Can you show the evidence that apes had speech, language, logic, self awareness, conscience?
You and I are both apes and we're using language to communicate right now. I am using logic as well, can't say the same for you.
Man is unique in his capacity to speak, to write language, to record facts and figures, to build amazing structures and to overcome and expand his environment.
Well, "write" and "record" is the same thing - and yes, humans are the only animal we know of with written language.
However, many different animals are capable of speech. Some of the languages are are starting to decode. Prairie Dogs for example have a complex series of barks their watchers use to communicate if there is a threat, where it is coming from and when the coast is clear. That's information transfer through sound from one individual to one or more individuals. That is language.
Beavers build amazing structures which expand their environment, and they pale in comparison to termites and ants.
He is able to create, to reason, to assess, to calculate and to invent.
These things have regularly be observed in animals. There are several species of bird which can reason, calculate and invent. I remember reading something (in Discover magazine I believe - I'll find it for you if you need me to once I have the time) about a study with birds where the bird was given a wire and a bottle with a treat inside. The birds had to bend the wire a certain way, then use it as a hook, to get the treat out.
That's a bird ASSESSING the situation, REASONING out a solution, CALCULATING the amount of bend in the wire, and using the wire to INVENT/CREATE a hook.
Actually, your evo researchers have tried to describe a scene of living intermediates. Mankind however shows that this is nonsense as it's closest sister species the chimp is absolutely nothing like us.
The human line is also the only line that has such enourmous differences between species at the Genus level.
While cognitive function is not something that fossilizes, the broad understanding is that the larger the brain compared to body size, the more ‘complex’ it is and the more room it has for higher functionality. Brain size compared to body size has steadily increased during hominid evolution. This doesn’t tell the full story though, so one area of research has been investigating the endocasts of extinct hominids to determine what brain structures were present. We see that in Australopithecines, a reduction in the visual cortex of the brain and an enlargement of the parietal lobe, which is the area concerned with spatial organization and social communication. As we get to the brains of H. habilis brain asymmetries can be discerned and the appearance of Broca’s area is distinguished (the area associated with speech/language). H. erectus artifacts have also shown a distinct degree of right handedness, similar to that found with our own species. H. erectus endocranial casts also show it has well developed hemisphere’s, not much different than humans today. Overall, hominid brains also show a more rounded frontal lobe and higher degree of ‘folding’, versus chimps, gorilla’s and orangutans (1a,1b). The frontal lobe is that area most associated with planning, consciousness, abstract thought, and language. Finally, brain asymmetries also indicate development of handedness (right-handed or left-handed) and structures such as Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, associated with language and speech. In humans, the right hemisphere is linked to “emotional systems, visuospatial processing, relational aspects and global dynamics,”, while the left side, “ is often related to learning, analytical and sequential processes, such as the execution and coordination of movements or language organisation (syntax, decoding, producing), discrimination, categorisations and local dynamics…” Fossil traces of the human thought: paleoneurology and the evolution of the genus Homo
What does this mean? We must first note that negative evidence is not evidence of a lack. In other words, the lack of an identifiable brain structure through notoriously difficult endocranial reconstructions (considering that many fossils are fragmentary as well as the thickness of the meningal membrane) does not indicate a structure did not necessarily exist. Alternately, the relationships with brain size, asymmetries and morphology can not be seen as conclusive evidence of language, speech, etc.
Taken together, though, we can observe an identifiable trend in brain size, asymmetry, and morphology and observe a comparable increase in the complexity of technological artifacts, as well as behavior in the hominid line. H. habilis has been associated with Mode 1 tools which have been found around the same time that they existed but no fossils have been found that could be conclusively associated with those tools. A H. habilis has also been found with a hyoid bone, which is associated with the ability to produce speech. When we get to H. erectus we see definite associations with Mode 1 tools and the development of Mode 2 tools. We also find that they use fire for meat consumption. Such complex behavior and tool manufacturing would seem to indicate that language is also involved. H. heidelbergensis and later hominins show even greater tool sophistication and behavior.
As a final note, the absence of identifiable artistic artifacts with many ancestral hominins does not indicate that they did not have that capability. These types of artifacts are notoriously prone to disintegration.
I remember reading something (in Discover magazine I believe - I'll find it for you if you need me to once I have the time) about a study with birds where the bird was given a wire and a bottle with a treat inside. The birds had to bend the wire a certain way, then use it as a hook, to get the treat out.
Not the exact thing you mention, but close enough:
No, it is your researchers, grabbing at straws that are unable to tell the difference. Their credibility is shot.
"Why is there so much confusion regarding human origins, and what does the fossil record actually show? We think Jeremy Rifkin summed it up accurately."
"What the “record” shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution (1983, p. 125)." http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&art...
Why, the Roman Catholic Church just like every other major recognized Christian Church acknowledges the fact of Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the variety and diversity of life seen today.
It is only the Christian Cult of *** that tries to market the crap called Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Edited by jar, : change subtitle
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
You have also learned that brain size has little to do with intelligence.
Many of your so called fossil evidence are fragments with the rest made up to suit.
The control and use of fire is a complex task that apes cannot understand nor perform. Where you have found a hearth, you have found a fully human being. Do you think an ape can think to use flint or stick rubbing. Not on your life. ...and they did not have matches.
Above is an ape, not a person that can use fire. Its' brain is around 850(early)-1100(late). Look at the skull diagram. Now I tell you that common sense needs to leave the room if you think this skull belonged to a fire contolling ape.
Much of the work on brain size in fossils are derived via the use of mathematical modelling that is biased and based on presumptions.
Many of your fossils are just a few bones with the majority of the specimen reconstructed according to a wish list.
"Much of the debate about the place of H. floresiensis in the primate tree is centered around its small size, in particular the small brain size. The argument raised has been that the evolution of such a small brain does not fit with what we know about primate brain evolution.
"Our analysis, together with studies of brain size in island populations of living primates, suggests we should perhaps not be surprised by the evolution of a small brained, small bodied early human species."
The findings also deepen our understanding of how our brains and bodies have evolved and the selection pressures that may have been responsible. The results show that selection has acted in both directions, usually resulting in evolution of bigger brains but also producing smaller ones."
In fact bigger brains may be a reflection of better smell. Neanderthal had a larger brain than homo sapiens. So we have devolved..have we?!!!!!! Does this also mean that Neanderthals were smarter than Homo Sapiens? No.
Researchers cannot understand the muddle around recent species like florensisensis and neanderthal. They have no hope of getting it right for anything older.
All this nonsense about increasing intelligence and increasing brain sizes is mythical support for human evolution from ape to mankind. It only makes sense when there is no sense involved.
Evos use all sorts of things to contstruct family trees. With so much homology around, all you have are wish lists.
So when it suits you use 'likeness'. When it doesn't you use good old luck eg homology or convergent evolution or the plethora of other kinds of evolution to explain what should not be there, but is.
TOE died many years ago. What you have now is many life lines plugged into a rescussitation machine to keep TOE alive in it's zombie state.
The control and use of fire is a complex task that apes cannot understand nor perform. Where you have found a hearth, you have found a fully human being. Do you think an ape can think to use flint or stick rubbing. Not on your life. ...and they did not have matches.
What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is fully human or not?
Above is an ape, not a person that can use fire.
So what features must a fossil have for it to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?
Many of your fossils are just a few bones with the majority of the specimen reconstructed according to a wish list.
Evidence please.
Researchers cannot understand the muddle around recent species like florensisensis and neanderthal.
So if we have cousins that means that we can not share a common ancestor with those cousins? I am really confused as to your problem with our current understanding of H. floresiensis and H. neanderthalensis.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
