I am assuming when you say "origins", you are talking about first life.
The Theory of Evolution don't deal with first life or how life come from the most basic chemistry. That would be in the field of biochemistry, called ABIOGENESIS.
I am neither a biologist, nor biochemist. But as I understand them, these are two different fields.
With evolution, life have to already to exist, for changes to be possible. You (and most creationists) seem to forget, that it is not about one individual life, changing. It is about change at the genetic-level, where the ancestors on suitable genes to the descendants.
This change could take time; and when biologists talk of time, they are referring to "x-" number of generations, not in term of years, centuries or millennia.
Take for instance, the polar bears living in the Arctic and tundra regions, and their southern cousins (black bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, etc), living in more temperate climates.
It is not merely the color of their fur and hide that are different, but the color do serve the purposes too. Because the brown bears and black bears are living in wooded regions or forests, they can hide better, like in the shadows or blend in with the trees, that enable bears to catch their preys. It is the same with polar bears with white furs; the color allow them blend better with all that ice.
Their furs (polar bears) have better water-proofing, with different texture, allowing polar bears stay and swim in colder colder waters (seas, lakes and rivers). Polar bears can swim in seas, the southern bears can't. But even more important is that polar bears have more body fat than the brown and black bears, that better insulate them from the cold. Where polar bears could hunt and foray all year round, the southern bears need to hibernate; clearly the polar bears don't hibernate.
Both bears, northern and southern cousins, would eat just about anything that they could catch, and fishes are common diet for both species. But in the Arctic region, seals are diet that polar bears seek out. Like the polar bears, sea seals have higher contents of body fat, so polar bears need to consume animals with more body fats. And unlike the southern cousins, the polar bears don't eat fruit, because fruit trees don't grow in the Arctic or even the tundra regions.
The diets of the southern bears (the prey) don't contain as much body fat.
Both northern (polar) and southern (black, brown, grizzly) bears living in the regions suited to them. At some point in time, the polar bears split from the larger species of bears.
That's Natural Selection at work here, JB. The polar bears have to pass genes to their offspring that allow them better chances of survival in region different from the southern bears. With Natural Selection, biologists looked into how species are different, like what environmental changes will have impact on one (or more) species and not with the other species.
Environmental changes could be region with different climate, different terrains, the availability or scarcity of food, hence the change in diet.
Natural Selection may trace back the lineages of where both bears to where there was one or more species where they were more in common, hence common ancestry, but if I was only researching on all bear species, I wouldn't go back to the time of dinosaurs, or even further back.
Let say, as an example, a certain population of brown bears (group B) have change their diet, eating animals that have more body fat, like the way polar bears eat sea seals. The group A of brown bears continued on the same diet they already have. If the group B began passing genes to the next generations, and continued on eating preys with higher fat contents, then they themselves will have more body fat than that of brown bears of group A.
Are you with me so far, JB?
Now eating more fat, don't mean the group B bear will have offspring and descendants with white fur. What it may mean is that group B brown bears will have more fat contents in their body, which will insulate them better in winter time. If that is the case, then hypothetically the group B population, might not need to hibernate, like the way group A will continue to do.
This is of course, hypothetical example, of what change in diet might do to a single group of brown bears.
I often use the bears or the different species of tortoises from Galapagos islands, as examples to demonstrate Natural Selection.
Different islands with different climate, different humidity and different terrains, have caused a split between tortoises - the smaller dome-shaped shell tortoises, and the giant tortoise with saddleback shells. Both tortoises have common ancestors, but the different environment on different islands have had impact on one or more species over the others.
On even more practical or applicable side to Natural Selection and Mutation, I would use viruses as example, where viruses develop resistant or even immunity after vaccines. The study of viruses required understanding of evolution, whether it be the mechanisms of Mutation or of Natural Selection.
For people like yourself, or Guy Threepwood to say evolution required faith, just show your lack of understanding with regarding to evolution.
Last point first. It's you who do not understand evo since you're in denial. Mr. Threepwood and I do. Just accept your faith in the evolution religion.
Further lack of understanding is demonstrated in your post. Natural selection is part of creation science started by Alfred Russel Wallace. There is no need for neo-evolution, abiogenesis or Darwinism.
>>I have done my own research on Sumerian and Babylonian literature and myths, and I have read the translations for myself.
I may not have the numbers of years or experiences that Metis have in the study of religion, culture and history, but I have read enough literature to recognise myths, folklore and fables when I read them. And Genesis (I mean the complete book of Genesis, and just the 1st eleven chapters) are historically and scientifically incorrect, as well as being myths.
Dividing night and day, by creating light (1st day) without the Sun...myth. The only way for us to have night and day, is because the earth rotate on its axis, and we have daylight when the surface is facing the sun during those hours.
Creating the sky and atmosphere (2nd day) in single day...myth. Atmosphere just don't appear from nothing.
Creating lands in another day (3rd day), from the earth that was completely under water (
Genesis 1:2)...more myth.
Creating the sun, moon and stars, all of this, on the 4 day...again myth...the author clearly don't have real understanding of astronomy.
More myths on vegetation (3rd day), followed by animals (created, each on separate day) and then finally humans...myth.
Genesis 2, the order of creation is reversed: animals before vegetation, whereas it is vegetation than animals in
Genesis 1....myth.
Creating fully grown man from Earth or dust (soil or clay)...myth. Sumerian (Eridu Genesis, Enlil and his hoe, & Enki and Ninhursaga), Akkadian (epic of Atrahasis) and Babylonian (epic of Gilgamesh, such as Enkidu) being molded from clay or soil, are myths that predated creation of Adam.
Creating a fully grown woman from man's rib...again more myth.
In
Genesis 3, talking serpent...fable and myth. A lot of civilisations and cultures have talking animals of all sort.
But there are more silly creation claims, when deluded creationists tried to equate each SINGLE DAY to a thousand years. Do you know how illogical and stupid that is, JB?
It would mean 3000 years of "nights and days", WITHOUT THE SUN! How is even possible to have night and day without a sun, for 3000 years, if each day is equals to 1000 years?
If the sun didn't exist on the first day, then what is this light from the first day of creation? What is the source of light, and where does it come?
And how can any tree bear fruit, without the sun? One of the sources of plant's survival, other than water and nutrients from the soil, is ultraviolet light that come from the sun.
And if my calculations are right about the bible, based on the Masoretic Text, then the flood would have occurred between 2350 and 2200 BCE. According to
Genesis 10, Egypt didn't exist before the flood...
...AND YET, culturally, archaeologically and historically, Egypt have been around since 4000 BCE, and the united Egypt and first dynasty began around 3100 BCE. The first of great pyramids of Giza was built in the reign of Khufu (2589 - 2566 BCE). Even, then, this is not the oldest pyramid.
The first pyramid was built at the beginning of 3rd dynasty, for Djoser (2686 - 2667 BCE), known as the Step Pyramid.
The flood supposedly happened in 2340 BCE, should have stopped pyramid-building, because there would be serious deficiency in manpower, and yet the Egyptians kept constructing pyramids through the 5th and 6th dynasties (2498–2345 and 2345–2181 BCE, respectively).
There should have a break in Egyptian culture, if the flood truly occurred in 2340 BCE. And yet the styles in arts and their writing are the same - unbroken.
This demonstrate that the bible don't know much about the history of Egypt.
Genesis 10 is inaccurate.
Genesis 10 also stated that the city of Uruk (or Erech) didn't exist before the Flood.
The earliest foundation and settlement of Uruk have been dated to 5000 BCE. And Uruk was a flourishing city during much of the 4th millennium BCE, known as the Uruk period. This showed that
Genesis 10 provided false information, and it is historically inaccurate.
No, JB. If anyone not looking at the big picture it is you, not Metis, because you got your head buried in the sand. You refused to look at the evidences, simply because of your ego and blind faith.<<
Basically it's laughable that you compare known myths to the Bible. Like metis, you are missing a link. Are you sure you're not his sock puppet? He, too, considers himself as the authority of his own statements. Then there is the colossal ignorance despite you being a scholar of Sumerian and Babylonian myths.
One can have light from the electromagnetic spectrum and dark (absence of light). I've seen it and it's quite beautiful. Of course, one has to imagine there is no sun. This is what marks the day and evening until the sun was created. Moses backs it up, he states that “the evening and the morning” were in effect at the end of that first day, even though the Sun had not yet been created. Apparently, the light was directional and fixed, like the light from the Sun, allowing a light period for day and a dark period for night as the Earth turned on its axis as it does today, also allowing for an evening and a morning. luminaries” (2007, Genesis 1:3-5).
I can go on, but will stop here. How did the atmosphere happen and what is the first or early atmosphere? We know that it didn't just eternally exist and the steady state theory is pseudoscience. Or do you still believe in the eternal universe? I suppose ToE cannot explain.
). Why the difference?
