How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

Yes, the seasons do have slight variances but as you said they are always within limits. That's all I meant by precise. I think you are too caught up in the doubt thoughts in your head. I'm sure you are aware that many of the great scientists of history were quite believers in God and related scientific discoveries with God. Science does do God...look at the incredibly complex dna code. More so than any computer code made by man. I think anyone looking at it somewhat objectively can see it was designed by someone. My faith is not shaken by evolution because I have looked into both sides and see the falsity of it. I could believe that God used evolution if it was supported by the facts but it simply isn't. I don't want anything pushed on the kids but how about equal time without pushing any specific religion. What's wrong with that?

<< Yes, the seasons do have slight variances but as you said they are always within limits. That's all I meant by precise. >>

Then why didn't you say so, instead just repeating that it is "self-evident." "Slight variations" does not usually equate to "precise." If that is your argument -- it still falls apart, because it does not provide any evidence for a creator. Nor, of course, does it provide any evidence against one. Like I said -- it's a nothing argument.

And you still haven't answered my question about the reason for the changes in the seasons.

<>

Uh -- nope. My doubt concerns your argument, which is not based on evidence or logic -- but religious belief. I would not want to argue you out of your religious beliefs, but I would also not want to allow you to dictate what is taught in science BASED on your beliefs -- without evidence.

For example -- I have taught students about how the calendar developed, and how we time the solstices and equinoxes, and how the months and years have been calculated -- but I was able to do that by using facts and evidence, without recourse to pushing any particular deity into the topic. If different ones of them prefer to think that their deities are involved along the way -- that's fine with me -- but it's not my place to teach such things, since they unknowable and not subject to scientific inquiry.

<< I'm sure you are aware that many of the great scientists of history were quite believers in God and related scientific discoveries with God. >>

Of course -- and I am sure you are aware of the many scientists who had widely divergent ideas about deities -- many of them in complete opposition to your beliefs. Which ones should we be teaching? Just yours? Or all of them?

I am sure you understand that the fact that some scientists -- perhaps even most of them -- have believed in a deity -- is not actually evidence for such a deity. If you believe this IS evidence -- then you would have to accept such "evidence" for the existence of Hindu deities. If you are a trinitarian, you would also have to deal with the fact that Isaac Newton -- who is often put forward as a "creationist with faith in God" -- was a staunch unitarian. Would that cause you to question your concept of the nature of God? If you are not prepared to accept that -- then what is the point of your argument?

The fact that many people believe in deities is not evidence for those deities. It is only evidence that many people believe in deities. And none of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution, which has nothing to say -- either way -- about deities.

<< Science does do God. >>

No -- science does the natural world. That's it. Theology does God. Philosophy does God. You came into the wrong classroom, Buddy! And I doubt you really want all those other ideas about God -- besides your particular one -- to be included. And I doubt you want YOUR particular ideas about God to be examined critically, as are all other ideas.
If you do -- then you can try to get such a class included -- maybe "Comparative Religions" or something. If you do not -- then you are playing the hypocrite by insisting that only your specific view be included and/or not questioned.

<< look at the incredibly complex dna code. More so than any computer code made by man. I think anyone looking at it somewhat objectively can see it was designed by someone. >>

Many thousands of scientists look at it objectively. Some of them believe in a god -- others do not. Whether they do or not -- that is not evidence of a deity. There is no scientific test for "deity" -- because "deities," by definition, transcend the natural world -- and as we keep having to explain, science only does the natural world.

When you can come up with a sound scientific test for "deity" that can be run scientifically -- let us know. Till then, all your examples have no force at all, in scientific terms. You are free to believe in a deity -- but that's not science. Why do you even NEED to cram that into science?

<< My faith is not shaken by evolution because I have looked into both sides and see the falsity of it. >>

First -- plenty of people accept evolution and still have faith in a god. There is nothing about evolution that should shake anyone's belief about a deity. Others have no faith in deities -- and their lack of faith is not shaken, either. This argument is meaningless -- since evolution has nothing to do with the "god" idea.

And I do not believe that you have really looked at the evidence for evolution and rejected it as false. Why do I say that? Because the things you have said give strong evidence that you do not know what you are talking about when you talk about evolution. You keep arguing as if the issue is evolution vs. theism -- but that is a false dichotomy. Specific deities have no more to do with science than socialism has to do with Einstein's relativity theories.

<>

Plenty of people accept the evidence for evolution and believe that their god is using it. I believe you are rejecting evolution purely on religious grounds -- not because you have examined the purported evidence and found it lacking. I have yet to meet one person who truly understands the theory, and has looked at the evidence, and honestly rejects it as unsupported. I have met thousands who reject it because of their religious beliefs, and then they claim it is not based on sound evidence -- but their arguments give overwhelming evidence that they don't even understand what they are talking about.

Please give us some actual facts that you have found that do not support the theory of evolution. So far -- you have provided facts that do not impinge on the theory in the slightest -- seasons, DNA, "some believe in God," etc.

<>

Equal time for WHAT? We are talking about a science class -- not comparative religions. Since different religions have different claims -- are you saying we should include ALL of them? On what basis? Why should science teachers be burdened with learning and presenting all those competing religious claims, instead of just teaching science, which is their job? That IS pushing religion on the kids -- even if you include all of them. And just when would they ever get around to science -- or any other subject -- or even eating and sleeping?

Evolution -- at this time -- is far and away the best explanation we have of the evidence. We teach evolution for that reason. If another theory could account for the facts better -- that other theory would be taught, instead. If two or more theories seemed of relatively equal value scientifically -- they would all be explained.

If there is no current theory to explain the evidence -- then various hypotheses would be discussed. For example -- I can give you five or six different hypotheses concerning the origin of life on this planet. None of them has, as yet, reached the level of a "theory." This is an area of ongoing study -- but we still don't have an answer that we are confident about. So -- we don't teach any of these ideas as "theories."

It appears that you don't really understand the theory you are trying to refute -- but I could be wrong. It is simply a matter of sound logic that one should not attempt to argue about something when he knows little or nothing about it. I teach my logic students that they are not ready to refute anything until they understand it -- and can explain what it actually IS -- and can do so in such a way that an honest proponent of it would say, "Yes, that is accurate." THEN you are ready to tear it apart, if you can.

On this basis, I would ask you a few simple questions, just to see if you really do understand what it is you are arguing against:

1) What is the scientific theory of evolution. What does it deal with? How is this question answered by those most knowledgeable in this area -- evolutionary biologists?

2) What are only a few of its major principles? Nothing particularly deep is needed here -- just a few simple overarching principles.

3) What is the evidence put forth to support these claims?

4) What predictions does the theory make -- and how have those predictions been tested?

6) How can it be falsified?

I won't ask you to answer all these questions in detail. There are libraries full of the answers! But you need to take a long, hard look at these questions and think long and hard about your understanding of evolution -- BEFORE setting out to give arguments against it.

I will warn you that I have asked these questions of hundreds of creationists -- and so far, not a single one has been able to answer even the first one without distorting it, mischaracterizing it, and bringing in all sorts of straw men and red herrings. How about it? Why not give it a try?

Is that not akin to me having to prove that I did not kill my neighbor's dog?

If you are attempting to counter presented evidence that you did, in fact, kill your neighbor's dog with a positive assertion that it would have been impossible for you to have done so, regardless of the evidence, then your analogy would be similar.

"Sorry, but having been educated in evolution and examined it critically..."

Could you perhaps elucidate a bit more on said education? Does your education consist of the three weeks of Junior High School earth science, or High School biology, or college level coursework, or just reading about it on "CreationResearch.org"?

Why do you consistently refuse to understand that this is not about "scoring points"?

Does he/she have a name? Or did you just make that up?

I thought you were done with this thread?

posting "yea yea" is hardly participating in this lame debate.

but, im not noticing many comments on this paragraph:
The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today.

ME: note, these folks in the above paragraph are not part of ICR, yet they are voicing dissenting opinions on the classification, why isnt anyone criticizing them instead of whining about ICR?????

I took a look at the original article on ICR.org and there are no footnotes or references. I downloaded the pdf version, and again no footnotes or references. Where are the statements of these scholars to be found?

The level of "scholarship" that I have seen on websites such as this leads me to not believe any such claims until I have examined the original articles personally. In areas with which I am familiar, such as radiocarbon dating, I have found the level of accuracy to be poor. For example, some of these websites include the effects of a global flood in their recalibrations of radiocarbon dates.

Because of this, I would like to see citations to the exact sources of the information which is being cited. This I could verify if these scholars really did say what is claimed.

"Rather, it is more likely that life exists on the earth because the earth happens to meet all of the requirements for life to exist upon it."

Actually, I think life exists on Earth as it does, because it evolved to best survive in the conditions that are here. I would predict that if we find life on Venus, for example, that it would be capable of surviving at the extremely high temperatures there.

Homo Erectus had only about 75 percent of the cranial capacity of modern humans, in addition to a number of other anatomical differences (sloping forehead, large browridge, protruding face).

I would like to see the provenance of the quotes of these "experts" being referenced. I can almost guarrantee that either the folks in question do not have the qualifications to comment on the morphology in question, or the quotes were taken out of context (not an unheard of thing at ICR).

I have actually read quite a bit of information on both evolution and creationism and can see clearly that the evidence is much stronger for creationism. There are big holes in the theory of evolution and it is not fair to hide those from the students. I think you have been indocrinated into the theory of evolution so it is very difficult for you to see it clearly. But I will post several points as to the falsity of it. By the way, I am not very religious. Just went to a non-denominational church last week for the first time in several years.

<>

I am sure you have. But what I do not believe you have read is information on evolution from evolutionary biologists. I believe you have gotten your "information" from creationists. This is why I asked you to answer those simple questions -- which I see you have ignored.

If you would answer those questions, then I will be able to see whether or not you do understand what you are even talking about. So far -- your responses have not given me any confidence that you do. Attempting to give me "holes in the theory" makes little sense at this point, if you don't even understand the theory in the first place.

I will explain again that one is not really ready to argue against something he knows little or nothing about. And one is not really ready to refute something until he gives evidence that he can characterize that "something" in such a way that an honest supporter of that "something" would agree that it is an accurate characterization.

For example -- let's say you are "pro-life" -- in the sense that you believe abortion to be morally wrong. Now -- if I wanted to argue against your pro-life position, and I start out by castigating pro-lifers as having absolutely no interest in women's rights and no interest in the welfare of children after they are born -- you would rightly conclude that I had not done my homework concerning pro-lifers. You would realize that I was doing nothing but beating up a straw man of my own creation. You would know that I was either ignorant or dishonest about pro-lifers.

In the same way -- if you want to show the "holes" in the theory of evolution -- you have to demonstrate that you understand the theory in the first place -- or you are in danger of doing nothing more than beating up a straw man of your own making. Those simple questions I asked you are not trick questions, nor are they designed to be "stumpers." They are the obvious first questions to ask of someone who proposes to demonstrate "holes" in the theory.

If your answers do show that you really do understand the theory, and can characterize it accurately -- then you are ready to set about demonstrating the "holes" in it from a position of knowledge. OTOH -- if you show that you really do not understand it and are not characterizing it accurately -- then that shows you are either unable or unwilling to do so.

Inability to do so would be evidence of ignorance. Fortunately -- ignorance can be cured. Unwillingness to do so would be evidence of a serious lack of honesty and fairness. Such a problem is much more difficult to cure, and it would be an indication to me that I have been wasting my time with you.

So -- how about it? Why not answer the questions? What have you got to lose?

Why do I need to answer all of your questions to show that I understand the theory of evolution. I have a basic understanding of it. As you cited, assuming wrong things about prolifers is dishonest but one has only to see the donations and help they provide for unwed moms to know the truth. You don't have to know all about there religion, history, etc. In the same way I don't have to know all the varoius details of evolution to know the falsity of it. I am a product of the public school system and learned all about it starting in the 7th grade. and let me say that it was very much presented as a fact which is very dishonest. Although I do think the teachers believed it themselves.
So my basic understanding of the TOE is that life began in a simple form and over hundreds of millions of years evolved into higher life forms adapting to the various conditions on earth in order to survive and thrive. We supposedely came from this evolution of life forms evolving from apes into various different sub-human types finally making it to humans.
One of the huge wholes in the theory is the total lack of true transitional life forms that should be in the fossil record. There are no fossils showing one life form transitioning into another with various partially formed limbs, nubs, etc. The transitionals that are purported to be such are fully formed life forms. This is the reality that many scientists who once believed the theory now do not. And they are all not particularly religious. If the transitionals were clearly proven, this debate would have been over a while ago. And even Darwin said that his theory would fall apart if the transitionals were not found. I just wonder if you can be objective enough to see this?

<< Why do I need to answer all of your questions to show that I understand the theory of evolution. >>

You answered your own question. You need to answer my questions to show that you understand the theory. As you like to say: it's self-evident.

<>

I know you claim this -- and I have no reason to doubt that you believe this -- but I do have reason to doubt that it is true, considering your arguments thus far.

<>

You certainly don't need to know as much about it as a biologist would -- but you do need to understand the basics in order to think you have any chance of "knowing the falsity of it." That's just basic logic.

<< So my basic understanding of the TOE is that life began in a simple form and over hundreds of millions of years evolved into higher life forms adapting to the various conditions on earth in order to survive and thrive. >>

Your description reveals some common misconceptions. First, and most important -- you have not so much described evolution as you have described the history of evolution. Evolution has been occurring for billions of years, but that fact is not evolution itself. It is as if you are saying, "Evolution is the fact that evolution has been occurring for a long time."

You have stated that life "evolved" -- but you have not told us what "evolution" is. In addition -- I would be curious to know if you could tell us what evidence scientists point to -- in a general sense, of course -- to support the theory of evolution.

And then -- I would be interested in seeing whether you understand anything about the predictions of evolution -- or whether any of those predictions have shown to be accurate. And finally -- do you have any ideas concerning just what could falsify the theory?

Once again -- your argument concerning transitional fossils gives evidence -- not of a "whole" [sic] in evolutionary theory -- but a "hole" in your understanding of just what a "transitional" is, of just what fossil evidence there really is, and of just how bizarre your description of a "transitional" fossil is! Again -- your very words give strong evidence that you really do not know what you are talking about -- but that you are parroting some creationist source that has misled you badly.

<< If the transitionals were clearly proven, this debate would have been over a while ago. >>

Actually -- the real debate WAS over a long time ago. The only people who consider it still debatable are the rear-guard cranks who refuse to give in because of their religious opinions.

And second -- you once again give evidence that you not only do not understand the theory -- you don't really understand science. Science does not "prove" anything. It progresses by DISproving -- or failing to disprove -- things. We never speak of "proof" when dealing with scientific theories. We only point to the fact that the theory enjoys this or that level of evidentiary support for its claims. And evolution enjoys an enormous amount of evidentiary support for its claims.

<< And even Darwin said that his theory would fall apart if the transitionals were not found. I just wonder if you can be objective enough to see this? >>

Objectivity is important. Now let's see if you have some. Please try to answer my first question again -- and this time, please explain what evolution IS. Hint: you can't define a word by using the same word in the definition.

Then take some time to answer the others -- briefly. No need for a dissertation. A few sentences on each point will be sufficient.

Then -- take some time to read some scientific literature concerning transitional fossils. Note -- I said scientific literature -- not creationist straw men. You are being misled. True objectivity demands that you read "the other side."

I was a Young-Earth-Creationist for twenty years -- and I read that same "no transitionals" argument and believed it, too -- till I finally decided to be more objective and actually read what the biologists said about it. Now -- I HAVE read both sides -- so I would turn your question back on you:

Do YOU have the objectivity to read the other side? Don't tell me you already have, because if you had, you would not have used that ridiculous straw man characterization of a "transitional" fossil. Will you do some reading in the actual scientific literature?

I guess we can just go back and forth forever...I have read a bit of information on both sides and it is so clear that transitional fossils are missing. What are claimed as transitional are fully formed life forms. You are not being honest when you say that the debate was over a long time ago because I can clearly see that the scientists that have shown the theory of evolution as false are not cranks but very reputable. I actually did explain the basic theory to you...I don't know why that wasn't good enough for you. I honestly think you have a need to believe the TOE regardless of the facts. I think you are projecting your own bias onto me and my believe of creationism and the falseness of evolution. I think we are all caught up in the darkside of ourselves to some degree or another. Anyways, it was nice debating with you. Take care.

<>

Or -- alternatively -- you could read some science instead of apologestics. I have read both.

<>

If you have read even a modicum of scientific information about that issue, you would not be saying this. Again -- I challenge you to read what science has to say. Here -- here is a small start. Are you willing to follow this lead?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC213.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC250.html

Your creationist friends will tell you not to read anything at TalkOrigins. They will tell you it is full of "evolutionist lies and talking points." But I challenge you to be objective -- remember what you said about being objective? -- and read those articles, which contain references to further study in the scientific literature. Be skeptical. Read critically. Even if you don't believe it, at least you will know what you are arguing against, and perhaps be able to avoid silly straw men like the one you created here.

<< What are claimed as transitional are fully formed life forms. >>

Of course. The idea that we should find anything else is nothing but a straw man created by creationists. This is how I know what you have been reading -- and it's not science. Again -- I challenge you to read those articles I linked to -- if all that does it help you be more accurate in your opposition. It's better to know what's really there, than to invent the stuff you want to refute.

<< You are not being honest when you say that the debate was over a long time ago because I can clearly see that the scientists that have shown the theory of evolution as false are not cranks but very reputable. >>

I have given you no reason to doubt my honesty. You can doubt my knowledge, or my grasp of the issues -- but not my honesty. But that's okay; I'm used to being called a liar by creationists. I used to do the same -- to my shame. Go ahead -- doubt my honesty -- but do the research. Call me a liar -- but do some reading in the actual science. Disbelieve me -- but look at the real evidence. I challenge you. If you won't do that -- then who, really, is being dishonest?

If you will have the courage to read up on the issue from a different perspective -- you will find that I am not being dishonest about this. My statement is correct -- there is no real scientific debate over evolution. Scientists, of course, will argue over this or that mechanism, or this or that data point -- just as they do in other scientific theories. But there is no more controversy over whether the overall theory is accurate, anymore than there is controversy over the atomic theory.

Sorry -- but that's just the way it is. The ones who are being dishonest are not the ones, such as myself, who admit this, but the ones who keep pretending that evolution is the subject of some great "controversy" in the scientific profession -- that it is on it last legs -- that it is in some sort of "crisis." That's just not true. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution is in the high 90s, and among biologists it is almost universal.

Tens of thousands of biologists agree -- probably over 99% of them. They could all be wrong, of course -- but to SHOW them to be wrong, you need more than silly straw man arguments like the "no transitional fossils" nonsense -- or non sequiturs like the supposed "precision of the seasons" -- or this nonsense about "there is real debate over the theory."

<>

Because you did not explain the theory. You explained the history of evolution. Yes, organisms evolve -- but WHAT IS evolution? How does it work? What evidences are said by scientists to support it? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified?

These are scientific questions, and they are asked of every scientific theory. The more the theory is able to make accurate predictions, and the better it answers questions, and the better it fits the evidence -- the better the theory is. No theory ever answers all questions -- but as scientific theories go, evolution is one of the best, because it passes all these tests beautifully.

<>

On the contrary -- for twenty years I had a need to reject it regardless of the facts. I could not even consider the real evidence, because I made the mistake of believing that the "professional" creationists were telling me the truth -- and I spent my time gorging myself on their distortions and straw men -- and then just regurgitating them in debates with those who were more scientifically literate. But when I finally decided to study up on the actual facts instead of just regurgitating creationist lies and distortions -- that's when I faced the facts.

I believe the evidence points very strongly to the fact that you are the one who has a "need" to DISbelieve evolution, regardless of the facts. If that is not true about you -- then you can easily disprove it by setting aside those creationist arguments -- just for a little while -- and doing some reading in the actual, honest-to-goodness scientific literature. If you are unwilling or unable to do that -- it is not I who shows a "need" to believe in disregard of the facts.

<>

Absolutely not. I know where you are right now, because I was once there, in spades. No one was more vociferous than I was about the "falsity" of evolution. I organized a visiting lecture from the godfather of creationism -- Henry Morris himself -- to my college, back in the early 70s. I used to say and think the exact same things you are saying now. And I was challenged, as I am challenging you now, to study the facts for a while instead of just reading and believing creationist apologetics. Why won't you do the same? Even if you don't believe it, at least you will know what it is you don't believe.

<>

That sentence makes no sense, so I'll just leave it alone. It was when I finally quit being "caught up in the dark side of myself" that I had the courage to come to the light of knowledge and facts -- and to live up to what I was teaching my logic students: one is not ready to refute something until he really knows what it is he is setting out to refute. Clearly -- you are not ready to take that step. Maybe someday.

Why not start by answering those questions? What evidence do scientists put forth to support evolution? What predictions does evolution make -- and are those predictions accurate? How can evolution be falsified?

When you are able to answer those questions accurately, without creationist straw men -- then you will be ready to deal with this issue. Till then, you are doing nothing but wallowing in denial and logical fallacies.

.I have read a bit of information on both sides and it is so clear that transitional fossils are missing. What are claimed as transitional are fully formed life forms.

Well of course they are fully formed life forms! What did you expect them to be?

Transitionals show characteristics of earlier and later organisms, but all are fully formed. It is just that, given a longer perspective, you can see features changing: brow ridges shrinking, a chin developing, braincase increasing in size, dental morphology and other related traits changing with diet, etc.

I am going to post pictures and a description of a fossil, below, along with a chart, at the bottom, showing its theorized position in the evolutionary tree.

This fossil is an obvious transitional. It will not suffice for you to claim that it doesn't exist, as clearly it does exist. For you to claim otherwise, you need some bring some kind of evidence to the discussion.

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

It's not that I am calling you a liar. You are simply deceived by knowledge. I know you believe it. The transitional fossils if they existed should clearly show formation of one type of animal into another. For instance, fins turning into legs, long ape arms turning into shorter human arms, etc...if evolution were true it would be so clear there would be no debate. That just isn't so, whether you want to admit it or not. And your number of 99% of scientists believeing in TOE is just taken out of your hat. You don't know that at all. What about the thousands or at least hundreds of scientists that can explain the falsity of evolution alot better than I? I really believe something has happened to you to make you angry towards religion or God that makes you cling to bad knowledge in your head. I have anger too,not to be a hypocrite, it's just that I have looked at both sides and clearly evolution falls for lack of evidence. Have you ever thought of the fact that if we were evolving to better humans why the mass murder and suffering caused by one and other continues?