Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Noose001 said:
Someone has evolved for millions of years, come all the way through natural selection and confirmed fit not to be perfect?!
Click to expand...
Doesn’t have to be perfect to survive, just good enough or maybe slightly better than others.
Noose001 said:
single or 2 words does not constitute a language
Click to expand...
Never said it was a full language. But it can be the beginning of what will become a full language. And that is exactly the issue - you keep speaking as if there cannot be a beginning; that it is useless unless it is fully formed and that is simply not the case. So what if it can’t succinctly describe every possible feeling or idea? If it is useful for the daily life of the population using it, then it is useful.
Noose001 said:
Language has to be more than verbs and nouns for one to express information
Click to expand...
If someone were to pick up a club and start running in your direction with the club upraised and a scowl on his face, would you not understand the information presented that you should either leave at a high rate of speed or prepare for a fight? No words needed at all in that scenario, and for a significant portion of human development that was near the limits of communication. But in any case I didn’t stop there when mapping out a notional development process. You left out the rest of the list. I wonder why?
Noose001 said:
And how does a sign turn into a word? whats the need if the sign works perfectly?
Click to expand...
How perfectly will a sign work in the pitch dark between one sentry and another? Or from one side of the woolly mammoth being hunted to the other?
 
Unfortunately, I can’t see the image.

Dendrochronology isn’t a sound method. Tree rings show periods of growth, but not necessarily seasons. Bristlecones can produce numerous rings per year when under fluctuating stressed conditions in a bid to reduce water loss. These are called ‘false rings’, since these mess up the annual growth ring count.

I’ve seen in my sedimentology lectures than if you mix together a collection of sediment particles of different mineral consistencies (which then changes their crystal sizes and densities) in a large container of water, then they will separate out into laminated layers. Water isn’t actually needed, I once did this experiment with nothing more than a glass frame and two different sand types. Forgive me for the bad quality picture. The sediment at the top of the ‘hourglass’ is mixed. It took a couple of minutes for everything to fall through, but even in the beginning, there was lamination.

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

All sediment needs to separate itself is energy and it will then separate into layers with particles of similar densities and sizes.

With all that deposition taking place (I do hope you watched the video I put up above), it’s no surprise if numerous layers formed quickly.
 
I can’t help but wonder if @buffalo and @o_mlly have come to the realization that they’re arguments against biological evolution are just as spurious as @Noose001’s arguments against the evolution of language.

All of their arguments are based on the claim that such complex systems couldn’t possibly have evolved solely through natural processes.

But I can’t help but think that it’s unlikely that either @buffalo nor @o_mlly believe that @Noose001’s argument against the evolution of language has any logical merit. And yet it’s the exact same argument that they’re making against biological evolution.

Now I’m certain that the two of them will vehemently disagree, and insist that their arguments are completely different from @Noose001’s , yet to an observer lacking their preconceptions, all of these arguments appear equally irrational.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
In this context, “fit” means “better than any current alternatives”. That can be a long way from “perfect”.

Is human sight “perfect”? No. We cannot see detail at a distance as well as an eagle. We cannot see into the ultra-violet as far as some birds. We cannot detect light polarisation as bees can.

Our sight is “fit” for our purposes. We do not need to find small prey from a long way up in the air as eagles do.

Evolution does not do “perfect”; it does “better than average”.
Click to expand...
It is an evolutionary problem when an organism decides by itself that what it has is no longer good.
 
whatistrue said:
Doesn’t have to be perfect to survive, just good enough or maybe slightly better than others.
Click to expand...
It is an evolutionary problem when an organism decides that what it has is no longer good. It is very sad that you can’t see this.
whatistrue said:
Never said it was a full language.
Click to expand...
And there’s never a half language. A language is structured way of giving information.
whatistrue said:
If someone were to pick up a club and start running in your direction with the club upraised and a scowl on his face,
Click to expand...
Quit it, no language had such a beginning. No evidence at all.
 
lelinator said:
Now I’m certain that the two of them will vehemently disagree, and insist that their arguments are completely different from @Noose001’s , yet to an observer lacking their preconceptions, all of these arguments appear equally irrational.
Click to expand...
🙃
If you have anything in support of evolution you better bring it forth.
 
Noose001 said:
when an organism decides
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything about an organism deciding anything? This is how evolution works - doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than the competition.
Noose001 said:
And there’s never a half language
Click to expand...
Wrong. This whole thing is about how languages developed; you don’t get to decide what a language is ignoring the existing science. ETA: Again, look at Pidgins and Creoles (developmental stages of language formation in case it needs to be said).
Noose001 said:
no language had such a beginning
Click to expand...
Who said I was talking about language? I was talking about information transfer. In that scenario the information transferred needed no words at all. And that is exactly how you can get from nothing to a full language with a lot of time involved. In your own words “Quit it…no evidence at all” for your claim.
 
Last edited:
lelinator said:
I can’t help but wonder if @buffalo and @o_mlly have come to the realization that they’re arguments against biological evolution are just as spurious as @Noose001’s arguments against the evolution of language.

All of their arguments are based on the claim that such complex systems couldn’t possibly have evolved solely through natural processes.

But I can’t help but think that it’s unlikely that either @buffalo nor @o_mlly believe that @Noose001’s argument against the evolution of language has any logical merit. And yet it’s the exact same argument that they’re making against biological evolution.

Now I’m certain that the two of them will vehemently disagree, and insist that their arguments are completely different from @Noose001’s , yet to an observer lacking their preconceptions, all of these arguments appear equally irrational.
Click to expand...
  • This message is content free. Feel free to dismiss and not reply.
  • No theists were harmed in the composition of this message.
  • The poster’s credibility was hurt.
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
It is an evolutionary problem when an organism decides by itself that what it has is no longer good.
Click to expand...
Then evolution does not have a problem at all, because the individual organism does not decide. The decision is made by natural selection. Somewhat simplified, if you have more grandchildren than average then your genes will spread through the population.

As the environment changes so the genes that result in more grandchildren will change. For example, last year a genetic resistance to CORVID-19 was a neutral mutation, it had no effect. This year that same resistance has a beneficial effect.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Then evolution does not have a problem at all, because the individual organism does not decide. The decision is made by natural selection. Somewhat simplified, if you have more grandchildren than average then your genes will spread through the population.
Click to expand...
Human language is not a product of natural selection.
 
whatistrue said:
Where did I say anything about an organism deciding anything? This is how evolution works - doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than the competition.
Click to expand...
I asked you, if sign language plus grunts serves the communication purpose, why the need for words? maybe you can try again because your initial answer was that signs are not perfect.
 
Noose001 said:
if sign language plus grunts serves the communication purpose, why the need for words?
Click to expand...
Signs plus grunts were, as I stated multiple times, a possible form of the beginning of language, not the “perfect” end stage. Because as societies developed (there’s that word again…) people saw a need for more complex communication methods and then made them. And you should know that nothing human-made ever was or ever will be perfect. All languages are human-made, even if the capacity for language itself was “built in” so to speak.

And to horn in on another conversation for a bit…
Noose001 said:
Human language is not a product of natural selection.
Click to expand...
You are the one who tried to conflate the two. The capacity for language was part of the development of humans; the various human languages themselves were invented and developed by humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top