How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

Fossils forged for money, also somewhat complicate the issue.

It's true. Not far from my home, the Paluxy River has numerous dinosaur tracks in the rock along the shore. Some creationists actually carved out human footprints and sold them to unsuspecting creationists as "man tracks."

The most famous of these was Piltdown man, which puzzled scientists for a long time,until they proved it was a clever fake. But it was debunked by evolutionists, precisely because of what I told you. It was a transitional that shouldn't be there; a hominid with a large brain and an apelike body was all wrong, according to the theory. And not surprisingly, later finds confirmed the theory, showing manlike bodies and small brains.

In this case, evolutionary theory caused paleontologists to closely investigate the "find." Which nicely illustrates my point.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Yes, as discussed earlier, Tibetans have evolved in a very short time to thrive at extreme altitudes.

I have no idea why you think someone is disputing that particular point, it certainly is not based on evidence. The issue, is still whether our ability to adapt is increasing, it is still not are any adaptations occurring.

 

[MrsFoundit]

You were sold a fake definition, and because you didn't know the real one, you were misled.

Here is just some, Evolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) of the definitions in current use.

 

[MrsFoundit]

You probably should know that most creationist organizations

Perhaps you should know that all Biblical Creationists derive their beliefs from the Bible (it is in the name, Biblical). "Most creationist organisations" are not the basis of the convictions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps you should know that all Biblical Creationists derive their beliefs from the Bible (it is in the name, Biblical).

Most of them are honest enough to say it's their interpretation of the Bible. But not all of them. But AiG, for example, points out that the Bible does not say that new species don't evolve from existing ones. Which is a fact.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation

"Most creationist organisations" are not the basis of the convictions.

For YE creationists, it's the visions of an Adventist "prophetess" on which their convictions are based.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You were sold a fake definition, and because you didn't know the real one, you were misled.

Here is just some, Evolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) of the definitions in current use.

You would do better getting scientific definitions from a science source instead of a philosophy text, but let's take a look...

Fuytuyma:
[biological evolution] is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations…

Yes, that's "descent with modification", which Darwin defined it. He didn't care for the term "evolution," and used his own. Next:

John Endler;
Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification…

Yep.

Leigh van Valen;
“the control of development by ecology”

This is actually an agency of evolution; that is natural selection. So that's not quite precise. But for a non-scientific reference, not bad. Let's look at an actual science source:

The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | Live Science

At any rate, it's Darwin's theory, so he gets to decide. Or if you want to take the modern synthesis, incorporating genetics, there's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." One of those.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Most of them are honest enough to say it's their interpretation of the Bible.

Okay, so you do realise that "Creationist organisations" do not actually form the basis of Creationist opinions.

 

[MrsFoundit]

You would do better getting scientific definitions from a science source instead of a philosophy text,

In a philosophical debate, I will include philosophy thank you.

 

[The Barbarian]

In a philosophical debate, I will include philosophy thank you.

In a scientific debate, using the wrong nomenclature will fail you every time. Creationism is a philosophy, but biology is a science, and in science, you need to be accurate.

 

[The Barbarian]

Okay, so you do realise that "Creationist organisations" do not actually form the basis of Creationist opinions.

I only note that many of them are honest enough to admit the fact of speciation and common descent, albeit in a limited form.

 

[Gottservant]

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



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.

You make it sound like anything could become butterfly-like!

What about babies, growing to men and then back to babies?

 

[The Barbarian]

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

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.

You make it sound like anything could become butterfly-like!

I don't know how you got that idea.

What about babies, growing to men and then back to babies?

Maturation and aging? They don't go back to babies, of course. Just the opposite.

 

[MrsFoundit]

In a scientific debate, using the wrong nomenclature will fail you every time. Creationism is a philosophy, but biology is a science, and in science, you need to be accurate.

Are you a theistic evolutionist?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In a scientific debate, using the wrong nomenclature will fail you every time. Creationism is a philosophy, but biology is a science, and in science, you need to be accurate.

Are you a theistic evolutionist?

I'm a biologist. I'm a Christian who accepts His creation as it is, which means theistic evolution. But I can't use my Christian beliefs to support the science.

There is a philosophy of science, but it's not what you seem to think it is. Most philosophers aren't very capable scientists, because they aren't limited to what can be learned from evidence.

Biologists are (or at least used to be) pretty capable at philosophy, because as Ernst Mayr said, classical biology education included of at least a basic understanding of philosophy.

"Theistic evolution" always seemed like an odd notion. You might as well talk about "theistic plumbing." A Christian who is a plumber is, I suppose, a "theistic plumber", but his theism doesn't inform his plumbing.

Does that help?

 

[MrsFoundit]

I'm a Christian who accepts His creation as it is, which means theistic evolution. .

Theistic evolution is a philosophical position, it is pure opinion, with no scientific support whatsoever. As you correctly point out, scientific support is not required for a philosophical position.

 

[MrsFoundit]

There is a philosophy of science,

There is in fact far more than the one.

 

[The Barbarian]

Theistic evolution is a philosophical position, it is pure opinion, with no scientific support whatsoever.

Philosophical positions, if they are truly philosophical, are not pure opinions, but rationally-derived conclusions. They can be in error, but they are not merely opinions. If they are truly philosophical, that is.

As you correctly point out, scientific support is not required for a philosophical position.

Right. Theistic evolution is a religious interpretation of a natural phenomenon.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is in fact far more than the one.

It's philosophy applied to the natural universe. Mostly, it's applied epistemology, but also has metaphysical implications.

Like most things in philosophy, there's not general agreement on it, among philosophers. That's one of the big differences between science and philosophy.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Philosophical positions, if they are truly philosophical, are not pure opinions, but rationally-derived conclusions. .

I am aware of that, but your philosophical position, that is theistic evolution, remains not supported by science, in that context, it is opinion.

By the way, rationally derived conclusions are basically opinions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am aware of that, but your philosophical position, that is theistic evolution, remains not supported by science, in that context, it is opinion.

Precisely, it's a religious belief, attributing God's will to observed evolution.

By the way, rationally derived conclusions are basically opinions.

opinion
[ uh-pin-yuhn ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR opinion ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
...
conclusion
[ kuhn-kloo-zhuhn ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR conclusion ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.

Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary