them when they don't want to be there?

 

[The Barbarian]

I think what irritates me, is that the notion that a creature can evolve into another creature is a conceit.

More precisely, it's a creationist misconception. Organisms don't evolve; population do.

And you say "what about caterpillars?"

No one but a creationist would say that. Another part of that misconception.

Where is the evidence?

Why don't we ask some of your fellow YE creationists?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

There's a lot more of this, if you'd like to see more. And yes, these people have actually studied the issue, so they understand the evidence. Dr. Wise is being a bit more technical, since it's in a paper, but they both make the point very well; there's a lot of evidence for evolution and common descent. If, as they do, you choose to go instead with your understanding of scripture, that's O.K. Just be realistic about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

What if mankind can't work out how to evolve,

We're already doing that. As you learned, different populations of humans have evolved in different ways to fit their environments. Since we continue to share genes throughout the world, it's almost impossible for speciation to occur, but useful new mutations continue to happen, and some of them become widespread in humans, such as the retention activity in the lactase gene.

next - will monkeys be disappointed and call mankind back to the old pack (of monkeys)?

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, which are continuing to evolve in their own ways.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

More precisely, it's a creationist misconception. Organisms don't evolve; population do.



No one but a creationist would say that. Another part of that misconception.



Why don't we ask some of your fellow YE creationists?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

There's a lot more of this, if you'd like to see more. And yes, these people have actually studied the issue, so they understand the evidence. Dr. Wise is being a bit more technical, since it's in a paper, but they both make the point very well; there's a lot of evidence for evolution and common descent. If, as they do, you choose to go instead with your understanding of scripture, that's O.K. Just be realistic about it.

If evolution had proof, why when the cameras are running it all locked up?

Please start another thread giving the evidences of evolution on the major scale.

Thanks,
Daniel