Evolution of what?

[metis]

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

That is not correct, and most Christian theologians recognize this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

There is evidence for all of these things. Have you not read any history at all?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution has to do with apes becoming intelligent humans. Evidently the evolution theory should show evidences of the transition of those apes in civilized humans.

The Bible clearly states that when the human couple was created 6 millennia ago, they were already intelligent enough to give names to animals.

Gen. 2:19 Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name. 20 So the man named all the domestic animals and the flying creatures of the heavens and every wild animal of the field, but for man there was no helper as a complement of him.

An ape can't give a name to anything, so evolutionists must tell when an ape become that smart like to look at the sky and give names to constellations like Sumerians... If evolutionist can't prove that transition with evidences is because they are inventing stories.

Human Evolution Interactive Timeline

humanorigins.si.edu

An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens

Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

History of agriculture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is what the theory of evolution is made of: speculations.

No, it's based on the evidence.

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.

You cannot do science based on speculation.

You're upset with archaeologists, not "evolutionists."

Science is not a brainstorm.

What a ridiculous comparison: a baby is not a civilization.

Is this supposed to mean something?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Another example: the development of spoken language.

There are currently thousands of spoken languages. In the time of Sumeria there were already several of them, not just one. But that's not all: translations were already made from one language to another. Imagine what progress for that time.

However, evolutionists have no idea how human language achieved such development. At least they should try to make the apes that exist talk and then let their imagination run wild, as they always do when they have no evidence of something.

Again, you're upset with the wrong people.
It's linguists who study the development of languages. Not surprisingly, you don't seem to know too much about that either. Which is too bad, because I see another poster explained it to you quite succinctly a little earlier in the thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not true, and you should know it at this point. As I said: the intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.

But you don't have to rebut my POV, but show evidence of yours since there's no apes developing intellect at any point of time.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You have more dots to connect in order to make your argument make some kind of sense.
Another poster has already rebutted it as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not correct, and most Christian theologians recognize this.

It isn't correct? You mean evolution started by something other than the consequences of abiogenesis?

 

[gnostic]

I do not reject science. Evolution starting from abiogenesis is not a fact as it now stands.

First you should learn that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separafe topics of discussions.
Why do you not even bother to listen to someone who has also religious beliefs like you?

She simply refused to understand that understanding Evolution of different classes, orders, families, genera, species and clades, don’t require any knowledge of the origin of first life (Abiogenesis).

Yes, life must have started at some points in time, but Evolution is about changes, about adaptation, about speciation, hence about the biodiversity of life over some numbers of generations, so life have to already exist for evolution to occur. So there should already be ancestors for physical traits to be passed on from generation to generation. Hence Abiogenesis isn’t required for Evolution to occur.

As Abiogenesis is still ongoing working hypothesis, it isn’t science, yet…knowing if it is true or not, won’t change anything about our current knowledge of biodiversity of life.

Abiogenesis will not change any of the 5 known and tested evolutionary mechanisms - Mutations, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking. And it will do little to nothing as we know from species to species of particular organisms.

But there are more to Abiogenesis about the origin of life. We already know that the prokaryotes from the Bacteria domain and the Archaea domain, were among the earliest to exist, and flourished billions of years, before evolution of eukaryotic cells formed into more complex organisms. Multicellular eukaryotic organisms (or simply eukaryotes), such as animals or plants or fungi, didn’t start appearing until either the Cryogenian period or the later Ediacaran period…so there were no multicellular organisms before 800 million years ago.

Abiogenesis is also about investigating how the earliest biological compounds (amnio acids, ribose sugars (for RNA nucleotides), deoxyribose sugars (for DNA nucleotides), adenine, guanine, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), etc) which are building blocks of biological macromolecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc), PRIOR TO formation of the earliest prokaryotic cells. Understanding how these molecules and compounds are essential for understanding the mechanisms of the cells. Because life cannot exist without cells, even individual unicellular microorganisms have at least one cell, to function and to reproduce.

Abiogenesis is more about chemistry than biology.

Anyway, YoursTrue, just like almost every other creationists, refused to understand the differences between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

 

[John53]

Fine to eat from my recollections.

Then they try and kill you with protein poisoning.

 

[gnostic]

That is not true, and you should know it at this point. As I said: the intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.

But you don't have to rebut my POV, but show evidence of yours since there's no apes developing intellect at any point of time.

But as you are the “claimant“ to the claim, you haven’t supported your POV with evidence. As claimant, you are the one responsible for burden of proof…you cannot simply shift the burden upon someone else.

You need to back up your claims or your POV, with evidence…so unless you have evidence, your claims & POV are merely baseless personal opinions.

 

[metis]

It isn't correct? You mean evolution started by something other than the consequences of abiogenesis?

Let me repeat, as some others have also said: abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, and the ToE does not depend on it being anything more than that.

 

[gnostic]

Another example: the development of spoken language.

There are currently thousands of spoken languages. In the time of Sumeria there were already several of them, not just one. But that's not all: translations were already made from one language to another. Imagine what progress for that time.

However, evolutionists have no idea how human language achieved such development. At least they should try to make the apes that exist talk and then let their imagination run wild, as they always do when they have no evidence of something.

The spoken languages and written languages are learned processes, are matters of linguistics and philology, not the studies of theory of Evolution.

Existing parallels to Sumerian civilisation throughout the 3rd millennium BCE, was the Egyptian language, west of Sumer, and in the east, were the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) in South Asia. But there were hundreds of different cultures with their own distinct spoken languages that we don’t know about, because they were illiterate societies.

You are only focusing on “civilisations”, but outside of Sumer, of Egypt and of IVC, there were hundreds, possibly even thousands of different cultures, each ones with their own spoken languages. There were already Semitic-speaking people dwelling among the Sumerians, like the Akkadians and the Amorites during the 3rd millennium BCE. So when Sargon of Akkad (founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire) conquered Sumerian cities during the 24th century, they have adopted some of Sumerian customs, including Sumerian cuneiform writing.

The Sumerians were also aware of the language spoken by the Elamites, who dwelled in western Iran. like the Akkadians, the Elamites didn't have their own writing system, so they too eventually adopted cuneiform.

The Helladic people of the Aegean civilisation (which included Crete and mainland Greece), have their own languages during much of the 3rd millennium BCE, but they didn’t have their own writing systems, until the 2nd millennium BCE, eg Linear A, Linear B.

At no time, were there ever global flood or the Tower of Babel, where the entire world spoke only one language…the Tower of Babel is a myth.

You have one-sided view of history…but Genesis isn’t a document of history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't correct? You mean evolution started by something other than the consequences of abiogenesis?

That was not what you claimed and was refuted.

Let's be honest, abiogenesis is probably what happened. Even you know that. But evolution would still have worked if a God started everything with the first life. The theory of evolution does not demand abiogenesis. It only demands that life began at some time. It does not matter how life began.

How many hundreds of times have you been told this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fine to eat from my recollections.

We are exceptionally good for dining with or on. We're delicious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Read post #861 from @Dan From Smithville

We are trying to help you , not offend you.

Be offended by, well that may be a different story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.



Yes.


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.

This is not the first time or the second, third, fourth...that this claim has been made and corrected. I recall answering it for the same person more than once. At this point, it seems more like a game to me than a legitimate line of inquiry.

 

[Dimi95]

Be offended by, well that may be a different story.

I was like that , but it didn't took much time for me to accept it.

Proverbs 12
'Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge'

 

[John53]

Be offended by, well that may be a different story.

I've stayed out of these threads for a while and I see it's the same old nonsense being recycled. I wish I had a dollar for everytime abiogenisis and evolution has been explained.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn't correct? You mean evolution started by something other than the consequences of abiogenesis?

As has been explained to you more times then I can count already: evolution starts with life existing, period.
It matters not how it exists.
How many more times must it be repeated? Seriously... genuine question... How many times will you repeat this falsehood and feign ignorance on this matter before you'll find the intellectual honesty to acknowledge your mistake / strawman?