Evolution of what?

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence or sound reasoning to conclude that the evolution explained by the theory of evolution is obligated to exist only if natural abiogenesis is the source of life. Claiming that has no factual basis and is incorrect.

 

[F1fan]

Here is one definition of abiogenesis -- "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
(That is from Definitions from Oxford Languages)
I'm not saying they are not separate topics, but you can't have one (evoution) without the other (abiogenesis).

Since evolution is a near certainty, and abiogenesis highly probable, both are likely how things operate.

 

[Dimi95]

ok, so I can see you're not serious about this. Have a good one...

Read post #861 from @Dan From Smithville

We are trying to help you , not offend you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists who deny that human beings have only existed for about 6 millennia

Human beings (homo sapiens) have demonstrably existed for at least 150.000 years.
It's sheer denial of the facts to state otherwise.
Heck, we have human build structures that we can go and visit TODAY that are older then 6 millenia.

, 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.

No, they did not "suddenly" appear "out of nowhere".
Nobody says this.

Do you think that if knowledge of the stars were something that was being known little by little, there would not be much older documents showing that gradual advance, to reach that one the Sumerians already had, for example? 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.

Off course we have evidence of a gradual advance in astronomy, maths, language, etc.....
Have you spend your time living under a rock?

Did your ancients from the bronze age have calculus?
Did they know about relativity?

For crying out loud, the authors of your bible thought that stars were things that could actually fall to earth........................................

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... How much imagination to cover the lack of real evidence of a gradual advance from apes to humans!!!!

That there is no gradual advance in knowledge concerning things like physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, etc.... is only true in your reality-denying mind.

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. That is what is evidenced by the true archaeological documentation we have of the oldest civilizations and human settlements.

No.

And obviously spoken language did already exist by the time written language was invented.
And obviously written language has known a gradual advance in terms of complexity and refinement.
You'ld have to be completely ignorant of human history to think otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dear evolutionist friend, show us EVIDENCES about when apes started looking at the sky and inventing an astrology like the one the Sumerians had.

"astrology"?

Don't be shy, show us some evidences and maybe we'll put faith on you.

You don't need faith when you have evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Several centuries, if not millenia.

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

As humans are apes, yes.

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?

Evidence is data that corresponds to the predictions / expectations of an independently verifiable / testable hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is supposed that Homo sapiens is an evolutionistic term, and it delimits the difference between apes an intelligent humans.

How many more smoke screens do evolutionists have to throw to try to hide the holes in their unproven theory?

So do you also complain about the "unproven" status of theories like Germ theory of desease, atomic theory, theory of relativity, plate tectonic theory, etc etc etc...

Or is it just the evolution theory because it conflicts with your a priori faith based religious dogma?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

1. they are far less profound then certain narcistic humans tend to realize and / or are willing to admit

2. if there were no difference, they wouldn't be different species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You act as if Sumer came into being from a vaccuum as if it wasn't preceeded by a loooooooooong history of more tribal settlements / less complex societies and ultimately nomadic hunter/gatherer social groups.

This is off course assanine and sheer denial of actual reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Do you realize that there are primitive tribes of humans that still exist TODAY that have no writing system, that live off the land in small settlements and have primitive agriculture customs?

Sounds like you don't.

So it is obvious that the intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.

Doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

And there were. They didn't leave written records behind (because written language wasn't invented yet), but we do know about them. The left plenty of other evidence behind. Evidence, you seem to be completely unaware about. Or, which I think is more likely, you do know about it but just handwave it away with assanine "nu-huh" arguments.

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?

Everywhere in archeology. Denial is not an argument.
Again, sumer did not come about in a vaccuum.


Ever heared about Gobleki Tepe, for example?
These are structures that preceed written language and "civilization", yet they demonstrate that humans at that point were very much capable of coming together to engage in large construction projects and had quite some knowledge concerning manipulation of materials, engineering of tools and using the stars and other celestial bodies for orientation and navigation.

So sad that you insist on sticking your head in the sand.

There are no known civilizations prior to the Sumerian civilization

But there are many known tribal settlements of which it is also known they engaged in joint trade and construction projects, for which all kinds of knowldge of a whole loads of things would have been necessary.

Again: sumer did not come about in a vaccuum, like you try to claim.

, nor populations of apes that have preceded that human civilization at its intellectual level.

Demonstrably false.
This is as dumb as to say that humans after Einstein were more intelligent then people before Einstein.
Or that humans after Newton were more intelligent then people before Newton.

They weren't.
The accummulation of knowledge of humanity simply spans many generations. That is all.
The ancient bronze-age folks didn't develop calculus yet.
This is not different from pre-sumer humans who didn't develop written language yet.

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

The problem with your question is that they are rooted in, and loaded up with, ignorance
The problem is not the "lack of answers".
The problem is the stupidity of the questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

1. not an explanation, instead just a bare claim

2. doesn't follow

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that's what the evidence shows: humans are intelligent beings from the very first moment they appear...

That is not what the evidence shows.
What the evidence shows is that humanity started out primitive and got progressively more sophisticated and that knowledge was progressively accumulated over generations accross the board.

If they supposedly find links between species much older than "homo sapiens", how difficult should it be for them to find apes that know how to count or speak or plant crops or domesticate animals, etc.?

Nothing about evolution demands that we would be able to find non-humans capable of doing complex math and talking.
Just another idiotic thing you say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Common sense dictates that a society as civilized as the Sumerian, which barely existed less than 6 thousand years ago, has a previous society that gave way to its existence. At the very least we would hope that there are communities that already developed aspects that converged on it shortly after.

Evolutionists lack any evidence that there have been at least communities with some level of advancement that have given way to an advanced society like the Sumerian.

Sumerian Society | Structure, History & Facts - Lesson | Study.com

Learn about the development of Sumerian society, social structure, and other facts related to Sumerian civilization. See a discussion of the...

study.com

The Halaf people, followed by the Ubaid people, are often considered the precursor societies of the Sumerians. As the groups mentioned above grew and evolved, the Sumerian civilization developed into a unique cultural group.

I found this literally after a 2 second google.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution (the theory of) simply could not have happened without the idea of abiogenesis

Except that it could. Such nonsense is typical claim for someone who's willingly obtuse on the subject.
Evolution is by no means dependent on ANY specific origins of life process.
Evolution would stand as tall as ever if tomorrow we find out that your christian god created first life.

You know this because countless people have already informed you of this fact.
But as usual, you just ignore it when people correct your falsehoods and you just double-down on your mistakes.

It's almost as if you aren't bothered by being wrong and arguing a strawman. Almost.

Could (the theory of) evolution have happened without abiogenesis?

Yes.

Put another way, is abiogenesis necessary for evolution to have begun?

No.


The only thing need for evolution to occur is: life has to exist and it has to reproduce with variation and be in competition with peers over limited resources.

It matters not how it exists.
IF it exists and IF it reproduces with variation and IF it competes over limited resources, THEN evolution is inevitable.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sure, they may offer explanations ... but from what I have seen, aside from talking about similarities in shape somewhat, and close genes, I THINK (I'm not sure) the others classified as apes hang from trees, move around from trees, their brain sizes are different, and they do not publish books, at least not that I have heard. And have not as yet found the Common Ape Ancestor.

All this means is that you need to become more educated as to such life forms - especially as to any similarities and differences between us and them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Here is one definition of abiogenesis -- "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
(That is from Definitions from Oxford Languages)
I'm not saying they are not separate topics, but you can't have one (evoution) without the other (abiogenesis).

But you can have a description of one process (evolution), and being the mechanism as to why this happens, without delving into the other - any origins of life. Which seemingly you fail to understand or recognise - because God did it and hence any explanations must encompass everything. Unfortunately science doesn't work like this - as it tends to advance at a slow pace - so as to be more accurate as to reflecting truths.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Rabbits keep digging under my fence and eating my vegetables. You don't happen to know anything about that do you rodent?

Fine to eat from my recollections.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

I do not think there any any such evolutionists, perhaps lay people who talk about one thing and forget the other.
Water is a basic necessity for life, that is why we look to earth-like planets in the sky (and we have found many where presence of water in indicated). Life on earth probably started in undersea hydrothermal vents.

 

[metis]

but from what I have seen, aside from talking about similarities in shape somewhat, and close genes, I THINK (I'm not sure) the others classified as apes hang from trees, move around from trees, their brain sizes are different, and they do not publish books, at least not that I have heard.

Not all humans do that either. Intelligence is a matter of degrees, so our much larger brain certainly offers us some advantages.

And have not as yet found the Common Ape Ancestor.

That's like looking for a needle in a haystack, but that in no way refutes what's obvious, namely that we do have a common ancestry with the other apes. Apes evolved, and that's very much clear when viewing the fossil record. Ape - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Evolution"]