Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

You need to start a thread on geology, Noose. The age of the planet is only relevant here because it confirms why you don’t recognise the evolutionary process.

Even with added time, evolution is still a hoax. How many years does a species need to set up rules on how to use words and come up with meanings of words to use those words for communication?
Do you have a model that explains this transition?

A thread in geology will not help you either.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You need to start a thread on geology, Noose. The age of the planet is only relevant here because it confirms why you don’t recognise the evolutionary process.

Even with added time, evolution is still a hoax. How many years does a species need to set up rules on how to use words and come up with meanings of words to use those words for communication?
Do you have a model that explains this transition?

Yes. I’d recommend any book on the subject by Steven Pinker for the details. This would be a good start: Language Instinct, The: Steven Pinker, Arthur Morey: 9781491514986: Amazon.com: Books

"…he explains everything you always wanted to know about language: how it works, how children learn it, how it changes, how the brain computes it, and how it evolved. With deft use of examples of humor and wordplay, Steven Pinker weaves our vast knowledge of language into a compelling story: language is a human instinct, wired into our brains by evolution. "

Something of a Catch 22 for you though. You know, not believing in evolution yet trying to work out how language evolved…

 

[Noose001]

Yes. I’d recommend any book on the subject by Steven Pinker for the details. This would be a good start: Language Instinct, The: Steven Pinker, Arthur Morey: 9781491514986: Amazon.com: Books

"…he explains everything you always wanted to know about language: how it works, how children learn it, how it changes, how the brain computes it, and how it evolved. With deft use of examples of humor and wordplay, Steven Pinker weaves our vast knowledge of language into a compelling story: language is a human instinct, wired into our brains by evolution. "

Something of a Catch 22 for you though. You know, not believing in evolution yet trying to work out how language evolved…

Hardly a catch 22, for me, language is evidence against evolution. If language is a human instinct, why must i learn Hindu to speak Hindu?

Do you know why deaf people don’t speak a language? not that they don’t have their faculties of speech fully developed, even with their instincts, they don’t get a chance to learn a language. A deaf person at 80 yrs will still have word plays (meaningless words) and ‘examples of humor’, and that’s all they will ever have.

Ok, let’s assume the evolutionary process has brought us this far and now we have evolved all that is required for speech; the brain capacity, the voice box, the lips, the tongue - In your own words (no links please), how do we move on from here?

1. How do we set the rules for use of words? rules requires words
2. How do we come up with meanings of words? meanings requires words
3. How do we teach others the meanings of words? teaching requires words
4. How do we come up with words? words require rules, meanings and teaching

 

[Freddy]

If language is a human instinct, why must i learn Hindu to speak Hindu?

You wouldn’t. Hindu is a religion. Hindi is the language. And it’s because Hindi is not ‘language’ but ‘A language’.

1. How do we set the rules for use of words? rules requires words
2. How do we come up with meanings of words? meanings requires words
3. How do we teach others the meanings of words? teaching requires words
4. How do we come up with words? words require rules, meanings and teaching

1. If you have some words then the grammar is somewhat arbitrary. If you didn’t have words and you wanted to signify a big apple then you might point to an apple and then spread your arms wide to indicate big. So is the rule apple-big (Spanish for example) or big-apple (English)? Doesn’t really matter.
2. If you had no word for something then it’s relatively easy to come up with a sound that indicates that object. Simple onomatopoeia. You can build on that. If I point to an apple and make a grunt, then ‘ugh’ means apple. If I point to a rock and say ‘ahg’ then that represents rock. This is pretty easy, isn’t it. We could make up a decent vocabulary pretty quickly!
3. If we didn’t speak the same language but I kept pointing to a rock and kept saying ‘ahg’ then you’d understand that it meant rock. If a Hindu guy points at the rock and keeps saying ‘chattaan’ then he’s not using words to teach you a little Hindi. Just associating a sound with an object.
4. See 2. Words are just arbitrary sounds that we associate with objects and concepts. If enough people use the same words then we have a language.

By the way, what did everyone speak 6,000 years ago? if we all had a common language then, why do you think we have so many now?

Edit: This is waaaay off topic so if you want to discuss it any more then please start a new thread. I just needed a break (from learning Spanish would you believe) so I thought I’d answer this. Apologies to the op.

 

[rossum]

Hardly a catch 22, for me, language is evidence against evolution. If language is a human instinct, why must i learn Hindu to speak Hindu

As Freddy has pointed out, Hindu is a religion, Hindi is the language.

You need to learn a language because different languages use the same sounds with different meanings. What does the sound “elf” mean? In English it means a mythological humanoid. In German it means the number 11.

Do you know why deaf people don’t speak a language?

Some can, other use sign language. That is sign language. Were you aware that some chimps and gorillas have been taught sign language?

 

[Gigantals]

It’s almost guaranteed that Lucy is a chimpanzee skeleton. The bones are more chimpanzee than human. Unlike us, she has curved fingers and toes (fossils of her ‘species’ show their big toes seems to stick out just like a chimpanzee’s too), upward-angles shoulder blades and long arms, which are all found in tree-swinging apes. The fractures in her bones are consistent with those from a fall (CT scan). The thickness of her arm bones show that compared to her legs, her arms were considerably stronger. From what we can gather about the tapering of her fractured arm bones, they do not simply fit together, which suggests that there are pieces between them missing; which means they were longer. Her legs bones fit together better to to prove that there is no need to add a foot of theoretical bone as evolutionists have done; that she had short legs as a tree-swinging ape would have. Given that she lived in a Savannah-like climate, the only place she could’ve really fallen from was a tree.

A CT scan of another member of Lucy’s ‘species’ shows that the inner ear canal is shaped like those of ‘knuckle-walkers’. This reinforces the idea that she had a stooped gait when ‘walking’, instead of being bipedal.

It took scientists 40 years to realise that a bit of Lucy’s backbone belonged to a baboon, so they do jump to conclusions too quickly sometimes.

I’m new here, so if the link I’m trying to put up doesn’t work, then please go onto YouTube and look up ‘Noah’s Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (from Pangea to Today)’

It explains the geological column and the fossil record.

 

[rossum]

It’s almost guaranteed that Lucy is a chimpanzee skeleton.

No she is not. The fossil is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton. We have other fossils of the same species, definitely not a chimpanzee. Your sources are grossly misinforming you.

 

[Noose001]

You need to learn a language because different languages use the same sounds with different meanings. What does the sound “elf” mean? In English it means a mythological humanoid. In German it means the number 11.

When you are answering this question, you need to have evolution in mind. I don’t think it’s your belief that evolution brought us thus far to learn to differentiate sounds from different languages.
Why would an English care for the meaning of ‘elf’ in German and why should a German care what ‘elf’ means in English. The only thing that matters is that both learn what that word means in their own language and how to use the word in accordance to the rules in that language.
Your role as an evolutionist is to explain how this transition happened? how was the meaning of the words obtained?

Some can, other use sign language. That is sign language . Were you aware that some chimps and gorillas have been taught sign language?

Chimps and Gorillas being taught! who taught our ancestor?

 

[rossum]

Chimps and Gorillas being taught ! who taught our ancestor?

Who taught the serpent in Eden to speak?

 

[Noose001]

1. If you have some words then the grammar is somewhat arbitrary. If you didn’t have words and you wanted to signify a big apple then you might point to an apple and then spread your arms wide to indicate big. So is the rule apple-big (Spanish for example) or big-apple (English)? Doesn’t really matter.
2. If you had no word for something then it’s relatively easy to come up with a sound that indicates that object. Simple onomatopoeia. You can build on that. If I point to an apple and make a grunt, then ‘ugh’ means apple. If I point to a rock and say ‘ahg’ then that represents rock. This is pretty easy, isn’t it. We could make up a decent vocabulary pretty quickly!
3. If we didn’t speak the same language but I kept pointing to a rock and kept saying ‘ahg’ then you’d understand that it meant rock. If a Hindu guy points at the rock and keeps saying ‘chattaan’ then he’s not using words to teach you a little Hindi. Just associating a sound with an object.
4. See 2. Words are just arbitrary sounds that we associate with objects and concepts. If enough people use the same words then we have a language.

By the way, what did everyone speak 6,000 years ago? if we all had a common language then, why do you think we have so many now?

Edit: This is waaaay off topic so if you want to discuss it any more then please start a new thread. I just needed a break (from learning Spanish would you believe) so I thought I’d answer this. Apologies to the op.

1. I don’t think you believe this is how human language started. No evidence to support your assertions just pure conjecture. The only data available shows that a language is taught/learned to be spoken.
2. Languages can not be built on onomatopoeia, no evidence for this assertion. Language is a means of communicating or expressing ones feelings/ desires/ knowledge and understanding/ needs - to achieve this, you need more than a noun and an adjective or a verb.
   IOW, language is a story, a sentence plus more.

Big-apple; what’s wrong with the big apple? You haven’t communicated anything by saying big apple. Is it sweet? do you want it? do you like it? did you see it, when? do you hate it?

so for you to communicate anything about an apple, you need more signs than pointing and then spreading your arms wide. If you are pointing at a big apple, you don’t need to spread your arms. we can already tell it is big by seeing.

Q.Can you demonstrate how an early human would use sign language to tell others, “i ate an apple this big, last week”

This also applies to your point#2,3,4.

1. Did people speak 6000 years ago/ common language- why many now
   Language is evidence of a knowledgeable being (God). What we know is that we learn a language from knowledgeable source, we can only fall back as far as a knowledgeable source aka God and not a single celled organism.

If you have a language, you can use it to develop many more as is the case today.

1. This is not off topic at all. Communication is a trait within different species and it is diverse in different species. Did the human brain, lips, pharynx, tongue evolve?

 

[Noose001]

Who taught the serpent in Eden to speak?

We are still on evolution. We are trying so hard to make it credible or even believable, so no deflections. If you can’t defend evolution and are ready to discuss the bible let me know.

 

[Gigantals]

Forgive my poor wording. Let me try again:

Lucy’s skeleton tells us she cannot be human (unless she is part of a group of people who had the same genetic deformities, like the Neanderthals; but this would be much worse). She is far more ape-like than human-like; more similar to a chimpanzee than a human.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Who taught the serpent in Eden to speak?

We are still on evolution.

Not since you told us that you believe the planet to be 6,000 years old. That kinda removes any and all options for any sensible discussions on the subject.

 

[Noose001]

Not since you told us that you believe the planet to be 6,000 years old. That kinda removes any and all options for any sensible discussions on the subject.

1. I don’t believe in a young earth or old earth, i believe reality is a creation of consciousness and in this world view, time means nothing because trying to figure out the age of reality is like trying to figure out the age of consciousness. You insisted on a figure, i gave you 6000 years just to hear your evidence of an old earth - none is forthcoming.
2. Evolution needs a long period of time just to make it appear credible but it is still not credible. No agreeable explanation of ‘how’

And i’m still waiting for an agreeable explanation of how our ancestor started talking. Why the shift from a gene based mode of communication to learning? Did these mutations on these particular gene stop completely, why? is it because man has reached the top most level of communication?

 

[Hume]

Forgive my poor wording. Let me try again:

Lucy’s skeleton tells us she cannot be human (unless she is part of a group of people who had the same genetic deformities, like the Neanderthals; but this would be much worse). She is far more ape-like than human-like; more similar to a chimpanzee than a human.

Sure.

The further and further back you go in our genetic ancestry, the less human things appear.

You can get so far back so as to predate the rise of primates, so our ancestors at that point wouldn’t have looked human at all.

They look more like rats at that point.

 

[Gigantals]

I already established above that our dating methods for rocks are full of errors, and I provided an alternative formation method of the fossil record.

 

[buffalo]

Lucy’s skeleton tells us she cannot be human (unless she is part of a group of people who had the same genetic deformities, like the Neanderthals; but this would be much worse). She is far more ape-like than human-like; more similar to a chimpanzee than a human.

“The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage.”
Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis;

Israeli Researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans”; Apr 16, 2007
The Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.,its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index…cestral_li

“The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian (ape-like) as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”
Lord Solly Zuckerman – Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hume]

Noose001:

rossum:

Who taught the serpent in Eden to speak?

We are still on evolution.

Not since you told us that you believe the planet to be 6,000 years old. That kinda removes any and all options for any sensible discussions on the subject.

If the universe is only 6000 years old, the night-time sky should be almost completely black since it would be void of anything besides what’s in our solar system and very nearby.

The light from those distant celestial objects haven’t had time to get to us. Andromeda is our closest neighbor and it’s still in the millions of light years away from us.

We wouldn’t see most of the contents of our own galaxy yet since the Milky Way is over 100k light years across…

A 6000 year old creation would require a nearly completely black night sky. This just isn’t what we see…

 

[buffalo]

@freddy to be clear, you now agree with this?

Indeed we are making progress. @freddy now agrees with the following:

Your two examples, and the only two you could muster up over a decade of me asking, are examples of adaptation. Calling them a man made description of a new species is a circular argument. The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness. You well know that most evo adherents claimed that macroevolution was a creative process leading to organisms of more complexity and ability, from a simple celled organism to a human being. (tree of life has fallen) All that is needed is lots of time. You well know the evo defense because there are no examples, is to extrapolate microevolution and make the unproven claim that it happens in small successive steps over long times result in greater and greater complexity until we get cells that feature extensive internal communications, complex machinery, complex language and codes, transport mechanisms, adaptability, storage, memory, all without any extraneous outside (name removed by moderator)ut, except sunlight (your open systems claim) all working against the second law and genetic entropy.

Macro does not happen.

@freddy is not contesting this post.

 

[Gigantals]

You’re assuming the speed of light has always been constant