Heresy within Christianity

[Yehren]

Well, we come right back to my question: Can you show me one observed example of how evolution has worked, say, in the development of a human being from an ape? That should be fairly simple, because that is a principal teaching of how evolution works for humans.

Sure. Humans evolved from Australopithecines, or their close relatives. Below the neck they are almost identical to us, but slightly transitional between us and forest apes.
Hip extensor mechanics and the evolution of walking and climbing capabilities in humans, apes, and fossil hominins

Elaine E. Kozma, Nicole M. Webb, William E. H. Harcourt-Smith, David A. Raichlen, View ORCID ProfileKristiaan D'Août, View ORCID ProfileMary H. Brown, Emma M. Finestone, Stephen R. Ross, Peter Aerts, and Herman Pontzer
PNAS April 17, 2018 115 (16) 4134-4139; first published April 2, 2018

The biomechanical issues for bipedalism were largely resolved long before there were humans.

One problem was the lack of stability. Chimps and other apes can walk bipedally, but clumsily with an inefficient rocking gait. A broader pelvis was one adaptation, (which incidentally allows the birth of larger-brained offspring) but also the legs changed. The femur is bent inward, giving Australopithecines and humans a slightly knock-kneed posture, allowing efficient walking.

Notice also that the feet are adapted to walking, with the Australopithecines again transtitional between forest apes and humans, but more humanlike than apelike. They were still slightly adapted for climbing, though.

So evolution of humans from other apes was mostly above the neck. How did that happen?

Well, as you see, wider hips made it possible for infants to be born with larger brains. And in humans, the brain continues to grow,and the skull sutures remain open for a much longer time than in apes.

And that's the real point. We are examples of paedomorphosis; retention of juvenile characteristics. Very young apes have flat faces, small jaws, relatively large brains, and the foramen magnum (where the spinal cord enters the skull is positioned under the skull, not at the rear of the skull as it is in adult apes.

D'Arcy Thompson over 100 years ago, showed how this worked developmentally:

Top figures are ape and human infants. Bottom are adults. Notice how much the ape changes, and how little the human does. Neotony is largely the cause of human evolution. There is some hint of this process in Australopithcines and their kin, but not anything to the degree we see it in humans. Human evolution is essentially the evolution of our skulls; almost everything else was evolved before humans.

 

[Yehren]

Any belief system that involves evolution in any part of it, is a religion based on a belief system which is taken by faith.

Several errors there. First, this isn't about evolution. It's astrophysics and we know how elements are made in stars. There is observational and experimental data to verify it. No point in denial.

Second, data isn't a matter of faith. You've made a religion of denial. It's not working for you.

Your new doctrine is an existential (faith in faith) type of believing which says, "If I believe it, then it is truth for me".

 

[Yehren]

Then you are denying the Bible

No, he's denying your new revision of the Bible the Bible is God's word, not yours.

 

[Paul Christensen]

The topic is not my or your salvation...its creation and evolution and how those beliefs affect the beliefs of the youth.

Sick of me yet?
Actually the OP was about heresy in the church, and I started on about evolution as an example of that. It has produced a very interesting and fun discussion and I am so glad that it is remaining respectful, although there is one member who is persisting in personal accusative stuff.

Is it my imagination, or have the personal abuse stuff that I saw when I first started on the forum a couple of weeks ago, got less frequent? Or have other members realised that I don't tolerate it and are refraining from it with me? I warned a couple of people, and when they didn't stop the nasty stuff I put them on ignore.

I have learned a lot more about evolution since I started these discussions with you and others, and although to be honest, I don't believe in it, I have found the responses very insightful.

You might not believe this, but I enjoy the fellowship here, regardless of whether we totally agree with each other or not. If we did, what a boring forum this would be.

Be assured that I am not doubting your faith in Christ if you have the assurance that you are born again, but I included the personal questions, because I watched a few Youtube messages by Ray Comfort, and enjoyed his fresh, non Bible banging approach to the sharing of the gospel. I lived in Christchurch during the 1980s when he used to preach in the city square and had debates with the Christchurch Wizard and other atheists. (You can look up the Christchurch Wizard on Google to find out more about him - a very interesting character - he has a degree in philosophy, and his wizard appearance is a publicity stunt to get a crowd to listen to his views. He is a Christchurch tourist icon).

So, I asked the personal questions about salvation, using you as a bit of a guinea pig to see how you would answer them. I understand that you would not want to admit anything of a personal nature on a public forum like this, in spite of that I enjoyed your responses.

I come from a family of debaters. My father, brother and I used to have some very spirited debates about religion and politics, and dad was very cunning. He would goad us until we started yelling at him and then he would tell us we lost the debate because we raised our voices! So this might give you some insight about the nature of my debating, that I am like a dog with a bone and won't give up unless I have to honestly concede a point, which is around once in every five years!

 

[Paul Christensen]

Of course. You're confused about the "death" Adam brought into the world. It's not physical death. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, but lives on physically for many years thereafter. So, if we can trust God to tell the truth, the death was a spiritual one, not a physical one. Adam and Eve were never immortal. God even expressed concern that they might become so, and makes sure that they do not.

You've avoided giving me a straight answer to my question.

 

[Yehren]

You've avoided giving me a straight answer to my question.

What about "It's not a physical death" do you not understand?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Well, let's take a look...

Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.


[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.


[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

There you are; laid out in detail how you will be judged. That's how He will determine your eternal home. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else, He says, depends on that.

So, in the light of the Ten Commandments, do you consider yourself a good person?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Several errors there. First, this isn't about evolution. It's astrophysics and we know how elements are made in stars. There is observational and experimental data to verify it. No point in denial.

Second, data isn't a matter of faith. You've made a religion of denial. It's not working for you.

Your new doctrine is an existential (faith in faith) type of believing which says, "If I believe it, then it is truth for me".

So, if you are saying that evolution is not a belief system based on faith, and therefore a religion, then, using the scientific method which proves that something is actually scientific, show me through actual observation, in the present, evolution actually working.

We have already discounted bacteria having a symbiotic relationship with an amoeba because the bacteria is still a bacteria and an amoeba is still an amoeba, and Darwin's finches remained as finches and not some other type of animal, so those are not examples of evolution as most evolutionists know it.

You have to show me that one species of organisation has changed into an entirely different one by itself - that is evolution. For example, some evolutionists believe that the dinosaurs evolved into chickens. If that is true, then show me photographs of how they gradually changed from a lizard type animal to a bird type.

If no one has ever been able to observe the changes of animal types, and no scientist has been replicate any change of animal type, then evolution has to be based on what scientists believe happened because they have no substantive evidence that it actually did. Therefore, being a belief system, then, according to Webster's Dictionary, it is a religion.

 

[Yehren]

So, in the light of the Ten Commandments, do you consider yourself a good person?

None of us is truly good. That's just our condition. We are all sinners. But fortunately, God is merciful, and he doesn't say we have to be "good" to be saved.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: [36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.

Jesus says "Love God and love your neighbor." If you do that, everything else follows.

Even if you aren't a "good person."

 

[Yehren]

So, if you are saying that evolution is not a belief system based on faith,

Since it's directly observed, it's based on evidence, not faith.

YE creationism is based on faith in a new revision of Genesis and therefore a religion.

then, using the scientific method which proves that something is actually scientific, show me through actual observation, in the present, evolution actually working.

Sure, you've already learned about the lizards moved to a different environment, evolving larger heads, stronger jaws, a new digestive structure, and behavioral changes. Remember what evolution is.

We have already discounted bacteria having a symbiotic relationship with an amoeba because the bacteria is still a bacteria and an amoeba is still an amoeba,

Sorry, that excuse won't work for you. You could equally dodge humans evolving from primates by saying "they are still primates." If your new religion requires you to change scientific terms to make it believable, that should be a pretty good clue for you. Can you remember what the definition of biological evolution is?

and Darwin's finches remained as finches and not some other type of animal, so those are not examples of evolution as most evolutionists know it.

No, you got that wrong, too. Evolution is descent with modification or more precisely, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

You have to show me that one species of organisation has changed into an entirely different one by itself

Nope. Science has no obligation to support your personal definitions.

- that is evolution.

Nope. Just your imagination, trying to replace the proper definition.

For example, some evolutionists believe that the dinosaurs evolved into chickens. If that is true, then show me photographs of how they gradually changed from a lizard type animal to a bird type.

You've been badly misled again. Dinosaurs are only very distantly related to lizards, but are very closely related to birds. There's a wealth of evidence showing this. The first person to realize it was Thomas Huxley, noting anatomical features that put birds in the group of archosaurs. Then, we find dinosaurs with feathers, avian respiratory systems, and so on. Remarkably, when a bit of heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T-rex fossil, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. Would you like to learn about that?

As you fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, the many, many transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Why not spend some time learning about it, to see why Dr. Wise realizes this?

If no one has ever been able to observe the changes of animal types,

You've confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. And we can check this by DNA analyses which give us the same family tree of living things that was first noted by Linnaeus, who didn't even know about evolution.

and no scientist has been replicate any change of animal type,

As you learned, the evolution of eukaryotes by endosymbiosis of prokaryotes has been replicated. So you're wrong about that, too.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae. - PubMed - NCBI

then evolution has to be based on what scientists believe happened because they have no substantive evidence that it actually did.

You've already learned many examples of such change in allele frequencies and descent with modification.

However, YE creationism not supported by scripture nor by facts. YE creationism, being a belief system, then, according to Webster's Dictionary, it is a religion.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No, he's denying your new revision of the Bible the Bible is God's word, not yours.

So you are saying this is not God's Word?
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

This verse is saying that sin and death entered the world through Adam, showing that sin and death were not in the world before Adam. But if you are saying that sin, death, and disease were in the world before Adam, you are contradicting this clear verse that says death definitely wasn't in the world before Adam.

"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" (Romans 5:17)

 

[Yehren]

So you are saying this is not God's Word?
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

I'm saying you claimed it's about physical death when God makes it very clear that it's about a spiritual death. Would you like me to show you that again?

 

[Grailhunter]

So, if you are saying that evolution is not a belief system based on faith, and therefore a religion, then, using the scientific method which proves that something is actually scientific, show me through actual observation, in the present, evolution actually working.

We have already discounted bacteria having a symbiotic relationship with an amoeba because the bacteria is still a bacteria and an amoeba is still an amoeba, and Darwin's finches remained as finches and not some other type of animal, so those are not examples of evolution as most evolutionists know it.

You have to show me that one species of organisation has changed into an entirely different one by itself - that is evolution. For example, some evolutionists believe that the dinosaurs evolved into chickens. If that is true, then show me photographs of how they gradually changed from a lizard type animal to a bird type.

If no one has ever been able to observe the changes of animal types, and no scientist has been replicate any change of animal type, then evolution has to be based on what scientists believe happened because they have no substantive evidence that it actually did. Therefore, being a belief system, then, according to Webster's Dictionary, it is a religion.

Well we have a few things in common. So as I said in the interest of fun...I like Christians so always take what I say with a dash of humor. As with you I have debated for years and on this topic I have a lot of experience. Enough to know that there no winning on this topic. If someone had a video of evolution...it would not be enough. And I am ok with that.

 

[Paul Christensen]

What about "It's not a physical death" do you not understand?

Adam was immortal until he sinned, and then he became mortal with the sentence of physical death in him, which occurred around 900 years later.

 

[Paul Christensen]

None of us is truly good. That's just our condition. We are all sinners. But fortunately, God is merciful, and he doesn't say we have to be "good" to be saved.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: [36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.

Jesus says "Love God and love your neighbor." If you do that, everything else follows.

Even if you aren't a "good person."

So, if you say you are not good, on what basis do you make that evaluation?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Since it's directly observed, it's based on evidence, not faith.

YE creationism is based on faith in a new revision of Genesis and therefore a religion.



Sure, you've already learned about the lizards moved to a different environment, evolving larger heads, stronger jaws, a new digestive structure, and behavioral changes. Remember what evolution is.



Sorry, that excuse won't work for you. You could equally dodge humans evolving from primates by saying "they are still primates." If your new religion requires you to change scientific terms to make it believable, that should be a pretty good clue for you. Can you remember what the definition of biological evolution is?



No, you got that wrong, too. Evolution is descent with modification or more precisely, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.



Nope. Science has no obligation to support your personal definitions.



Nope. Just your imagination, trying to replace the proper definition.



You've been badly misled again. Dinosaurs are only very distantly related to lizards, but are very closely related to birds. There's a wealth of evidence showing this. The first person to realize it was Thomas Huxley, noting anatomical features that put birds in the group of archosaurs. Then, we find dinosaurs with feathers, avian respiratory systems, and so on. Remarkably, when a bit of heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T-rex fossil, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. Would you like to learn about that?

As you fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, the many, many transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Why not spend some time learning about it, to see why Dr. Wise realizes this?



You've confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. And we can check this by DNA analyses which give us the same family tree of living things that was first noted by Linnaeus, who didn't even know about evolution.



As you learned, the evolution of eukaryotes by endosymbiosis of prokaryotes has been replicated. So you're wrong about that, too.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae. - PubMed - NCBI



You've already learned many examples of such change in allele frequencies and descent with modification.

However, YE creationism not supported by scripture nor by facts. YE creationism, being a belief system, then, according to Webster's Dictionary, it is a religion.

I watched a video where four of the top evolutionist academics in the United States were asked to provide substantive observable evidence to support the actual change from one kind of species to another, and none of them could provide it. I saw them squirming and desperately trying to think of just one example, and they couldn't. What does that tell you?

 

[Paul Christensen]

I'm saying you claimed it's about physical death when God makes it very clear that it's about a spiritual death. Would you like me to show you that again?

So, you can't really answer why Adam previously was immortal, and then became mortal and physically died 900 years later?

I think you are trapped between a rock and a hard place. If you say that physical death existed in the millions of years before Adam, and this is the basis of evolution - that some species have to die so that natural selection can occur, involving survival of the fittest, resulting in many species dying out and becoming extinct - such as the dinosaurs which evolutionists say died out before Adam, and ape men and other intermediary species of man died out before Adam, because they were not around when Adam was alive; then you are denying the Biblical record that clearly says that both human and animal death came into the world with Adam's transgression. Paul does not say "spiritual death". He says just "death", meaning both physical and spiritual death (dead in trespasses and sins).

If you say that death occurred with Adam and not before, then you have to deny evolution, because for evolution to work there has to be natural selection and survival of the fittest which clearly involves death of animals and intermediate ape-humans, with the animals that were there with Adam the ones that survived, and Adam the fully formed human who survived when all the partly formed ones died out.

I think that your use of "spiritual" death is an avoidance because you know that you are scuppered if you answer either way, in the same way that the Pharisees were scuppered when Jesus asked them, "Was John's baptism of God or of man?" because whichever way they answers they would have to either acknowledge their own lack of repentance, or lose their credibility with the people, so all they could answer was "we don't know".

 

[Yehren]

I watched a video where four of the top evolutionist academics in the United States were asked to provide substantive observable evidence to support the actual change from one kind of species to another, and none of them could provide it.

Sounds unlikely. Even YE creationists admit the fact of speciation:
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.
...
Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years, according to a genetic study looking at select portions of DNA from 100,000 species.
Speciation

I saw them squirming and desperately trying to think of just one example, and they couldn't.

Top of my head? Let's see...

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
https://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/20/4/377.full.pdf

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Vries, H.D., 1905. Ueber die Dauer der Mutations-periode bei Oenothera Lamarckiana. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 23, p.382.

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
Genetics. 2015 Sep; 201(1): 213–228.

Genetics of Rapid and Extreme Size Evolution in Island Mice
Melissa M. Gray,* Michelle D. Parmenter,* Caley A. Hogan,* Irene Ford,* Richard J. Cuthbert,† Peter G. Ryan,‡ Karl W. Broman,§ and Bret A. Payseur*,1
Abstract
Organisms on islands provide a revealing window into the process of adaptation. Populations that colonize islands often evolve substantial differences in body size from their mainland relatives. Although the ecological drivers of this phenomenon have received considerable attention, its genetic basis remains poorly understood. We use house mice (subspecies: Mus musculus domesticus) from remote Gough Island to provide a genetic portrait of rapid and extreme size evolution. In just a few hundred generations, Gough Island mice evolved the largest body size among wild house mice from around the world. Through comparisons with a smaller-bodied wild-derived strain from the same subspecies (WSB/EiJ), we demonstrate that Gough Island mice achieve their exceptional body weight primarily by growing faster during the 6 weeks after birth. We use genetic mapping in large F2 intercrosses between Gough Island mice and WSB/EiJ to identify 19 quantitative trait loci (QTL) responsible for the evolution of 16-week weight trajectories: 8 QTL for body weight and 11 QTL for growth rate. QTL exhibit modest effects that are mostly additive.

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30.


The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material. They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes. Each of the six unique populations of mice on Madeira has its own special assembly of fused chromosomes.
Island mice may evolve faster: From one species to six

It's very unlikely that these different species can now interbreed; different chromosome numbers will usually prevent that, although there are exceptions.

 

[Yehren]

So, you can't really answer why Adam previously was immortal, and then became mortal and physically died 900 years later?

He wasn't immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that he might become so, and takes steps to prevent it:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. [23] And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken.

I think you are trapped between a rock and a hard place. If you say God speaks the truth, and admit that He told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, you'll have to deny God's words if you insist it was a physical death. Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter.

then you are denying the Biblical record that clearly says that both human and animal death came into the world with Adam's transgression.

Show us where it says both human and animal death came into the world with Adam's transgression. Your unwillingness to address what God said is because you've argued yourself into a corner. Either the death God spoke of is spiritual, or God did not tell Adam the truth. You're caught either way.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Sure. Humans evolved from Australopithecines, or their close relatives. Below the neck they are almost identical to us, but slightly transitional between us and forest apes.
Hip extensor mechanics and the evolution of walking and climbing capabilities in humans, apes, and fossil hominins

Elaine E. Kozma, Nicole M. Webb, William E. H. Harcourt-Smith, David A. Raichlen, View ORCID ProfileKristiaan D'Août, View ORCID ProfileMary H. Brown, Emma M. Finestone, Stephen R. Ross, Peter Aerts, and Herman Pontzer
PNAS April 17, 2018 115 (16) 4134-4139; first published April 2, 2018

The biomechanical issues for bipedalism were largely resolved long before there were humans.

One problem was the lack of stability. Chimps and other apes can walk bipedally, but clumsily with an inefficient rocking gait. A broader pelvis was one adaptation, (which incidentally allows the birth of larger-brained offspring) but also the legs changed. The femur is bent inward, giving Australopithecines and humans a slightly knock-kneed posture, allowing efficient walking.

Notice also that the feet are adapted to walking, with the Australopithecines again transtitional between forest apes and humans, but more humanlike than apelike. They were still slightly adapted for climbing, though.

So evolution of humans from other apes was mostly above the neck. How did that happen?

Well, as you see, wider hips made it possible for infants to be born with larger brains. And in humans, the brain continues to grow,and the skull sutures remain open for a much longer time than in apes.

And that's the real point. We are examples of paedomorphosis; retention of juvenile characteristics. Very young apes have flat faces, small jaws, relatively large brains, and the foramen magnum (where the spinal cord enters the skull is positioned under the skull, not at the rear of the skull as it is in adult apes.

D'Arcy Thompson over 100 years ago, showed how this worked developmentally:

Top figures are ape and human infants. Bottom are adults. Notice how much the ape changes, and how little the human does. Neotony is largely the cause of human evolution. There is some hint of this process in Australopithcines and their kin, but not anything to the degree we see it in humans. Human evolution is essentially the evolution of our skulls; almost everything else was evolved before humans.

But genetic studies have shown that apes have so many differences in their genetic code from humans that there is no way they could mutate into humans through genetic means. Actually, the fruit fly has more similarities in its genetic code to humans, it it would be more likely that a fruit fly, with simple changes in genetics could transform into a human being, than apes could.

Actually evolution requires genetic information to be added to a species to be able to transform into a higher species, but genetics have proved that the adaptations within a species involves genetic information being lost, such as in Darwin's finches, where the short beak gene was lost when two long beak finches with just the long beak gene and no short beak gene, mated and produced a long beak finch.

So the only way genes can be added to a species is through human genetic engineering in a laboratory. But this is not evolution, because evolution requires time and chance, not design. So far, no scientist through genetic engineering has been able to add human genes to an ape to transform it into anything like a humanoid. I guess if they tried they would probably get something like Frankenstein's monster, or some other horribly deformed creature that one can view in a science fiction horror movie.