You want proof of evolution at work, here it is.... Enjoy! (Observable and testable).

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Ok, what is the "theory" which most scientists believe is how the universe was created?

The problem with that question is not the answer that you seek and the answer that would be given but that they divide the entire concept up from evolution and cosmology into competently separate scientific boxes, semantically in pure scientific terms they are absolutely correct. The issue is this goes beyond just scientific terms and parameters, the creation narrative is a total concept not restricted by human markers put there by new age philosophy and atheism that blends into the science like a hand into a glove.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no proof of creationism, or anything scientific about it.

Nor is there proof that that whales evolved from land animals or humans evolved from monkeys.

The evidence supporting the Evolution of Whales has been done to death at this point but feel free to peruse the UC Berkeley article linked. H. Sapiens did not evolve from monkeys. No biologist, anthropologist or paleontologist has ever made that claim, no scientific literature period makes this claim. So I’m not sure why such a silly thing is still brought forth to mock evolution because it’s essentially a creationist meme built wholly in ignorance and it misleads people who aren’t going to take the time
To confront their own confirmation bias. I can understand people having questions or doubts about science. Questioning and peer review is a critical tool for science. But when people can’t be bothered to attempt to educate themselves in a topic and then make statements like yours about humans evolving from monkeys, I hope you can understand why people would have a hard time taking other related comments too seriously.

Some scientist tells us the theory is true and we're supposed to believe it.

Not at all. You’re supposed to ask questions and engage in your own due diligence. I wouldn’t take a random “scientist’s” word for anything anymore than I would the word of used car salesmen or some sketchy “prosperity gospel” preachers whining about needing a new private jet. For what it’s worth, there are plenty of people on ATS who have legitimate backgrounds in fields related to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and still actively work in their field. None of us just took someone’s word. We engaged in our own research, we falsified and reworked hypotheses, put in the
Hours, dug in the dirt, paid our dues in labs etc... What none of us did though, was just take someone’s word and blindly went out repeating it.

But you know exactly what a theory is.

I’m sure I’ve been beaten to the punch on this but there’s a huge difference between what passes for a layman’s theory and the rigorous criteria required to meet the threshold of a Scientific Theory. The really dumbed down version is that a layman’s theory is based on personal and anecdotal evidence that doesn’t go beyond speculation whereas a Scientific Theory makes testable and repeatable predictions. A Lyman’s theory doesn’t require any actual proof or evidence whereas a Scientific Theory must adhere to the scientific method.

Do you believe that your body is made up of cells? Because that falls under Cell Theory. Gravity? Just another theory. The whole “it’s just a theory” line of reasoning is so full of ignorant hubris and yet it just gets repeated ad infinitum.

a reply to: peter vlar

Are you playing semantics? Because atheist scientists do claim that man evolved from apes.

Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
...

Link

The common answer to "why haven't all apes/monkeys evolved into humans, or human like beings?" is the claim that the "old World monkeys and apes" evolved into "new world monkeys and apes" hence they branched differently and have very little in common when they branched off from the phylogenetic tree 28-40 million years ago. But again, this is just semantics. Even if it were true that they branched off evolution shouldn't just have stopped 28-40 million years ago and modern day apes and monkeys should have continued to evolve into more intelligent hominids, but they haven't. Why would that occur? What made them to stop "evolving"?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry I dont know what your talking about. What the hell is a creationist or a evolutionist? Dont subscribe to those religions.

But!

Are you a Cristian or something? Well even in that religion, which is a derivative of an older religions, of which it is just a rehashing of just a derivative of an older religion, basically if you follow the whole Abrahamic relgions back to were they came from its just rehashing of old Mesopotamian, Babylonian and Sumerian religions, and in that religion it even says man was created from apes, and breed to be workers, and also they were breed to be not all that bright.

So basically you not only came from apes, but you got the stupid genes in you all as as well.

So is that the creationism your talking about? Or is this about a guy sitting on a cloud who made the world in seven days and took a break on the seventh? You got to be a bit more specific, as I dont bother reading the nonesense you all jabber on about.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: peter vlar

Are you playing semantics? Because atheist scientists do claim that man evolved from apes.

I don’t know, are you playing illiterate? I agree that H. Sapiens Sapiens shares a common ancestor with the other Great Apes (which humans are included). Monkeys are not apes. It’s a pretty simple concept to grasp.

Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
...

Link

The common answer to "why haven't all apes/monkeys evolved into humans, or human like beings?" is the claim that the "old World monkeys and apes" evolved into "new world monkeys and apes" hence they branched differently and have very little in common when they branched off from the phylogenetic tree 28-40 million years ago. But again, this is just semantics.

Not only is this not “just semantics”, it’s completely, factually incorrect and inconsistent with what is actually stated. There are zero “New World Apes”. There are only New World Monkeys. I’m not sure where you get your info from but you may want to recheck your source material and back yourself up w Citations

Even if it were true that they branched off evolution shouldn't just have stopped 28-40 million years ago

So now you’re trying to claim that other than H. Sapiens Sapiens, all other Hominidae evolution simply ceased 10’s of millions of years ago? Where do you come up with this crackpot gumbo? It is even less true than your previous claims that were posted as if fact but were little more than the (hopefully) poorly remembered pseudo facts mixed in with your own confirmation biases. The simple fact is that neither the extant monkeys or apes are the same as they were 30 Ma. None of the extant species currently trying to survive against us hairless pink apes existed 28-40 Ma. If none of today’s apes or monkeys were living then and the species that were living 28-40 Ma are all extinct, how did our extant relatives come To be?

and modern day apes and monkeys should have continued to evolve into more intelligent hominids, but they haven't.

Why should they have? And more importantly, why do you believe that extant apes aren’t more intelligent than those from the Miocene?

You seem to think that evolution has a goal and that Humanity is the loftiest ideal that organic life could hope to attain.

They are all adapted to their specific ecological niches. They have emotions, Complex thoughts, friendships, familial Bonds, chimps make war, bonobos have a matriarchal society where homosexuality is an open aspect of their culture. Some groups are entering their own Stone Age as they continue to learn and create new tools.

Bonobos didn’t even exist Until roughly 1 Ma BP as a result of geographic isolation and then there are the Other Chimpanzees, the Bili Apes who are larger than other chimps and are nearly as big as gorillas, eat large cats (something that they have in common only with us unless you know of any other Hominidae that kill and eat carnivorous predators) and have a completely different culture than any other Chimpanzee group that has been observed by humans. To try to claim that apes ceased to evolve in the Miocene is both ludicrous and patently false.

Why would that occur? What made them to stop "evolving"?

As I point out just above, nothing because like us and every other living organism on earth, they are continuously evolving

a reply to: galadofwarthethird


To be fair here, Sumerian mythos makes no mention of man being created from apes for use as a stupid workforce. That’s the plot to Zechariah Sitchin’s ludicrous reimagining of earlier new age space alien BS.

The Enuma Elish is a collection of 7 tablets that is remarkably almost complete with the exception of tablet 5. Tablet 6 talks about the creation of man and says-

Marduk then speaks to Ea – saying he will use his blood to create man – and that man will serve the gods. Ea advises one of the gods be chosen as a sacrifice – the Igigi advice that Kingu be chosen – his blood is then used to create man

So no apes in the actual Sumerian creation myth. That doesn’t mean that Judaism didn’t borrow heavily from some Sumerian texts when Hebrew scribes were forced into service after Babylon took over Judea and then brought these texts home when they were eventually freed when Cyrus defeated the Babylonians. It’s very interesting how pre-captivity Hebrew scripture lacked certain things like Noah’s flood (which is eerily similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh to the point that today, they would probably be sued for plagiarism) yet soon after being freed to return home, Noah is building boats, saving some animals and ignoring others entirely (like marsupials).

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

If that was true it would destroy the theory of evolution because that would be genetic engineering...

originally posted by: peter vlar


I don’t know, are you playing illiterate?

Keep your insults for your home if you are that kind of a person, but learn to stay on topic. Asking someone if they are playing semantics is not an insult, so grow up and learn to stay in topic...

originally posted by: peter vlar
I agree that H. Sapiens Sapiens shares a common ancestor with the other Great Apes (which humans are included). Monkeys are not apes. It’s a pretty simple concept to grasp.

Apes and monkeys also have a common ancestor... The Saadanius hijazensis is the common ancestor between apes and old world monkeys... That's a simple concept to grasp...

originally posted by: peter vlar
Not only is this not “just semantics”, it’s completely, factually incorrect and inconsistent with what is actually stated. There are zero “New World Apes”. There are only New World Monkeys. I’m not sure where you get your info from but you may want to recheck your source material and back yourself up w Citations

I didn't write that there were new or old world apes... I wrote "old World monkeys and apes..." Now you are being stupid, and yes now i am insulting you because apparently you can't make an argument without making insults...

originally posted by: peter vlar
So now you’re trying to claim that other than H. Sapiens Sapiens, all other Hominidae evolution simply ceased 10’s of millions of years ago? Where do you come up with this crackpot gumbo? It is even less true than your previous claims that were posted as if fact but were little more than the (hopefully) poorly remembered pseudo facts mixed in with your own confirmation biases. The simple fact is that neither the extant monkeys or apes are the same as they were 30 Ma. None of the extant species currently trying to survive against us hairless pink apes existed 28-40 Ma. If none of today’s apes or monkeys were living then and the species that were living 28-40 Ma are all extinct, how did our extant relatives come To be?

Show proof that new world monkeys and apes have evolved into more intelligent hominids as "humans supposedly evolved..." Again keep your fing insults to your home...

originally posted by: peter vlar
Why should they have? And more importantly, why do you believe that extant apes aren’t more intelligent than those from the Miocene?

Because if humans evolved as is claimed from apelike creatures evolution should have continued to occur in the same manner... Yet here we are millions of years later and new world monkeys and apes haven't changed much at all...

originally posted by: peter vlar

...
H. Sapiens did not evolve from monkeys. No biologist, anthropologist or paleontologist has ever made that claim, no scientific literature period makes this claim. So I’m not sure why such a silly thing is still brought forth to mock evolution because it’s essentially a creationist meme built wholly in ignorance and it misleads people who aren’t going to take the time
To confront their own confirmation bias. I can understand people having questions or doubts about science. Questioning and peer review is a critical tool for science. But when people can’t be bothered to attempt to educate themselves in a topic and then make statements like yours about humans evolving from monkeys, I hope you can understand why people would have a hard time taking other related comments too seriously. ...

Some evolutionists do not feel that the theoretical ancestors of man should even rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting. The paleontologist (wiki says: "perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century") George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠ (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 27.)

There goes your failure of an argument that "No biologist, anthropologist or paleontologist has ever made that claim." (arguing from possibly feigned ignorance or perhaps even deliberate ignorance, refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation whenever it is pointed out to you as I've just done*, I also quoted it before, but of course, apparently it doesn't count when I'm quoting evolutionists saying things that don't tickle your ears; then it's just their opinion, nevertheless, a paleontologist has made the claim you said no biologist, anthrolopologist or paleontologist has ever made). Just so you can ridicule someone else's supposed lack of understanding or education and knowledge in order to discredit whatever they're saying or arguing in favor of. You do a poor job at it if you mess up big time like that (giving a false distorted version or view of historical claims from evolutionists, Darwin used "monkeys" more often than "apes" as well btw; and the term "apelike" wasn't popular at all in Darwin's time, that came later as the lack of fossil evidence for so-called "ape-men" became more and more embarrassing).
*: we will see now if you are willing to admit you were wrong

Many persons feel that there is no real conflict between the evolution theory and the main principles of Christianity. However, there are some basic matters on which the two absolutely cannot be reconciled.

Outstanding among these is the claim of evolutionists that all forms of life developed from a common beginning and are, therefore, related to one another, at least in the distant past. The Bible, however, states unequivocally that God “proceeded to create” separately, “according to their kinds,” types of vegetable, aquatic, bird and animal life, as well as humans. (Gen. 1:11, 12, 20-22, 24-28; 2:7, 21-23) Should Christians today abandon the Genesis account of creation in favor of evolution? Is it “unscientific” to believe in separate creation ‘according to kinds’?

Have not discoveries by scientists disproved the Genesis creation account? In some circles it is popular to think so. But how many have really looked into the matter?

The first chapter of Genesis does not say that God created every species of plant and animal separately. As noted above, living things were produced “according to their kinds.” What does that expression mean? Simply that major groups of organisms, such as humans, are distinct from other major groups. This, however, allows for great variety within each Genesis “kind.”

Is not that precisely the way that life forms appear today? Likely you cannot count the varieties of cats and dogs that you have seen in your lifetime. But do they not remain cats and dogs? Never is the boundary crossed between feline and canine. And what about mankind? Though much variety is evident among humans, including hair color, eye color, height, natural abilities and personality traits, they always remain humans. In this regard, a well-known professor of zoology, Theodosius Dobzansky, wrote:

“The living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.”

What about the fossil record of life in past ages? Do we see there evidence of continuous evolution of all living things? Or does the “record of the rocks” contain further proof of distinction between major groups of organisms? Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson writes:

“The facts are that many species and genera, indeed the majority, do appear suddenly in the record, differing sharply and in many ways from any earlier group, and that this appearance of discontinuity becomes more common the higher the level, until it is virtually universal as regards order and all higher steps in the [animal and plant classification] hierarchy.”

Do not these facts in the living and fossil worlds fully confirm the Genesis record that life forms came into existence and reproduce “according to their kinds”?

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

- Richard B. Goldschmidt (wiki says: "He is considered the first to attempt to integrate genetics, development, and evolution.")

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

- William R. Fix

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

- Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

- Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.Lönnig.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

- Christian Schwabe

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

That's the vagus nerve you retard 😂
It does alot more than just vocal cords and its genius engineering marvel.

Here is the oldest known monkey from 55 million years ago...

Steve Connor @SteveAConnor Wednesday 5 June 2013 19:55

A fossilised skeleton of a tiny creature with a long tail, sharp teeth and monkey-like feet has turned out to be the oldest-known primate – the group that includes gorillas, chimps and humans.

...

Discovery of little monkey from 55 million years ago rewrites history of humans

Why is it that after 55 million years these early monkeys didn't evolve into complex hominids like humans?

In fact, that monkey looks like many finger monkeys that exist to date.

Pygmy Marmoset.


Another Pygmy Marmoset.


Take your pick from these small monkeys.

Link

Link

"Nature" had 55 million years to evolve these small monkeys into complex hominids like humans, yet for some reason "evolution and nature" decided to take a 55 million year vacation?...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: peter vlar


I don’t know, are you playing illiterate?

Keep your insults for your home if you are that kind of a person, but learn to stay on topic. Asking someone if they are playing semantics is not an insult, so grow up and learn to stay in topic...

Congratulations. I didn’t realize you had been promoted to a moderator since the kids typically decide if something is off topic and needs to be edited or removed. If you’re insulted by a sarcastic reply to a dumb question, don’t ask dumb questions.

Apes and monkeys also have a common ancestor... The Saadanius hijazensis is the common ancestor between apes and old world monkeys... That's a simple concept to grasp...

It would be if Saadanius was the closest ancestor to Catarrhines. But it’s not. That would actually be Pliopithecoidea. Saadanius is a stem catarrhine, it can’t actually be used to determine when the divergence of the crown group took place. And that doesn’t even touch on how there’s exactly 1 known fossil of Saadanius and it doesn’t give much more information than dentition and a rough idea Of what the shape of the face was and details of a bone in the ear
Canal that is a distinguishing feature of Catarrhines.

I didn't write that there were new or old world apes... I wrote "old World monkeys and apes..." Now you are being stupid, and yes now i am insulting you because apparently you can't make an argument without making insults...

Cute. You call me stupid and you don’t even know what you wrote! Let’s quote you for the record-

The common answer to "why haven't all apes/monkeys evolved into humans, or human like beings?" is the claim that the "old World monkeys and apes" evolved into "new world monkeys and apes"

Well done champ!

Show proof that new world monkeys and apes have evolved into more intelligent hominids as "humans supposedly evolved..." Again keep your fing insults to your home...

Did mommy forget a bottle feeding tonight? Is that why you’re so cranky? You’ve attempted to insult me repeatedly over
You’re inability to read properly or recall your own words despite them being there in black and white.

Back on topic, it was YOUR claim that they have not changed in tens of millions of years. That places the onus for burden of proof squarely upon your shoulders.

Because if humans evolved as is claimed from apelike creatures evolution should have continued to occur in the same manner... Yet here we are millions of years later and new world monkeys and apes haven't changed much at all.

Again, there are NO NEW WORLD APES. But I’m stupid?! Hahahaha. You can’t keep your story straight from one post to the next.

Could you please explain to everyone, what manner exactly does evolution occur in that you would expect the same results from different organisms in different eco-niches? While you’re at it, please support your claims that monkeys and apes, New world or old world have not changed for tens of millions of years.

a reply to: whereislogic

You use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. You make a mountain out of nothing and then go off on yet another JW rant that has nothing to do with anything. I should have been more clear when I made the statement that it isn’t used that way professionally by anyone I’ve worked with or under. Simpson was a huge figure when it comes to the MES but as you often do, you use quotes devoid of context. When Simpson said/wrote that it was because he was writing for a lay audience. Hence his reference to “popular usage”. But play semantic games if it makes you feel better about yourself.

P.S. I really love how the vast majority of our citations are either 30+ years old and completely outdated or you cite the Watchtower or JW.org. Why are you so unfamiliar with anything that’s happened in Anthropology and Paleontology since 1980? We’ve learned a hell of a lot since then.

originally posted by: peter vlar
...
It would be if Saadanius was the closest ancestor to Catarrhines.
...

ROFLMAO... The Saadanius hijazensis is commonly known as a catarrhine.

The new fossil catarrhine, Saadanius hijazensis, dates from 29 million to 28 million years ago and lacks the specialized features that distinguish modern apes and Old World monkeys, suggesting that the split had not yet occurred.
...

news.umich.edu...


Only an imbecile would make such an asinine claim, and then complain that people are making questions that matter. But imbeciles lack the intelligence to actually respond in an intelligent manner.

Now stfu and go cry to your cousin Putin.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: peter vlar
...
It would be if Saadanius was the closest ancestor to Catarrhines.
...

ROFLMAO... The Saadanius hijazensis is commonly known as a catarrhine.

The new fossil catarrhine, Saadanius hijazensis, dates from 29 million to 28 million years ago and lacks the specialized features that distinguish modern apes and Old World monkeys, suggesting that the split had not yet occurred.
...

news.umich.edu...


Only an imbecile would make such an asinine claim, and then complain that people are making questions that matter. But imbeciles lack the intelligence to actually respond in an intelligent manner.

Now stfu and go cry to your cousin Putin.

Get hooked on phonics chief because you apparently glossed right over where I implicitly stated that they were a STEM CATARRHINE. But if calling other people Imbeciles because you can’t get your s# straight from one paragraph to the next then roll With it I guess. It’s all you have to bring to the table.

Anytime you want to address the other flawed aspects in your rant I pointed out, let me know. I’m always up for a good laugh. It says a lot that you hyper focus on that and ignored everything else. Is it because you don’t Have a clue? It really does look that way when you can’t own up to your own errors.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

If I was judging your intelligence by comments in this thread you have made I would easily and readily dismiss any other comments you have or will make in future threads

originally posted by: peter vlar
...
H. Sapiens did not evolve from monkeys. No biologist, anthropologist or paleontologist has ever made that claim, no scientific literature period makes this claim.

Focussing on the 2nd claim there. The book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind from which I was quoting is listed under the "Science" section of google books. It also received the National Book Award for Science (Hardcover). So, yes, this book is marketed and sold as "scientific literature". Written by paleoanthropologists quoting "perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century" claiming that “man's ancestors were apes or monkeys” (making no significant distinction, or at least not pointing out any between ape and monkey in that claim, treating the words as synonyms in the fuller quotation).

a reply to: peter vlar

So rather than admit you were wrong in the statement you made, you're going to argue that you meant something different and you weren't wrong about that? And that Simpson's claim doesn't count because it was for a "lay audience" according to you? As if that even matters which type of audience is targeted by such claims* in regards to your original claim that "No biologist, anthropologist or paleontologist has ever made that claim." [that man's ancestors were monkeys or that humans evolved from monkeys, same claim; the expression "has ever made" making it a claim about history, warranting any contrary quotation from the past to any type of audience to demonstrate your historical claim to be wrong, so 1980's is just fine]

*: or the books in which such claims are quoted that are marketed and sold as scientific literature

Hmm, looks familiar to me. And it is pretty much what I expected. You sir, are not honest. Not even with yourself. It shouldn't be that hard to admit you were wrong about something as trivial as this ("little things"/"simple mistakes"), but pride is getting in the way.

I've seen it before by other rather unreasonable religious dogmatists (see comment concerning "simple mistakes" at 9:08):

Luke 16:10 (NLT)

“If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities.

NIV:

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

The reason my comment went on longer is that I had already moved on from trying to get you to acknowledge that your claims regarding history were wrong, cause I knew it was very unlikely you would acknowledge that. Instead I chose to quote something else that was rather interesting from George Gaylord Simpson and other prominent evolutionists. Of course, that needed a bit of introduction as to the exact topic he was talking about and how it relates to the creation-evolution controversy.

a reply to: Raggedyman

What are you trying to say brah! Your a Scientologist. A blend of both worlds, I suppose, spirituality and science. Or so they say as its yet again a iteration on a bunch of past religions and believes, blended together in a hodgepodge of all kinds of weak sauce from days past, and some spirituality thrown into the mix, just because.

And also science. Its in the name right?

May xenu be with you. Though I think your people they believe we evolved from clams, but that was before our souls were trapped here when xenu blew them up with nuclear bombs. Or some such.

So I take it your the we evolved from clams type of guy instead of from apes? Sooory to intrude on your believes there guy.

You may carry on with your day.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Depends on what you mean by genetic engineering, according to some stuff, they just mixed and injected some sperm into female apes, and presto spagetio something came out. Then they just took the eggs from those first few female test samples that were born, and injected it into some annunaki females whos job it was to do that, and presto spagetio we have humans.

I know what your thinking. "Well I'll be a monkeys uncle"

Not really, but exactly.

You see the people of ancient sumer, were nothing if not practical. Even scientology has a bit of a creation myth borrowed from believes long ago dust, not just Christianity or Islam, pretty much over the centuries every peoples and nation just put and added there own flavor and a twist to things. However spirituality was invented long after the people of sumer went extinct, or evolved. They were if anything a very practical people.