How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?

[Daniel Marsh]

I have no problem of mutations within a species. But, that does not show that one population of a species becomes another species. A Human with hair all over their body is still just a human. A Human with difference skin color is still just a human.

From YEC, what are the quotes from Evolutionists that there is an upward growth from one species into another. Maybe, I am using the wrong language. If so, how should I have worded the question?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Maybe, I am using the wrong language. If so, how should I have worded the question?

Do you mean "common ancestor"? It is not a monkey or ape becoming a human, it some animal, neither an ape nor human, from which both apes and humans are derived.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Sure. 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

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]

I have no problem of mutations within a species. But, that does not show that one population of a species becomes another species.

O. lamarckana to O. gigas, by a polyploidy mutation. The new species is unable to reproduce with the original species, but breeds true with other gigas.

 

[Gottservant]

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

[...]

Species of butterflies, fine!

The point remains the same: at the end of the day, its a butterfly, not half a caterpillar, not a caterpillar with butterfly wings.

Species of caterpillars become species of butterflies.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.
YE creationist Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

I think Todd Wood has the difference figured out with this point, "Anticreationists insist that the explanations of science should never invoke the supernatural. I see this requirement as sort of pragmatic (due to the unknown nature of the supernatural) but also very much ideologically-driven (in order to demarcate science from "pseudoscience" like creationism). Obviously as a creationist I reject this requirement. Pragmatically, I think that the supernatural can be discussed in science if that supernatural agent is somehow knowable. Since I think God is not only knowable but desires to be known, He becomes a valid agent to posit in science." (Emphasis mine).
The nature of science

The dispute is about the philosophy of science.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think Todd Wood has the difference figured out with this point, "Anticreationists insist that the explanations of science should never invoke the supernatural. I see this requirement as sort of pragmatic (due to the unknown nature of the supernatural) but also very much ideologically-driven (in order to demarcate science from "pseudoscience" like creationism).

No. The same position would apply to theistic evolution. Wood, being a scientist, understands that science is unable to consider anything supernatural. By its very methodology, it's limited to the physical universe.

Obviously as a creationist I reject this requirement. Pragmatically, I that the supernatural can be discussed in science if that supernatural agent is somehow knowable.

No. It would have to be knowable by analyzing physical evidence. And that isn't going to be the case. Maybe someday,we'll figure out a system to do that, aside from the knowledge every man already has within him.

Romans 1:20, NIV: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

If your faith will not take you there, science can't help you. God has already given you what you need to know, and left it in your heart. That should be enough, as your fellow creationist says. You might as well assail plumbers because plumbing can't tell you about God.

But plumbers can. And that should be good enough.

 

[The Barbarian]

Species of caterpillars become species of butterflies.

You still don't get it. A monarch caterpillar is the same species as a monarch butterfly. When, in the chrysalis, it's half-way through metamorphisis, it's still the same species.

 

[MrsFoundit]

No. It would have to be knowable by analyzing physical evidence. And that isn't going to be the case. Maybe someday,we'll figure out a system to do that, aside from the knowledge every man already has within him.

You are quoting Todd Wood saying "Obviously as a creationist I reject this requirement. Pragmatically, I think that the supernatural can be discussed in science if that supernatural agent is somehow knowable.", I did not say it.

You also seem to think he would not say that.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

very interesting

 

[Gottservant]

You still don't get it. A monarch caterpillar is the same species as a monarch butterfly. When, in the chrysalis, it's half-way through metamorphisis, it's still the same species.

It has the same genes? The epigenome doesn't switch interpretation of the genetic structure (to go from caterpillar genes to butterfly genes)?

 

[The Barbarian]

It has the same genes?

Yep. An individual is pretty much stuck with the genes it's born with.

The epigenome doesn't switch interpretation of the genetic structure (to go from caterpillar genes to butterfly genes)?

Histones can only turn on/turn off what's already there. Your histones do the same things. But you're still stuck with the genome you had at birth. It's a matter of switching on and off. Basically histone methylation and demethylation.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

It didn't. As you see, Tibetans and some Pacific islanders have evolved in the past few thousand years, and we see more recent cases like the Milano mutation, and a mutated myostatin gene. Evolution is going on all around us, and is observable and measurable.

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

Your fellow YE creationist (Dr. Kurt Wise) presented many such in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms. DNA analysis, showing the same family tree of living things as first discovered hundreds of years ago by Linnaeus.

There's a huge number of evolutionary predictions that have been confirmed, such as the demonstration that dinosaur heme is more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles.

The huge numbers of predicted transitional fossils discovered after the predictions is compelling, but even more compelling is the fact that we never see a transitional where evolutionary theory says it shouldn't be.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Tell that to the Tibetans. I think they'd be amused.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have no problem of mutations within a species. But, that does not show that one population of a species becomes another species. A Human with hair all over their body is still just a human. A Human with difference skin color is still just a human.

From YEC, what are the quotes from Evolutionists that there is an upward growth from one species into another. Maybe, I am using the wrong language. If so, how should I have worded the question?

Speciations are common enough that we have a good list of them. Even most creationist organizations no longer deny the fact of speciation. Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research are two that have acknowledged the fact. Most admit new genera and families, sometimes new orders.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The huge numbers of predicted transitional fossils discovered after the predictions is compelling, but even more compelling is the fact that we never see a transitional were evolutionary theory says it shouldn't be.

"In avoiding fragmentary fossils or extant organisms with combinations of chimaeric or autapomorphic features, and by excluding long branching taxa or heavily biased nucleotide and protein sequences from molecular analyses, we may bring near completeness to data matrices and greater stability to our phylogenetic analyses, but probably at the expense of accuracy and an understanding of the full evolutionary picture. Problematica reveal themselves as supremely important; for without their inclusion and accurate placement, other relationships are liable to change. In understanding how to deal with Problematica, we realize the limits of systematics and our ability to have faith in our reconstructions of the tree of life."

Problematica old and new


Fossils forged for money, also somewhat complicate the issue.

How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt]

 

[MrsFoundit]

Evolution is going on all around us, and is observable and measurable.

With "evolution" re-defined as "change through time", and only applicable to origins by extrapolation.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Tell that to the Tibetans. I think they'd be amused.

Is there meant to be some scientific point about evolution here. I cannot see a link to a source, or a even a point being made. Feel free to try again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is there meant to be some scientific point about evolution here.

Yes, as discussed earlier, Tibetans have evolved in a very short time to thrive at extreme altitudes. This in the last few thousand years, a mere blink in the history of our genus. And there are certainly more recent adaptations, like the Milano mutation, which occurred a few hundred years ago, and is now spreading, or the HbC mutation that provides protection against malaria, without the extreme consequences homozygotes we see in HbS, an earlier mutation.

I cannot see a link to a source,

Well, let's run them by, one more time...

Sickle haemoglobin, haemoglobin C and malaria mortality feedbacks

• Bronner P. Gonçalves,
• Sunetra Gupta &
• Bridget S. Penman

Malaria Journal volume 15, Article number: 26 (2016)

...
Genetic signatures of high-altitude adaptation in Tibetans
Jian Yang, View ORCID ProfileZi-Bing Jin, Jie Chen, Xiu-Feng Huang, Xiao-Man Li, Yuan-Bo Liang, Jian-Yang Mao, Xin Chen, Zhili Zheng, Andrew Bakshi, Dong-Dong Zheng, Mei-Qin Zheng, Naomi R. Wray, Peter M. Visscher, Fan Lu, and Jia Qu
PNAS April 18, 2017 114 (16) 4189-4194;
...
Properties of ApoA-I Milano

• Cesare R. Sirtori

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 4, page698(2005)

or a even a point being made.

As you see, natural selection continues to increase human fitness in whatever environment humans find themselves.

That's how it works. Once you start looking, there are all sorts of examples. Feel free to try again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is going on all around us, and is observable and measurable.

With "evolution" re-defined as "change through time",

That's what Darwin called it. Descent with modification. After the discovery of genetics, the scientific definition was "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." You were sold a fake definition, and because you didn't know the real one, you were misled.

and only applicable to origins by extrapolation.

That's another common misconception creationists have. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. They often confuse evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent. You probably should know that most creationist organizations now admit natural selection and a limited amount of common descent, at least to new species, genera, and families.