Evolution of what?

[Valjean]

The point in my topic: there was needed time also for the evolution of the planet in many aspects so if there was any evolution of animals, you have to sum up all those periods in total to be objective about the appearance of all kind of living things: all kinds of microorganisms, plants, animals, ... and alleged hominids.

OK. A summary: Geological history of Earth - Wikipedia
So what's your point?

After that you need to analize the time needed for those hominids to become what we are today or more exactly what we've being for about 6 millennia, with cultures, languages, knowledge of all kind of aspects of nature, arts, etc. ... Curiously there is not known evolution of human knowledge before the first known civilization: it was just there and nobody tells how it appears without especulate about everything, but without any real proof of that other "evolution": the human intelligence.

That first civilization had mathematics, astronomy, engineering, early childhood education, knowledge of agriculture, metallurgy, etc. Where all that came from?

Sum up the times. Again: something is not adding up.

Anyways, keep talking; I am reading you.

Have a good one.

I'm not following, Eli.
Hominids have been around for a long time. For most of our history we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. We had no writing to record and accumulate knowledge. We did not specialize, and we owned only what we could carry with us. We lived day to day, season to season.
The development of agriculture and animal husbandry at the end of the last ice age enabled permanent settlements, accumulation of goods, increased population, specialization, and a social hierarchy.
I still don't see what "isn't adding up."

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mom is a redhead.

Does that mean I've gotten my family tree all wrong??

Clearly she is one of the Antichrist, and since it is genetic (I think) so are you. Sorry for the sad diagnosis. Maybe you were adopted?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. A summary: Geological history of Earth - Wikipedia
So what's your point?

I'm not following, Eli.
Hominids have been around for a long time. For most of our history we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. We had no writing to record and accumulate knowledge. We did not specialize, and we owned only what we could carry with us. We lived day to day, season to season.
The development of agriculture and animal husbandry at the end of the last ice age enabled permanent settlements, accumulation of goods, increased population, specialization, and a social hierarchy.
I still don't see what "isn't adding up."

To be serious I think that he is conflating evolution with Orthogenesis. The belief that evolution has a goal. And now he is trying to apply the same belief to the Earth itself:

Orthogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Valjean]

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

And we're asking: how so?

 

[Valjean]

Evolution is basically a scientific treatise or a work dedicated to a subject in science.

Huh?

 

[Valjean]

Because the Civilization games all start at 4000 BC and that's roughly 6 millenia ago

By civilization do you mean the first cities, or the anthropological understanding of civilization as a type of social organization?
Humans have been living in permanent settlements for much longer than 6,000 years.

 

[Eddi]

By civilization do you mean the first cities, or the anthropological understanding of civilization as a type of social organization?
Humans have been living in permanent settlements for much longer than 6,000 years.

I mean the series of computer games

Civilization (series) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In the games you control a civilization

The game begins at 4000 BC

I know that the Earth is billions of years old and that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years

 

[sun rise]

Well, I want to define a new "evolution" about the sorroundings of the alleged evolved animals ... so, what?
Don't you think that the environment must have change for the new arrivals of new animals?
Like: when did the dry land appear for those walking animals?

The word 'evolution' has a specific meaning and we'll continue to use that meaning.

It is true that changes in the environment has a notable effect on evolution. We see it happening now as climate change is causing evolutionary changes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

If you think scientists are unaware that the environment constantly changes (although usually very slowly) you have a huge misunderstanding. It is environmental pressures that DRIVE evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

It would be useful for you to find out what is actually known and claimed in science. What you post makes little sense.

Environments change as do living things and this is known, researched and studied. Have you ever heard of geology, hydrology and ecology? I know you JW's aren't big on education, but surely some of this came up during middle school or high school?

The theory is about the change in populations of living things due to the influence of the environment on those living things. Have you read anything about the theory at all?

Your last question doesn't make any sense at all. Water has been on the Earth since before the evidence indicates that living things originated. So, it has always been there during the evolution of living things.

This is your justification for the arrogant tone of these posts and the rejection of science? Good grief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Valjean For any non-believer the Bible can be whatever he wants. For a believer is a Revelation that came from our Creator. I don't mind your opinion so, limit your posts to the topic and stop that line of argumentation... it's just out of place, so move on.

@Left Coast , sum the times and compare with the age of the Universe. Look at the earth now and tell me: how much time really need everything to "evolve" and become what we see?

Believers make the Bible say whatever they want too. I'm familiar with your faith groups views and that group is by no means immune to interpreting it as they will.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Animals and the environment are in a symbiotic relationship.

Living things are part of the environment.

There cannot be fish where there is no water

Then it would be a walk or a flop.

, nor quadrupeds where there is no dry land

Whales, dolphins, manatees. They just evolved in response to the environment.

, nor herbivores where there is no grass,

Unless they eat shrubs, bushes or trees.

nor birds where the air is not breathable

A lot of things wouldn't be where the air isn't breathable. That is why there aren't any birds on the moon.

, etc. Do you understand my point?

You are describing the species that exist in environments that they have adapted to through evolution.

However, evolutionists disconnect the relationship between environment and evolution...

Good grief. How can you not know these things and consider yourself capable of rejecting this science? The environment is the selection pressure driving the change in living things. The environment isn't just the weather. It is the sum of the abiotic and biotic and internal and external influences experienced by all living things. A new niche opens up and living things evolve to fill that new environmental space.

from my point of view, this disconnection causes them to stop being objective in the comprehension of the time of appearance of animals and the changes that actually occurred on the planet before their appearance (or creation).

Your point of view is ill conceived. The only disconnect I see is your limited knowledge of the subject, the reality of it all and how you want things to be.

This totally distorts the supposed chronological line of appearance of the links in that supposed evolutionary chain. So it's not as simple as it may seem.

What you are proposing distorts all that has been discovered. All I see is a failed attempt to displace knowledge with some manufactured doubt that is baseless and without any merit.

Based on the evidence, the Earth existed 800 million years before the first living things arose and left evidence of their existence. Water was already on the Earth before that life came along. As time passed, these living things multiplied and diversified (per the evidence) and began to migrate and exploit niches not occupied, driving by the environment that you say is disregarded by science. Some of the environments that new populations evolved to exploit were other living things. In some cases, the existence of the living things altered the environment. 2.5 billion years ago, activity of cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere by increasing the oxygen level. This in turn killed off many species, but drove the evolution of others. And so on...all supported by evidence.

You really should read up on this, but I suppose you are told you don't need to know it, just reject it all wholesale.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Actually natural selection is in response to changing environments, which part of the definition of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

It is a surprize you are able to write without an education and intentionally ignorant of science based on an ancient tribal agenda without science.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Sorry, but this is all just way too wrong.

 

[Alekdar]

The point in my topic: there was needed time also for the evolution of the planet in many aspects so if there was any evolution of animals, you have to sum up all those periods in total to be objective about the appearance of all kind of living things: all kinds of microorganisms, plants, animals, ... and alleged hominids.

After that you need to analize the time needed for those hominids to become what we are today or more exactly what we've being for about 6 millennia, with cultures, languages, knowledge of all kind of aspects of nature, arts, etc. ... Curiously there is not known evolution of human knowledge before the first known civilization: it was just there and nobody tells how it appears without especulate about everything, but without any real proof of that other "evolution": the human intelligence.

That first civilization had mathematics, astronomy, engineering, early childhood education, knowledge of agriculture, metallurgy, etc. Where all that came from?

Sum up the times. Again: something is not adding up.

Anyways, keep talking; I am reading you.

Have a good one.

Hey hey!
So life in it's early stages might have started around 4 billion years ago (4.000.000.000 years) I think that's plenty time for a lot of species to rise, have their moment, and incapable of adapt to their environment, perish, and other species take their ecological niche.
Human Knowledge before the first known civilization surely was present at the time, maybe were "little" settlements scattered across several continents, but as u correctly mention, before the first known civilizations, organization, recorded writings. Remember that a century ago we could write stuff on stone, paper, and maybe metal if we're feeling fancy, but only the later is somewhat resistant to time and erosion (stone's pretty good) so knowledge is really hard to consolidate, but veeery easy to lose.
I have no doubt there were records of stuff of 500 years prior, but life happens everywhere, and things get lost or destroyed, we can consider ourselves lucky of having stuff from Sumerian, Chinese or Egyptians, and i'm quite sure we have a minuscule part of their complete knowledge.
When you say "that first civilization" who are you refering to? surely they had all of those things, they had stars in the sky, problems to solve, kids, hunger, and need for tools, science is built upon the shoulders of giants, but even this "first civilization" had someone before them who knew their stuff.
Cheers!

 

[Astrophile]

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?

You have got it the wrong way round. The physical environment is changing all the time, and living things (not only animals) adapt to the changes in the environment.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Face slap. Life evolves. How is water life?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Face slap. Life evolves. How is water life?

It's one of those statements that makes you shake your head and wonder, that's for sure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Your question exposes your ignorance.

Life evolves to match the changing environment.
It's the environment that determines selection pressures.
And the environment is constantly changing. So life is in a constant state of "catch up" to match new conditions.
This is why life evolves.