Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

[Dan From Smithville]

So you do believe in magic. As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues. Even if abiogenesis started in the oceans, how can this be transformed into tissue, blood and bones?



Abiogenesis had to start somehow, without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Life was single cell/multi cell for about the first three billion years. No blood and bones. If you want to talk about evolution start from single cell life. Once you have bears, evolution is understandable.

Evolution can only happen with God in control. God created everything according to its kind, and life has been left to evolve. I have no problem at all with evolution.

You know that the evidence does not lead to a conclusion that living things that exist now were fully formed 3.7 billion years ago right?

No. That's incorrect. The phenomena of evolution are not dependent on the form of the origin of life. That many claim it is results from straw man arguments and ignorance.

The theory of evolution is simply an explanation of the evidence. It is not a magic incantation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you do believe in magic. As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues. Even if abiogenesis started in the oceans, how can this be transformed into tissue, blood and bones?

No, you believe in magic. And you are trying to use an argument from ignorance against abiogenesis. Just because you do not know how something happened does not mean that it happened.

Abiogenesis had to start somehow, without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Life was single cell/multi cell for about the first three billion years. No blood and bones. If you want to talk about evolution start from single cell life. Once you have bears, evolution is understandable.

Evolution can only happen with God in control. God created everything according to its kind, and life has been left to evolve. I have no problem at all with evolution.

And now you are confirming abiogenesis? Pick a lane. We know that life evolved. But lucky for you, sort of, evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Remember, you believe in magic. A god could have magically poofed the first cell into existence. Evolution does not demand that the first life had to have arisen naturally, but all of the evidence is leaning very heavily in that direction.

 

[rational experiences]

What if you don't think?

Say you lived with a garden nature it's bio life type rooted into the ground. Bio living underground is nothing like grounds substances and is the legal proof.

Nature garden says natural human is a proof. Theists are wrong as that root substance is under the ground.

Next proof animals...bodies I'm not.

Reason I don't behave like them. Once eating fruits nuts legumes wheats barley oats vegetables. Maybe eggs...cheese milk.

I think just for human life on a planet.

Pretty basic why do I have to argue against civilisation group organised status of the history of illegal lying.men..greedy men. As changed men who became a lifestyle in Rich false idealism of nasty humans?

The real and only answer is because you nasty humans forced us to argue to keep life safe on earth.

Is the theists human sciences answer.

Why legal said legal is only telling humans life truth. Mutual law equal law.

If I'm a human and you are a human you own no legal rights to pretend I don't exist. Legal says it's virtually theorising a life's murder.

Only human microbial sperm ovary is a pre human.

Before a human by medical observation is a monkey. Living and healthy.

A human pretends in A very small way. By human manipulation using a machine. Machine mass plus chemistry is Idealised a human.

Neither information represents legally any human.

Mechanics as science lied.

A living human a researcher. Dug up mutated human bones. Stated life cell human by sex has evolved healed since that body type lived.

As correct use of human scientific identification. Medical advice only.

The cells human. Always human body owned to compare cells not in the mutated body. Cells now in a human body.

Nowhere else is the advice advised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then demand the same logic for evolution. Life started from no life. Water is not blood, bones and tissue. But you are content to accept evolution from non life over a period of 3.7 billion years. This sounds more like magic to me.

That's either somewhat ignorant or it's intellectually dishonest.
He was talking about soil. Life can't come from soil.

Bio-chemical compounds, like amino acids and alike (the building blocks of life), are not soil.

The complexity of life is such, that it could not happen without God.

This is an often repeated, unsupported, empty claim by creationists.
The problem is that
1. complexity is not an indicator of design
2. it's essentially an argument from ignorance and incredulity

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you do believe in magic.

That is not at all what he said.
No abiogenesis hypothesis appeals to magic. It appeals to physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry. None of which are magical.

You are projecting.
Or you are trying to drag science down to the level of magical claims you operate on, to then pretend as if your beliefs are "just as good an alternative".

Not sure which it is.

As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues.

Indeed. Soil. SOIL.

Even if abiogenesis started in the oceans, how can this be transformed into tissue, blood and bones?

All of it is pretty much made by the same bio-chemical stuff, you know...

Abiogenesis had to start somehow, without abiogenesis there is no evolution.

No. Without life there is no evolution.
Regardless how life came about.
Evolution doesn't require any particular origin of life to be correct in order to exist or work.
Evolution is an overwhelmingly supported model concerning the origin of species, of the processes that existing life is subject to. This is true regardless of how life came about.

If tomorrow we discover that your god came to earth and seeded life here, then evolution would be as accurate and supported as ever. It wouldn't matter at all.

Life exists and we can study it.

Life was single cell/multi cell for about the first three billion years. No blood and bones. If you want to talk about evolution start from single cell life. Once you have bears, evolution is understandable.

Another argument from incredulity.

Evolution can only happen with God in control.

Another unsupported empty claim, which just assumes your conclusion.

God created everything according to its kind, and life has been left to evolve.

Another unsupported empty claim, which just assumes your conclusion.

I have no problem at all with evolution.

Clearly you do.

 

[gnostic]

So you do believe in magic. As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues.

No, Eric, that’s what your Bible described Genesis 2:7, that are false. The miracle and creation of Adam from soil, is pure myth, which can be traced back to older Babylonian myths of the 2nd millennium BCE, and older still to the Sumerian & Akkadian myths of the 3rd millennium BCE.

The Hebrew creation myth is not unique, nor original, because the earliest recorded myth from Sumer say humans were made from clay and primeval water, eg Enki and Ninmah. Even the Egyptians had ram-headed god Khnum who created humans from clay and water, on a pottery wheel.

As I said in my previous replies, human cannot be transformed from soil, be it clay or silt soil.

The basic composition of either soil, are types of silicate mineral, and silicate is inorganic substance. There are no silicate minerals in human body.

You cannot chemically turn silicates into proteins, but you can “chain” or “sequence” amino acids to form into proteins.

There are many types of proteins, and they exist in every cells, and proteins have many different functions.

For example, proteins are what provide structure to the body. All the tissues, muscles, organs, etc are made of proteins.

Proteins are also essential for synthesizing other compounds, eg DNA cannot possibly replicate without proteins. Proteins act as catalyst for chemical reactions of organic matters, eg proteins are required for metabolism to occur.

Don’t get me wrong. Some inorganic compounds and molecules played vital role for life.

The most important of these inorganic compounds is water (H2O). Water help keep every tissues and organs hydrated; water prevent tissues and organs from drying up, which would cause the cells to break down. Water also regulates the body temperature, preventing the body from overheating.

Water is an inorganic molecule, but is what keep a person alive.

The human body is made of 65% of human body’s mass. About 20% is proteins, lipids about 12%. DNA only makes up 0.1% of the mass, RNA about 1%.

We do have inorganic compounds in our bodies, and the most abundant is water, which make up about 65% of each person’s mass.

None of the biological make up of human body has silicate, hence Genesis creation of human, from dust or soil, is pure fiction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, Eric, that’s what your Bible described Genesis 2:7, that are false. The miracle and creation of Adam from soil, is pure myth, which can be traced back to older Babylonian myths of the 2nd millennium BCE, and older still to the Sumerian & Akkadian myths of the 3rd millennium BCE.

The Hebrew creation myth is not unique, nor original, because the earliest recorded myth from Sumer say humans were made from clay and primeval water, eg Enki and Ninmah. Even the Egyptians had ram-headed god Khnum who created humans from clay and water, on a pottery wheel.

As I said in my previous replies, human cannot be transformed from soil, be it clay or silt soil.

The basic composition of either soil, are types of silicate mineral, and silicate is inorganic substance. There are no silicate minerals in human body.

You cannot chemically turn silicates into proteins, but you can “chain” or “sequence” amino acids to form into proteins.

There are many types of proteins, and they exist in every cells, and proteins have many different functions.

For example, proteins are what provide structure to the body. All the tissues, muscles, organs, etc are made of proteins.

Proteins are also essential for synthesizing other compounds, eg DNA cannot possibly replicate without proteins. Proteins act as catalyst for chemical reactions of organic matters, eg proteins are required for metabolism to occur.

Don’t get me wrong. Some inorganic compounds and molecules played vital role for life.

The most important of these inorganic compounds is water (H2O). Water help keep every tissues and organs hydrated; water prevent tissues and organs from drying up, which would cause the cells to break down. Water also regulates the body temperature, preventing the body from overheating.

Water is an inorganic molecule, but is what keep a person alive.

The human body is made of 65% of human body’s mass. About 20% is proteins, lipids about 12%. DNA only makes up 0.1% of the mass, RNA about 1%.

We do have inorganic compounds in our bodies, and the most abundant is water, which make up about 65% of each person’s mass.

None of the biological make up of human body has silicate, hence Genesis creation of human, from dust or soil, is pure fiction.

A lot of chemistry can take place in water too.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans as men existed first.

Tribal first humans same biology everywhere on earth DNA owner.

What wasn't expressed?

Machine mechanical sciences.

Where did science God man conjure his machine body then it's life...reactions from?

The grounds mass.

Non bio conditions.

He built clay urns from pottery.
He changed water into wine as life as he invented the machines life. Battery acid from the grapes. The owned mans mechanical function.

Then he removed from his mind memory by reacting all designed advice from which his machine manifested. As he built machines to further react earths mass again.

Lost his man's designer conscious mind. is exact taught human conditions why he taught such fake stories.

As he's the designer of mechanical sciences. The man.

Man knows medical biology present human advice. About cell functions trying to remedy cell unhealthy dysfunctions.

Ignored terms. .medical science isn't occult machine science.

Only men tried to join a fake history together.

Water is a mass. Water.

If something exists bodily in water it means it's body was pre owned. It entered water. Water changed the body inside itself but not outside itself.

As waters mass remains first as waters mass.

Only pressures could cause entry of water into another pre owned body.

Just one study that we taught that proved a humans spirit pre existed elsewhere not in created creation.

As cloud mass is formed exactly by pressure changes itself.

If anyone asked why spirit stories are taught. Is no different to a human seeking stories about created creation as science.

The two topics however are not the same story.

As man existed before mechanics did as science laws.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you do believe in magic. As you point out in a previous post, life can't come from soil, they are not the same things, and it would be impossible be transformed soil into blood, bones and tissues.

Considering soil is already partly composed of matter that was once living things, this is a bit of a tautology. Obviously, life couldn't come from soil. It derives from basic proteins/

Even if abiogenesis started in the oceans, how can this be transformed into tissue, blood and bones?

Where did your blood, tissue and bones come from? Did your parents get together and specifically engineer every cell, every protein, every nanometre of your body? Or is everything that you are a consequence of chemical interactions?

If you can accept that a human baby can grow from chemicals in a womb in just nine months, then you must also accept that chemical interactions can produce living things from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis had to start somehow, without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Life was single cell/multi cell for about the first three billion years. No blood and bones. If you want to talk about evolution start from single cell life. Once you have bears, evolution is understandable.

This doesn't mean you need to have a comprehensive understanding of how life started in order to understand how life changes over time.

To use my very old analogy: you don't need to know how a rubber ball is made is order to observe and record how a rubber ball rolls down a hill. Evolution is the same principle.

Evolution can only happen with God in control. God created everything according to its kind, and life has been left to evolve. I have no problem at all with evolution.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but first you would need to understand what evolutionary theory actually says. I could say "Gravity can only happen with God in control" and that can be a perfectly consistent position, but when debating the theory of gravity I say such things as "obviously planets don't move because of gravity - what, do you think gravity is MAGIC?" you might be justified in thinking that I wasn't really speaking from an informed position.

 

[Eric Hyom]

Evolution is an overwhelmingly supported model concerning the origin of species, of the processes that existing life is subject to. This is true regardless of how life came about.

There is no hard evidence to show how the skeletal system evolved from single cell life 3.7 billion years ago.

The evidence is full of phrases like, could have, probably, may have, possibly, likely, etc. Not what I call hard evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no hard evidence to show how the skeletal system evolved from single cell life 3.7 billion years ago.

The evidence is full of phrases like, could have, probably, may have, possibly, likely, etc. Not what I call hard evidence.

So what? How does that help your beliefs in magic? There still is more than enough evidence to make any other belief nonsensical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no hard evidence to show how the skeletal system evolved from single cell life 3.7 billion years ago.

+300.000 scientific papers on exactly that subject do nothing but detail hard evidence.
Evolution is among the best supported, if not THE best supported, theories in all of science.

The evidence is full of phrases like, could have, probably, may have, possibly, likely, etc. Not what I call hard evidence.

You'll find such language in EVERY since paper about ANY subject.
It's called intellectual honesty.

If using such language is what upsets you, then why are you singling out evolution theory?
Then your issue is with THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE.

And it's a pretty stupid / ignorant issue to have, to be perfectly frank.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no hard evidence to show how the skeletal system evolved from single cell life 3.7 billion years ago.

Where did your skeleton come from?

The evidence is full of phrases like, could have, probably, may have, possibly, likely, etc. Not what I call hard evidence.

Statements of absolute certainty belong in fantasy and religion. You won't find them in science, because science is actually honest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no hard evidence to show how the skeletal system evolved from single cell life 3.7 billion years ago.

There is plenty. But you'd have to look for it first.

Where did bone come from?: An overview of its evolution
Evolution of the vertebrate skeleton: morphology, embryology, and development | Zoological Letters | Full Text
Bones evolved to act like batteries, 400-million-year-old fish suggest
The Origin of Skeletons on JSTOR
PALAEONTOLOGY[online] | Article: Patterns in Palaeontology > Patterns in Palaeontology — The earliest skeletons
Evolution of bones - Skeletons and Biology - Quatr.us Study Guides

There is no evidence at all for "God did it."

The evidence is full of phrases like, could have, probably, may have, possibly, likely, etc. Not what I call hard evidence.

Pretty much every scientific paper you will ever read, on any topic at all, will use that language. It's called intellectual honesty. Which is why I always find it bizarre when people like yourself point it out as though it's some sort of "gotcha!" or something. It's not.

 

[Eric Hyom]

Whilst you say there is loads of info about evolution, it all seems very vague. They seem to follow two patterns, they give a catalogue of different species, that says nothing about their origin. The language is not confident, there are different opinions. A couple of quotes from your first link.

Where did bone come from?: An overview of its evolution

Skeletal evolution: different views
it was surmised that the vertebrates were most likely descended from amphioxus-like forms with a notochord. These were followed by jawless creatures with a cartilage-like endoskeleton, reminiscent of the modern hagfish or lamprey

This is about as much detail as to how anything evolved, calcium carbonates built all forms of marine exoskeletons, but how?

The hard mineral fraction consisting mainly of calcium carbonate, which had been used over millions of years to build all forms of marine exoskeletons, was replaced by calcium phosphate, mostly in the form of calcium hydroxyapatite

This is not the sort of convincing evidence that would stand up in a court of law. It's certainly interesting, but I can't hang my beliefs on such vague notions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whilst you say there is loads of info about evolution, it all seems very vague. They seem to follow two patterns, they give a catalogue of different species, that says nothing about their origin. The language is not confident, there are different opinions. A couple of quotes from your first link.




Skeletal evolution: different views
it was surmised that the vertebrates were most likely descended from amphioxus-like forms with a notochord. These were followed by jawless creatures with a cartilage-like endoskeleton, reminiscent of the modern hagfish or lamprey

This is about as much detail as to how anything evolved, calcium carbonates built all forms of marine exoskeletons, but how?

The hard mineral fraction consisting mainly of calcium carbonate, which had been used over millions of years to build all forms of marine exoskeletons, was replaced by calcium phosphate, mostly in the form of calcium hydroxyapatite

This is not the sort of convincing evidence that would stand up in a court of law. It's certainly interesting, but I can't hang my beliefs on such vague notions.

Did you not see from the title that it was an overview? If you want specifics then you need to get into the primary literature where each aspect of that evolution is broken down into details.

When you ask broad questions you can only get broad answers. You can't get specific answers in a short article.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are inside waters mass pressurised. Oxygenated.

We live we breathe. If you can't breathe you die. Basic.

Breathing is living.

So to breathe you have to own a body capable of breathing first.

Humans know. I can stop breathing. Yet I'm still human. I begin to breathe as I am alive a human.

How aren't you a human first breathing?

As only a conscious human breathing talks about not breathing.

You live as biology a high percentile water.

Minerals...dusts are in water.

You live in the same heavens conditions with a deceased human decomposing not breathing. Then just skeletal dusts.

Water portion gone. The living portion.

In waters presence said a scientist is every type of dust. Water however owns the living. The dusts remain as dusts.

A skeleton a whole being within. The other body various cell types.

All in one body.

You see the body you know a human is exactly defined a human the human in the human body.

Nowhere else as you infer science and speak science use science is the body terms a human.

As any one human is the human.

Science isn't conscious was our human warning.

As you don't accept who and where a human is. Now present as living owned advice.

The types of human terms used as before or past is where deceased humans are and is portional advice.

You ask science you use billions of years about bio life when it's span is instant living cell in water aged from sperm ovary to about 100 years survival.

In science the want of billions of years of energy is another subject not about biology.

Where is humans god is the only true quest what is science.

 

[wellwisher]

Why assume a God at all when explaining how the diversity of life on the planet evolved? Theists have a dilemma, and that is trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of religious books to what facts and science reveals about reality. I have suggested theists adjust their manner of interpretation and look at religious books more symbolically than literal. To my mind it will result in less inner turmoil between emotions and reason, and also allow a more substantive framework for meaning.

If you look at humans as a species, humans can alter the natural environment and create artificial environments, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into human evolution by natural selection. How did evolution, driven by natural selection, evolve a species, that is no longer under natural selection and therefore no longer under classic natural evolution? If I am selected by culture, which is not natural, I am not fully under natural selection, but under manmade selection.

This change, which the Bible says occurred 6000 year ago, coordinates with the scientific carbon dating of the invention of written language and the rise of civilization. Where did these two pivotal innovations come from, since they were not already part of the earth, as preexisting natural things, that could direct and evolve humans through natural selection?

I believe in both Evolution and Creation. Evolution is about natural things, while Creation speaks of the rise of modern man, with will and choice, who learned to alter his environment, thereby breaking the human bond to natural selection. This is what Genesis mostly discusses.

Why do we spend so much resources on hospitals and caring for the sick, when natural selection has always earmarked the sick and weak as recycled food for carnivores and predators? The answer is humans do not follow the rules of natural selection, due to will and choice. When did this change for humans? This change in natural selection, to artificial selection is called Creation; created a new paradigm.

The Bible and Genesis gives us insight into that transitional time, and addresses many of the problems that would arise when humans lost their natural and evolutionary connections; fall from paradise under evolution and natural selection. Now, selection within culture, is based on fads and money, which are not natural; does not grow on trees.

One way you resolve the contemporary problem of either creation or evolution, instead of both part of the same long term process of change, is with Relativity and time dilation. One day in the God reference, is not an earth day, unless science assumes the earth is the center of the universe and the gold standard for time, for the entire universe. Does it?

There is a thing called Relativity and time dilation. One day in the God reference, can conceptually be billions of earth years, based on the difference in time propagation for the observational earth reference. God is symbolically light and spirit. This means he should be in a reference close to the speed of light, where seconds in his reference, can take billions of years in our earth reference.

Conceptually, God could say I want plants and animals, and they will appear in his reference, almost immediately. But in the much faster earth reference, is now seems to take billion of years for evolution to come up with the modern flora and fauna. Relativity gives you more than one reference for time. God does not become man; part of earth reference, until Jesus. While a speed of light reference would be eternal in time, relative to our earth reference. The ducks are in a row.

Long slow evolution may be more a reference illusion, based on assuming the earth defines universal time. This was a manmade invention from ancient times. I thought science knew better, but maybe Relativity and time references is not taught in the specialty sciences of Biology and Geology.

The bottom line is humans are not fully under natural selection, since they can alter the environment and impose artificial selection criteria. When did this new type of new human first appear? Carbon dating and religion both seem to suggest about 6000 years ago, the human brain, advanced.

The fall from paradise was fall from natural selection, into the pitfalls of artificial selection, which then created problems over the ages even until today; man made climate change. If natural selection had been in effect for humans, all along, we would still be in paradise where time become timeless. This suggests that part of the creation of will and choice, may have been neural time reference started to speed up; fear of death. Fear, like in war, can make time appear to slow down, so we can see more detail in less time; much faster reference. Now the day and year mean more to humans.

If you are waiting for someone to call, minutes can seem to take a long time. But if you are having fun, hours can appear to pass in an instant. The brain can alter its time perception frame. The appearance time speeding up is common to fear; see more details. God warning if you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall die. This suggest fear of death appears, with loss of instinct and time perception changing, so more details appears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you look at humans as a species, humans can alter the natural environment and create artificial environments, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into human evolution by natural selection. How did evolution, driven by natural selection, evolve a species, that is no longer under natural selection and therefore no longer under classic natural evolution? If I am selected by culture, which is not natural, I am not fully under natural selection, but under manmade selection.

This change, which the Bible says occurred 6000 year ago, coordinates with the scientific carbon dating of the invention of written language and the rise of civilization. Where did these two pivotal innovations come from, since they were not already part of the earth, as preexisting natural things, that could direct and evolve humans through natural selection?

I believe in both Evolution and Creation. Evolution is about natural things, while Creation speaks of the rise of modern man, with will and choice, who learned to alter his environment, thereby breaking the human bond to natural selection. This is what Genesis mostly discusses.

Why do we spend so much resources on hospitals and caring for the sick, when natural selection has always earmarked the sick and weak as recycled food for carnivores and predators? The answer is humans do not follow the rules of natural selection, due to will and choice. When did this change for humans? This change in natural selection, to artificial selection is called Creation; created a new paradigm.

The Bible and Genesis gives us insight into that transitional time, and addresses many of the problems that would arise when humans lost their natural and evolutionary connections; fall from paradise under evolution and natural selection. Now, selection within culture, is based on fads and money, which are not natural; does not grow on trees.

One way you resolve the contemporary problem of either creation or evolution, instead of both part of the same long term process of change, is with Relativity and time dilation. One day in the God reference, is not an earth day, unless science assumes the earth is the center of the universe and the gold standard for time, for the entire universe. Does it?

There is a thing called Relativity and time dilation. One day in the God reference, can conceptually be billions of earth years, based on the difference in time propagation for the observational earth reference. God is symbolically light and spirit. This means he should be in a reference close to the speed of light, where seconds in his reference, can take billions of years in our earth reference.

Conceptually, God could say I want plants and animals, and they will appear in his reference, almost immediately. But in the much faster earth reference, is now seems to take billion of years for evolution to come up with the modern flora and fauna. Relativity gives you more than one reference for time. God does not become man; part of earth reference, until Jesus. While a speed of light reference would be eternal in time, relative to our earth reference. The ducks are in a row.

Long slow evolution may be more a reference illusion, based on assuming the earth defines universal time. This was a manmade invention from ancient times. I thought science knew better, but maybe Relativity and time references is not taught in the specialty sciences of Biology and Geology.

The bottom line is humans are not fully under natural selection, since they can alter the environment and impose artificial selection criteria. When did this new type of new human first appear? Carbon dating and religion both seem to suggest about 6000 years ago, the human brain, advanced.

The fall from paradise was fall from natural selection, into the pitfalls of artificial selection, which then created problems over the ages even until today; man made climate change. If natural selection had been in effect for humans, all along, we would still be in paradise where time become timeless. This suggests that part of the creation of will and choice, may have been neural time reference started to speed up; fear of death. Fear, like in war, can make time appear to slow down, so we can see more detail in less time; much faster reference. Now the day and year mean more to humans.

If you are waiting for someone to call, minutes can seem to take a long time. But if you are having fun, hours can appear to pass in an instant. The brain can alter its time perception frame. The appearance time speeding up is common to fear; see more details. God warning if you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall die. This suggest fear of death appears, with loss of instinct and time perception changing,
that more details appears.

So much wong.

Let's start with the fact that we are still under natural selection.

 

[metis]

Whilst you say there is loads of info about evolution, it all seems very vague. They seem to follow two patterns, they give a catalogue of different species, that says nothing about their origin. The language is not confident, there are different opinions. A couple of quotes from your first link.

Again, the ToE does not deal with origins beyond the "hypothesis" level.