Biblical "good"

[MarkFL]

Here is why I do not believe in the theory of macro-evolution.
1. Genetic evidence. The comparative genetics between super species would require that each super species evolved separately from the other.

Superspecies are especially interesting because they represent a "snapshot" of the process of speciation -- evolution caught in the act, as it were. There is no sharp dividing fine between very well-differentiated subspecies and members of a superspecies, so designation of superspecies is usually tentative and sometimes controversial. In regions where their mapped ranges approach one another, it is important to look for evidence of members of a superspecies occurring together (being partially "sympatric" as opposed to allopatric). Birds often change their distributions quickly, and in many regions there are relatively few observers. If you are fortunate enough to find such a situation, you should be on the alert for the formation of mixed-species pairs or even successful hybridization. If the two forms overlap with little or no interbreeding, taxonomists would consider them separate species; if there is extensive interbreeding they would be given subspecific rank.

2. The existence of man. We are slow, dim-sighted, relatively deaf, devoid of any true predatory tools (claws and teeth). We are poorly equipped for any kind of weather or environment. in short, in an evolutionary environment of any length, we die.

We are rather well-equipped for the environment in all but the most recent of our evolution took place...the grasslands of Africa. Look at the peoples who still live there.

3. the lack of any "machine" capable of producing the steady beneficial changes necessary for macro-evolution.

What about competition for resources, a dynamic environment presenting challenges to overcome, etc.

4. the expected fragmentary nature of the fossil record. Without demonstrated solutions (in scientific method) of the problems with evolution, the fossils are inadequate.

Very rarely are environmental conditions right for the creation of fossils, so of course the fossil record is relatively scant, but that which we do have clearly demonstrates that evolution has been at work. For our own species alone observe we have found:

Hominid Species

 

[charis en excelcis]

Apparently, I lack permission to respond to your reply. Pity, but if those are the rules, perhaps this site is not well designed for me.

 

[MarkFL]

Apparently, I lack permission to respond to your reply. Pity, but if those are the rules, perhaps this site is not well designed for me.

What exactly happened? We have no rules or code in place that should have prevented you from quoting or otherwise replying to my post. If you can describe the issue, I will do my best to track it down and fix it.

 

[Alithis]

When you choose to ignore compelling evidence, this is quite different from my requiring compelling evidence before I will believe something. Yes, wind is invisible, but its effects can be verified. It doesn't take faith to believe in the kinetic molecular model of gases.



No, the existence of the universe does not in fact imply a creator.



Evolution does not preclude a creator...many Christians are able to reconcile the massive evidence in favor of evolution and their belief in God. The theory of evolution was not an effort to not believe in anything, it was a successful effort to explain the the diversity of life. The fallacy that complexity implies design has already been beautifully refuted too many times for it to still be lamely trotted out. Perhaps most notable among the many refutations is that of David Hume:





Then where is it? People always say "there is evidence" and yet never ever provide anything that passes for such. If there were evidence it wouldn't take faith to believe.



All I have done is point out that beliefs are not facts. That's as honest as it gets.



Interesting...you make a call for honesty, and then you admit you are willfully ignoring compelling evidence.



Yes, if you are going to say there is evidence when there is none, and then say there is none when there is, then we cannot effectively carry on a discussion. Both parties must be willing to be reasonable.



Yes, it is a fact that the Bible states things...however the truth of the Bible is a belief. There is no rational reason to believe it is true in its entirety.



I simply require compelling evidence. I am not willfully ignoring evidence as you are, I simply require evidence in the first place.



That's a very poor analogy...I and anyone can actually independently verify the end result from a recipe in a cookbook. Your recipe has an ingredient of faith, the willful suspension of rational thought. Buddhists and Hindus for example get a different result when they apply that same ingredient.



I have been nothing but intellectually honest...you cannot say the same...you have even admitted as much.

firstly i have not ever seen or heard Any compelling evidence for evolution.. None zero zip

Theory and conjecture ,..but ZERO compelling evidence - which again.. is exactly what you say about creation..

so it comes down to what we have chosen to believe .
because the evidence we offer you is seen every time you walk out side and look upon it . BUT ..you have chosen to disbelieve it .

so -again - , you will say the evidence for evolution is seen by stepping outside and looking at it .. .. so i step outside and i look and i see NO evidence for evolution .. but i see total evidence of Gods creation.
and - i have been only Honest about it all - if i have not show my dishonesty rather then throwing the accusation.
and you are correct, there is no rational reason to believe the bible . it is not teaching bout the rational world but the spiritual realm which is beyond comprehensions .

the greater question is .. why do you require say you require compelling evidence ? is it because you are so confident that you will not get it that you can appease your own conscience -after all if there is no God there is no accountability, nor is there reason nor definable point to existence .(and that leads me down a dark path)
the other great question is .., if you got the compelling evidence you claim you need (which you wont because you wont find what you do not seek ) would you then bow to the Lord Jesus ..? and the answer is no . (not that iv met many that are honest about that)
i can assume the answer is No because f there was any part in your heart that desired to bow down ..then you would already have sought him from your heart with intent to do so.

but you have not .. you give what i think is quiet a lame second hand 3rd party excuse .. oh such and such a person or persons acted like this or that ..and because of them i don't believe in God ....
i maen yeh. iv heard that self excusing reason before .. its in Genesis .. the woman gave it to me its her fault . the serpent gave it to me its his fault .. blame shifting because we get deluded into thinking if it some one else fault ..i wont be accountable ..

-but Wrong .
---------------------

as for "That's a very poor analogy...I and anyone can actually independently verify the end result from a recipe in a cookbook. Your recipe has an ingredient of faith, the willful suspension of rational thought. Buddhists and Hindus for example get a different result when they apply that same ingredient." ope its just an analogy you don't like and i have never heard a testimony from any of them of the same results .. because they are not applying what is written in the bible .

i have and have tangibly experience many of the things promised therein as a result of doing so .. you have applied none of it and got the result of doing so . "nothing"

.

now i have said what i said the first time and will say it over and over ..and never cease saying it .

you must turn away from your on thoughts and believe in the lord Jesus and receive the offer so freely given . you will not die if you don't .. because you are already dead in the utter futility of your existence .

\all your doing here is promoting opposition to Christianity using the one thing that has absolutely nothing to do with faith .. the flesh based carnal mind which is incapable of comprehending the things of the Spirit of God .

 

[MarkFL]

firstly i have not ever seen or heard Any compelling evidence for evolution.. None zero zip

Theory and conjecture ,..but ZERO compelling evidence - which again.. is exactly what you say about creation..

Then you are ignoring what is plain to see. But you have already admitted you do that.

so it comes down to what we have chosen to believe .
because the evidence we offer you is seen every time you walk out side and look upon it . BUT ..you have chosen to disbelieve it .

Again, the existence of the universe does not imply a creator.

so -again - , you will say the evidence for evolution is seen by stepping outside and looking at it .. .. so i step outside and i look and i see NO evidence for evolution .. but i see total evidence of Gods creation.

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences. No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

and you are correct, there is no rational reason to believe the bible.

Good, we do agree on this point.

the greater question is .. why do you require say you require compelling evidence ? is it because you are so confident that you will not get it that you can appease your own conscience -after all if there is no God there is no accountability, nor is there reason nor definable point to existence .(and that leads me down a dark path)

I simply require compelling evidence before I will alter my worldview. It is the only intellectually honest thing to do. My conscience would only need clearing if I allowed myself to believe things without evidence. I am not only held accountable by society for the things I do, but more importantly I hold myself accountable for what I do.

the other great question is .., if you got the compelling evidence you claim you need (which you wont because you wont find what you do not seek ) would you then bow to the Lord Jesus ..? and the answer is no . (not that iv met many that are honest about that)

If your God presented himself to me, and said that everything in the Bible is true, then no I would not bow to a being that would punish with eternal torment for non-belief. I would say that he should bow before me, because I am morally superior.

i can assume the answer is No because f there was any part in your heart that desired to bow down ..then you would already have sought him from your heart with intent to do so.

I feel no need to bow and scrape before anyone or anything. Why should I grovel before anything? I never understood the need so many have to feel subservient.

but you have not .. you give what i think is quiet a lame second hand 3rd party excuse .. oh such and such a person or persons acted like this or that ..and because of them i don't believe in God ....

Huh? I never said I don't believe because of the actions of others, I said I don't believe because there is no compelling reason to believe.

i maen yeh. iv heard that self excusing reason before .. its in Genesis .. the woman gave it to me its her fault . the serpent gave it to me its his fault .. blame shifting because we get deluded into thinking if it some one else fault ..i wont be accountable ..

You are straying hard here...I need no excuse whatsoever for behaving rationally.

as for "That's a very poor analogy...I and anyone can actually independently verify the end result from a recipe in a cookbook. Your recipe has an ingredient of faith, the willful suspension of rational thought. Buddhists and Hindus for example get a different result when they apply that same ingredient." ope its just an analogy you don't like and i have never heard a testimony from any of them of the same results .. because they are not applying what is written in the bible .

I stand by my statement that your analogy fails, for very obvious reasons, which I already gave.

i have and have tangibly experience many of the things promised therein as a result of doing so .. you have applied none of it and got the result of doing so . "nothing"

Personal testimony is completely meaningless when it comes to compelling evidence.

now i have said what i said the first time and will say it over and over ..and never cease saying it .

you must turn away from your on thoughts and believe in the lord Jesus and receive the offer so freely given . you will not die if you don't .. because you are already dead in the utter futility of your existence .

No, in fact I do not have to do anything of the kind. I will die whether I do or I don't. And my existence is far from futile...I cherish every moment I have, probably moreso than you because I am not hoping for some kind of existence after my brain ceases to function.

\all your doing here is promoting opposition to Christianity using the one thing that has absolutely nothing to do with faith .. the flesh based carnal mind which is incapable of comprehending the things of the Spirit of God .

No, all I am doing here is trying to point out that beliefs are not fact. That's all. That's all I have been trying to say post after post after post, and yet no one has the honesty and maturty to admit this is true.

 

[Alithis]

hen you are ignoring what is plain to see. But you have already admitted you do that.

yup because how you see it does not benefit me or anyone in any way good.
and you ,from my perspective, also are ignoring what is plain to see .. but thus far are not admitting it as far s i can see

Again, the existence of the universe does not imply a creator.

it plainly displays design not random event . it would be dishonest to deny that .

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

-you choose to believe his writings ? i choose to believe the writings of the 66 books of the bible - and apply them and receive that which is promised me there in. . one cannot say the same about applying the writings of Doug ...

I feel no need to bow and scrape before anyone or anything. Why should I grovel before anything? I never understood the need so many have to feel subservient.

exactly my point thank you - thus even if evidence were given you which was irrefutable you secretly consider yourself a god unto yourself and will perish in t unless y turn away from it .

Huh? I never said I don't believe because of the actions of others, I said I don't believe because there is no compelling reason to believe.

perhaps i am mistaken -i thought elsewhere your said you grew up baptist and some ways or actions of them led you to disbelieve God .. which i would see as the most lame excuse for a rebellious heart .

I stand by my statement that your analogy fails, for very obvious reasons, which I already gave.

so if i give you a recipe book and you read it then say its a lot of rubbish and never follow any instructions in it .. the end product it promises if you do so will suddenly appear before you ?lol no it doesn't fail .

Personal testimony is completely meaningless when it comes to compelling evidence.

and everything i have ever heard of evolution is personal theory .. which is even less then testimony .because testimony is given from what a person has seen felt touched tasted and tangibly experienced - your only recourse in the face of such testimony is A- call the person a liar B -choose to disbelieve them .

No, in fact I do not have to do anything of the kind. I will die whether I do or I don't. And my existence is far from futile...I cherish every moment I have, probably more so than you because I am not hoping for some kind of existence after my brain ceases to function.

you will die and by your reasoning .. you exist in order to die. that could not be more pointless .. empty . you should cherish your every moment it is all you wil ever enjoy . But we go on .

[No, all I am doing here is trying to point out that beliefs are not fact. That's all. That's all I have been trying to say post after post after post, and yet no one has the honesty and maturty to admit this is true

- i have never said beliefs are fact .. i haver said faith has nothing to do with scientific fact and scientific faith cannot even comprehend faith .

there are facts in the bible . like the fact the bible foretells precise events 4000 years before they occur -there is no scientific explanation.. but it is a fact .
as a christian i do not even consider all fact to be truth . some facts disagree with the truth .. they are called lies .

and your every post which does not confess Jesus as lord in its implication at the very least .. is an ongoing opposition to christian faith .

 

[MarkFL]

yup because how you see it does not benefit me or anyone in any way good.
and you ,from my perspective, also are ignoring what is plain to see .. but thus far are not admitting it as far s i can see it plainly displays design not random event . it would be dishonest to deny that .

The only thing you have pointed to is the existence of the universe as evidence of a creator. That complexity does not imply a creator has already been elegantly demonstrated many times over. Just look it up.

-you choose to believe his writings ? i choose to believe the writings of the 66 books of the bible - and apply them and receive that which is promised me there in. . one cannot say the same about applying the writings of Doug ...

I agree with his statement of fact. It is verifiable.

exactly my point thank you - thus even if evidence were given you which was irrefutable you secretly consider yourself a god unto yourself and will perish in t unless y turn away from it .

No, I do not consider myself a god, I only said that I (and virtually all of humanity) are morally superior to a being that would torture people for eternity for the horrendous crime of requiring evidence before belief.

perhaps i am mistaken -i thought elsewhere your said you grew up baptist and some ways or actions of them led you to disbelieve God .. which i would see as the most lame excuse for a rebellious heart .

Yes, I grew up with a Baptist upbringing, but I only joked when someone said "No wonder you became an atheist" that perhaps it hastened the inevitable.

so if i give you a recipe book and you read it then say its a lot of rubbish and never follow any instructions in it .. the end product it promises if you do so will suddenly appear before you ?lol no it doesn't fail .

If your recipe book says that I must abandon reason first, then yes, I will cast it aside as the rubbish it would be.

and everything i have ever heard of evolution is personal theory .. which is even less then testimony .because testimony is given from what a person has seen felt touched tasted and tangibly experienced - your only recourse in the face of such testimony is A- call the person a liar B -choose to disbelieve them .

You are still ignoring hard scientific fact. This is much greater than anecdotal evidence which can never be used as actual compelling evidence.

you will die and by your reasoning .. you exist in order to die. that could not be more pointless .. empty . you should cherish your every moment it is all you wil ever enjoy . But we go on .

At some point we will both be dead. That you desire for there to be a reason for our existence does not make it so. Life is but an interesting rust on the surface of this tiny speck of dust we call Earth.

- i have never said beliefs are fact .. i haver said faith has nothing to do with scientific fact and scientific faith cannot even comprehend faith .

I apologize then, so many have it is hard to keep track. Yes faith and reason are not related.

there are facts in the bible . like the fact the bible foretells precise events 4000 years before they occur -there is no scientific explanation.. but it is a fact .

What precise and specific events did the Bible foretell 4,000 years in advance?

as a christian i do not even consider all fact to be truth . some facts disagree with the truth .. they are called lies .

What facts disagree with the truth? How can something be a fact if it disagrees with evidence?

and your every post which does not confess Jesus as lord in its implication at the very least .. is an ongoing opposition to christian faith .

I am not opposing Christianity, I am only opposing calling beliefs fact or erroneous statements regarding there being no evidence for certain scientific principles. I don't fault a person for having faith, I only fault a person who tries to elevate the resulting beliefs of that faith to the venerable status of fact, or who ignores overwhelming evidence just because it disagrees with those beliefs. Beliefs should be ignored in the face of evidence rather than evidence being ignored in the face of belief.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Science is our best path for discovering the truth about the natural world. Models are formulated to explain phenomenon, and then the predictions of the model are tested. If the model holds up under testing, it then becomes a scientific theory. Two examples I like to cite are Einsteins theory of gravity (general relativity) and Darwin's theory of evolution. Both are models which were formulated to explain what we see, and both have held up beautifully to the testing of their predictions. Both can be stated as fact.

But, all of this strays from the simple point I was trying to make about the difference between belief and fact. I do not understand why so much effort is being put into avoiding this simple but fundamental distinction.

I agree to believe in fact are two different things I also believe that most scientific theory is belief in that it is theory and not fact.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

Primates are a highly intelligent and curious group of animals. As primates ourselves, and as one of the great apes, we naturally share this primate trait, and because of a relatively large mental capacity which natural selection gradually endowed us with over millions of years, we are able to express this curiosity in such endeavors as science and philosophy. So no, the failure here is not with Darwin, but with lack of understanding of his theory and how to properly apply it.

Could you explain to me how that theory does not work with in creationism?

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

Actually it takes more faith to believe in Darwin than it takes to believe in the love of our Father in Heaven. But, one thing our Father will not do is force someone to believe He loves them. You say you seek truth. But, you put your faith theories. You harden your heart against a love like no other. Then, you say our Father dooms you to burn forever. I submit that no He does not. He loves you, and He has made the way for you to be with Him forever. But, if you do not want it, He will not force you. Neither will I. Go on your own way if you want to. You keep saying you want proof that He loves you. You cannot prove that He doesn't.

If you want proof that there is a God can you must honestly attempt to have some sort of faith in a higher power for a spiritual existence or something that started everything.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, you are absolutely wrong about that. There is all kinds of compelling evidence for evolution and none for the supernatural. But you refuse to be reasonable.



Again, the theories have compelling evidence backing them...that's how they become theories. So again, it does not take faith, only reasoning. But you have shown over and over that you refuse to be reasonable.



That's what the Bible says. Because I need evidence, I will be tortured mercilessly for eternity by fire and worms.



I have not stated a belief as fact. It is not on me to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, because you stated something as fact that has no compelling evidence to back it. That's how it works. I have not said I know he or anything supernatural does not love me...I have only stated that I have no legitimate reason to believe it. There's a huge difference, yet flailing theists will often try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof when they inevitably fail in their own burden, but to a seasoned veteran of these discussions, I am on to that little trick.

If you were a reasonable person, you would have admitted early on in this discussion that your statement about God's love for me is a belief, not a fact in the true sense of the word. Then we would have been done. I am not asking you to deny your faith, but I am insisting that belief not be called fact when there is no honest and legitimate reason to do so. But you refuse to be reasonable.

Your refusal to concede that belief without compelling evidence in fact changes nothing though. Your belief is still only a belief. You refusal only demonstrates that you are stubborn and unable to hold a fruitful mature discussion.

To be clear you will not be worm food or burn in he'll if you do not believe, as long as it is through honest ignorance. It may be pretty hard to claim ignorance though, as you seem to have been here for some time.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

These two things are not the same...not in the least. There is no compelling reason to accept the Bible with regards to its claims about the supernatural as truth, while there is compelling and overwhelming evidence to accept the principle of evolution as the fact that it is. I am simply saying because there is no compelling reason to accept the Bible, I do not. You are saying because you don't agree with the implications of the theory of evolution, you will make the unreasonable decision to ignore all of the evidence and not accept it. This is your prerogative, but it naturally garners you zero respect from me.

No compelling evidence. Are you aware that monotheism has been around for approx. 4000years and has had the same general message throughout and has spanned the entire globe? Even Buddhism claims the existence of the spiritual, and they dedicated their entire lives to knowledge and not material wants or needs.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[charis en excelcis]

What began my journey to faith was this: the world is broken. Naturalism cannot answer why, because in naturalism, the world simply is what it is. Every time I look at our world and said to myself, this is not the way it ought to be, I realize that the world is broken. This is when I began to look critically at the theory of evolution. I recognized my assumptions were "filling in the gaps". So here is a brief explanation of my first point: Genetics does not support macro-evolution. Higher organisms have their genes organized into specific chromosomes. but the genetic factors are shuffled between superspecies. So, the great apes have one more set of chromosomes than humans. But you cannot remove a set and creat humans. In fact, you cannot simply remove a set and create any other species. That leads to the conclusion of separate genetic history for each superspecies.

 

[MarkFL]

Chromosomes can fuse, and this in fact can be shown what happened in the ancestry of humans, vs. that of the other great apes.

 

[Alithis]

with the heart man believes and with the mouth confesses and is saved ... because the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart .

 

[Alithis]

There is all kinds of compelling evidence for evolution

haven't seen or heard a single iota ..none zip zilch

 

[MarkFL]

haven't seen or heard a single iota ..none zip zilch

Well then, allow me to post this yet again:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[charis en excelcis]

Second reason: Man's poor adaptation. The survival of man is dependent upon tools. Without them we are the weakest link. The problem with evolution is how we got here. We are predatory omnivores by design. We know that we are predatory from the location of our eyes. But we have no claws, useless teeth (for hunting). too short of an intestinal tract (see the dogs--they can eat almost anything), our hearing is relatively poor, our eyesight is relatively poor, we are not patient. We have to clothe ourselves and to build shelters in order to survive. We reproduce very slowly. So evolutionary theory would propose that by chance a creature emerged that was so poorly adapted that it had to resort to tools, resulting in higher intelligence. This is the great weakness of macro-evolution. If sudden genetic change occurred, it happened at fortuitous times, thus the amphibian lays reptile eggs at just the right time to survive a drought. If sudden change occurs at the wrong time, death occurs. (white Bengal tigers do not survive in their natural environment.) If change occurs slowly, there is not environment benefit, so it dies out.

 

[MarkFL]

Second reason: Man's poor adaptation. The survival of man is dependent upon tools. Without them we are the weakest link. The problem with evolution is how we got here. We are predatory omnivores by design. We know that we are predatory from the location of our eyes. But we have no claws, useless teeth (for hunting). too short of an intestinal tract (see the dogs--they can eat almost anything), our hearing is relatively poor, our eyesight is relatively poor, we are not patient. We have to clothe ourselves and to build shelters in order to survive. We reproduce very slowly. So evolutionary theory would propose that by chance a creature emerged that was so poorly adapted that it had to resort to tools, resulting in higher intelligence. This is the great weakness of macro-evolution. If sudden genetic change occurred, it happened at fortuitous times, thus the amphibian lays reptile eggs at just the right time to survive a drought. If sudden change occurs at the wrong time, death occurs. (white Bengal tigers do not survive in their natural environment.) If change occurs slowly, there is not environment benefit, so it dies out.

Carnivores are not the only creatures with forward facing eyes for stereoscopic vision...we have such eyes because of our arboreal ancestors. Stereoscopic vision is crucial for successfully navigating forest canopy.

Our teeth and jaws have become smaller because of the use of fire to cook foods by our ancestors which makes tough foods much easier to chew and digest. This in turn has allowd for an increase in cranial capacity because there is no longer the need for massive jaw muscles to be anchored to the skull. Once cooked food was available, larger jaws were no longer a beneficial trait, and so it was no longer being selected for, and then larger cranial capacity could be selected for.

In the tropics of Africa where our ancestors originally evolved, there is no need for clothing and shelter, except perhaps for nests at night in which to sleep in relative safety from the predators. If our ancestors that migrated from Africa did not have the capacity to invent clothing to allow them to survive the harsher climates to be found in more extreme latitudes, then that migration would have been thwarted.

It is true that we are among a handful of creatures that reproduce relatively slowly, but this just means evolution will occur at a slower pace. There is likely a fairly linear correlation between the pace of reproduction and evolution,

Evolution has had billions of years in which to work...and there have undoubtedly been many more failures than successes, since well over 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. But in a system with so many trials having been undergone, even a relatively small number of success can result in a rich variety of thriving life.

 

[charis en excelcis]

Carnivores are not the only creatures with forward facing eyes for stereoscopic vision...we have such eyes because of our arboreal ancestors. Stereoscopic vision is crucial for successfully navigating forest canopy.
I said predatory omnivores--exactly what you are saying, just different terms.

Our teeth and jaws have become smaller because of the use of fire to cook foods by our ancestors which makes tough foods much easier to chew and digest. This in turn has allowd for an increase in cranial capacity because there is no longer the need for massive jaw muscles to be anchored to the skull. Once cooked food was available, larger jaws were no longer a beneficial trait, and so it was no longer being selected for, and then larger cranial capacity could be selected for.
So here is the problem--If you are using the "large jaw/small jar" illustration, if all of the predecessors have large jaws, you would need a genetic change. You can't make a gorilla have a small jaw by feeding them only "small jaw" food. Try it on your gerbils. Feed them only meat and see if over many generations their teeth become sharp.

In the tropics of Africa where our ancestors originally evolved, there is no need for clothing and shelter, except perhaps for nests at night in which to sleep in relative safety from the predators. If our ancestors that migrated from Africa did not have the capacity to invent clothing to allow them to survive the harsher climates to be found in more extreme latitudes, then that migration would have been thwarted.
In those locations there are humans still living. guess what--they wear clothes and build shelters.

It is true that we are among a handful of creatures that reproduce relatively slowly, but this just means evolution will occur at a slower pace. There is likely a fairly linear correlation between the pace of reproduction and evolution,
Fast reproduction is the equalizer of the weak--rabbits, mice, etc. If we are a weak species, such as we are, then we should be having a lot more babies.

Evolution has had billions of years in which to work...and there have undoubtedly been many more failures than successes, since well over 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. But in a system with so many trials having been undergone, even a relatively small number of success can result in a rich variety of thriving life.

The ultimate answer of the evolutionists: given enough time. Have you ever studied the fruit fly. Life cycle of a few days. A thousand years is the equivalent of 100,000. No genetic change.