Evolution of what?

[The Hammer]

How long did it take for the apes to learn to plant crops and realize the importance of crop rotation in the field to obtain better harvests, as the Sumerians already knew about this?

Do evolutionists have any evidence to show that apes sowed and expected crops from their sowing?

PS: I don't swallow pre-elaborated schemes as proof of anything, since those schemes belog to specific agendas. Do you really know what is evidence?

Your asking the wrong questions.

 

[Eli G]

Your asking the wrong questions.

"Wrong" according to you ...
That should be because I opened this thread.

 

[The Hammer]

"Wrong" according to you ...
That should be because I opened this thread.

Not really no.

It's actually because this question (below) has nothing to do with evolution.

How long did it take for the apes to learn to plant crops and realize the importance of crop rotation in the field to obtain better harvests, as the Sumerians already knew about this?

 

[Eli G]

You are anwering the wrong answers and making me waste my precious time.
Hopefully you'll have better ones for the next time I come here.
Have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really no.

It's actually because this question (below) has nothing to do with evolution.

It has plenty to do with the differences between men and gorillas, bonobos, etc. The differences, while perhaps denied by many, are so profound that no amount of theory can show otherwise.

 

[The Hammer]

You are anwering the wrong answers and making me waste my precious time.
Hopefully you'll have better ones for the next time I come here.
Have a nice day.

Now that IS funny.

 

[viole]

It has plenty to do with the differences between men and gorillas, bonobos, etc. The differences, while perhaps denied by many, are so profound that no amount of theory can show otherwise.

And what differences would that be?

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Hammer]

And what differences would that be?

Ciao

- viole

Obviously we are phenotypically.different so that means we are absolutely not evolutionarily related lol.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolutionists who deny that human beings have only existed for about 6 millennia, want us to believe that ancient civilizations that already had writing, astronomy, architecture, knowledge of mathematics, school education, engineering, arts, etc., suddenly appeared starting from isolated groups of apes that were becoming civilized little by little... but of which they have no evidence.

The scientists don't care what you believe. Nor do they care that creationists are uninterested in learning the science or what the evidence for their theories is or how to interpret it. It is perfectly OK for you to go on denying science to protect your faith-based beliefs from its conclusions.

I've wondered on these threads several times what motivates people with no knowledge of science to publicly argue with scientifically literate people in a public forum. I ask them, but none will answer. Your creationist apologetics are intended for believers and others susceptible to it. You bring it here, and the errors and falsehoods are exposed, which doesn't happen in church or Sunday school. The apologist is disesteemed and his thinking ridiculed. And nobody is persuaded. So why do it? What's the purpose? What's in it for the creationist or his religion? My only hypothesis is that he is performing for an audience of one (he hopes), who he hopes will be more likely to admit him to heaven for being a martyr of sorts.

Or would there not be evidence of a gradual advance in mathematics, or in written language? ... Obviously, evolutionists have invented a gradual advance of the apes for which they have not the slightest proof.

The theory of evolution is a theory from biology. You're describing cultural evolution. And we have excellent evidence for the cultural evolution of both language and mathematics, but you'd have to study that to know that. You'd have to know how and when counting systems arose, then arithmetic and geometry, then algebra, analytic geometry then calculus. Consider the evolution of numbers: Number - Wikipedia

Look at the English language. Beowulf is Old English, Chaucer is Middle English, and Shakespeare is early Modern English, as is the King James Bible.

This is from Beowulf (written before 1000 AD):

This is Chaucer (1300s):

And here's Shakespeare (about 1600):

The evolution of language is quite apparent there. as the words become increasingly familiar and intelligible to a modern reader of English.

Languages form nested hierarchies of families just like biological populations and religions. All can be charted as trees. But notice that two of these are cultural evolution, the other biological evolution, which preceded it by billions of years. This pattern of repeated bifurcation that generates these trees is a cardinal sign of evolution. It began with a superforce bifurcating several times into the four fundamental forces in the earliest instants of the universe.

This lack of feasible evidence of a gradual advance of human intelligence leads them to invent stories that they want to make believe as true, like the one about the apes' brains growing because they learned to cook and had more time to think

LOL. Who teaches that? Besides, other predatory carnivores have even more time to think, since they don't need to cook.

It is obvious that when humans were created and the first families and cities appeared, they already had a developed language and a mind capable of discovering scientific realities in a very short time.

Humans were created by nature in a gradual process. Cities and civilization were relatively recent innovations in human history.

When did apes learn to count?

Google it and find out. I just did.

Did you know that the brain size of ants is larger in relation to their body size than that direct relationship in humans? If human intelligence had only to do with the brain, ants would already dominate us.

LOL again. Really, what motivates you to do this?

PS: I don't swallow pre-elaborated schemes as proof of anything, since those schemes belong to specific agendas.

Sure you do. You're a Christian creationist. Your world view is a "pre-elaborated scheme," and those who created it and those who taught it to you have specific agendas. Your metaphysics, which includes a god, comes from a book. Your history of the universe comes from that book. Your understanding of how the world works, which incudes miracles, a virgin birth, a resurrection, and answered prayers, comes from there as well. So do your values and your rules of right and wrong such as the Ten Commandments. It's all been "pre-elaborated" for you and you have "swallowed" it uncritically.

 

[Eli G]

The oldest known civilization is the Sumerian. Anyone who has any knowledge of how civilized that ancient nation was, realizes that to reach that level of advancement at the same time that certain apes somewhere gave rise to that development, there would have to be real proof that the apes were actually developing their mathematics and astronomy... and not a couple of children's stories about how it "happened" without showing real evidence.

The evidence needed for that intellectual development is physical evidence, not blah blah blah.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am saying evolutionists are selling a silly note as if it were a scientific treatise.

Are you aiming to get into stand-up comedy? If so, why not try dismantling all the various faiths that you don't believe in.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you realize that when civilizations appear on the human scene, there is already an entire arsenal of knowledge, arts and sciences that were not known before civilization?

Isn't that knowledge also supposed to have evolved?

You have too many missing links... but also entire chains are missing.

Presumably more to do with recording such - as to papyrus, paper, other methods - and which couldn't exist before such were discovered and used, and where the only other method was by oral tradition. So what is unusual about this or as to the use of language long before such recordings of events and knowledge? And hence the 'so-called' springing into life when these occurred not being so unusual - or related to a God doing so.

Edit: And of course symbolic language had to be developed first, which probably was a greater step for our ancestors than any writing materials.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The oldest known civilization is the Sumerian. Anyone who has any knowledge of how civilized that ancient nation was, realizes that to reach that level of advancement at the same time that certain apes somewhere gave rise to that development, there would have to be real proof that the apes were actually developing their mathematics and astronomy... and not a couple of children's stories about how it "happened" without showing real evidence.

What's your point here? Can you state explicitly why you are bringing these claims about when and how cities, languages, math, and astronomy arose to this discussion? One can assume that it is in defense of some creationist belief. Are you implying that civilization appeared all at once in an advanced form and that this implies a creation event analogous to the Cambrian explosion trope creationists like to argue that that implies a sudden creation of the kinds?

 

[Mock Turtle]

How long did it take for the apes to learn to plant crops and realize the importance of crop rotation in the field to obtain better harvests, as the Sumerians already knew about this?

Do evolutionists have any evidence to show that apes sowed and expected crops from their sowing?

PS: I don't swallow pre-elaborated schemes as proof of anything, since those schemes belong to specific agendas. Do you really know what evidence is?

Since modern humans are believed to have existed for between 200,000 and 300,000 years, do you not think this would give them plenty of time as to evolving various strategies for surviving, including crop rotation? Even if this was never recorded - because they had no means of doing so.

Edit: And we have only been studying the great apes so as to understand their lives and behaviours for much less than a century, so still much to learn. The current suggestion - and being a reasonable one - is that AI will probably be useful in deciphering their communications, so we will undoubtedly progress more when this happens.

 

[Eli G]

The oldest known civilization is the Sumerian. Anyone who has any knowledge of how civilized that ancient nation was, realizes that to reach that level of advancement at the same time that certain apes somewhere gave rise to that development, there would have to be real proof that the apes were actually developing their mathematics and astronomy... and not a couple of children's stories about how it "happened" without showing real evidence.

The evidence needed for that intellectual development is physical evidence, not blah blah blah.

My comment is clear enough.

A civilization like the Sumerian, from the point of view of apes that become intelligent humans, would require that there be evidence of apes that know how to count, that speak, that name the constellations, that sow and wait for harvests, etc. Those ape communities don't exist...except in fiction/fantasy movies. So it is obvious that the intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's your point here? Can you state explicitly why you are bringing these claims about when and how cities, languages, math, and astronomy arose to this discussion? One can assume that it is in defense of some creationist belief. Are you implying that civilization appeared all at once in an advanced form and that this implies a creation event analogous to the Cambrian explosion trope creationists like to argue that that implies a sudden creation of the kinds?

There is no point that I can see. It looks like contrived nonsense to me. No one is claiming apes suddenly became Sumerians. Except creationists it seems through fictionalized, fantasy versions of reality.

What I see is that this creationist expression represents a natural or willful ignorance evidencing a lack of understanding of the knowledge, explanations and conclusions of science.

As I see it, that old commercial still rings true. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. But that is an individuals choice at majority.

 

[Eli G]

Imagine that the human development of a civilization like the Sumerian is like a nation that graduated from high school... For that nation to reach that educational level, there would have to be other human populations that were studying secondary school or at least primary school.

That would mean that there would be communities of apes learning to count, write, speak, etc. But where is the evidence of ape populations at levels that have laid the objective conditions for the emergence of a Sumerian-level civilization?

There are no known civilizations prior to the Sumerian civilization, nor populations of apes that have preceded that human civilization at its intellectual level.

PS: It seems that the lack of response to questions about their position makes some forum members believe that attacking mine is the only option they have left

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Imagine that the human development of a civilization like the Sumerian is like a nation that graduated from high school... For that nation to reach that educational level, there would have to be other human populations that were studying secondary school or at least primary school.

That would mean that there would be communities of apes learning to count, write, speak, etc. But where is the evidence of ape populations at levels that have laid the objective conditions for the emergence of a Sumerian-level civilization?

There are no known civilizations prior to the Sumerian civilization, nor populations of apes that have preceded that human civilization at its intellectual level.

Obviously, because that doesn't mean no civilisations existed, just that evidence of those civilisations either no longer exists or is extremely scarce.

What is your alternative explanation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's your point here? Can you state explicitly why you are bringing these claims about when and how cities, languages, math, and astronomy arose to this discussion? One can assume that it is in defense of some creationist belief. Are you implying that civilization appeared all at once in an advanced form and that this implies a creation event analogous to the Cambrian explosion trope creationists like to argue that that implies a sudden creation of the kinds?

I wonder if there will be an actual position based on evidence to discuss rather than what if stories based on silly nonsense.

 

[Eli G]

Obviously, because that doesn't mean no civilisations existed, just that evidence of those civilisations either no longer exists or is extremely scarce.

What is your alternative explanation?

The intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.