Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 76 of 107 (408710)
07-04-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 6:55 AM


Re: Numbers are good
IamJoseph writes:
Certainly. There are also, pyramids, wars, nations, kings and historical events. We know of no 'NAME' of any human prior to the genesis datings - in fact no history per se - and this is not because of no writings.
I find it hard to believe that a pyramid could be built without writing, let alone mathematics and geometry. History is impossible to transmit to us without writing. So these two are also indicators of speech + writing, rather than just speech. Wars, kings and nations are much better indicators as they could probably occur without much writing, but without history, these may not leave much trace.
What about fossil anatomy, as the above posters and myself have alluded to?
IamJoseph writes:
Speech is an inherent intergrated attribute with humans. I meant, parents to not inculcate it: it cannot be thought to non-humans.
Yep. Speech is biological, like I said.
IamJoseph writes:
Deseases were also less prevalent then. But even if all those items are factored in, they'd account for a small fraction of the population: 120K years would still amount to 1000s of trillions.
On the contrary. Diseases would account for a large fraction of the population. One need only look at the family history of a pre-Industrial Age figure, say Marie Antoinette, to learn of this (and this is given some idea of health and care of children, and the fairly good diet of the royal family).
Marie Antoinette bore four children. Marie-Thérse-Charlotte, Louis-Joseph, Louis-Charles, Sophie-Béatrix. Louis-Joseph and Louis-Charles both died in childhood of tuberculosis, Sophie-Beatrix died a few days after childbirth.
If this can happen to the royal family, what must life have been like for the commoners, who also had to deal with famine in addition to poor hygiene? And this is in the age of agriculture. Imagine how bad it would have been in 10,000BC!
Even in the Middle Ages, living to 40 would have been considered a long life. I'm sure many, many died before they made it to 20.
IamJoseph writes:
Let the attribute of speech replace electricity here?
When reproductive success was electricity, the switch was technology (writing, for example). If speech is the electricity, what would you say the 'switch' would be?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 6:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 8:07 AM Doddy has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 77 of 107 (408712)
07-04-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Doddy
07-04-2007 7:26 AM


Re: Numbers are good
quote:
doddy
What about fossil anatomy, as the above posters and myself have alluded to?
Out of my window it goes, crashing to ground zero with a mighty THUD! Its a big con - not that there are no fossil relics found - but the conclusion construed by it. IMHO, fossil and dna are secondary back-ups, once the issue is established; while on their own,without hard-copy and actual proof - it is a con or a great error. This is also the reason I reject 60K year aboloriginals based solely on alledged cave marks.
quote:
On the contrary. Diseases would account for a large fraction of the population. One need only look at the family history of a pre-Industrial Age figure, say Marie Antoinette, to learn of this (and this is given some idea of health and care of children, and the fairly good diet of the royal family).
We're talking about 100K years ago - before the word 'pollution' was invented.
quote:
Even in the Middle Ages, living to 40 would have been considered a long life. I'm sure many, many died before they made it to 20.
Yes, but the reverse applies pre-4500 years.
quote:
When reproductive success was electricity, the switch was technology (writing, for example). If speech is the electricity, what would you say the 'switch' would be?
Teaching; encouaging; prompting. Its akin to a bird teaching its offspring to attempt the first flight - an inherent attribute with birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 7:26 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 7:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 78 of 107 (408770)
07-04-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 8:07 AM


Re: Numbers are good
IamJoseph writes:
Out of my window it goes, crashing to ground zero with a mighty THUD! Its a big con - not that there are no fossil relics found - but the conclusion construed by it. IMHO, fossil and dna are secondary back-ups, once the issue is established; while on their own,without hard-copy and actual proof - it is a con or a great error. This is also the reason I reject 60K year aboloriginals based solely on alledged cave marks.
Yes, well, I could take you to task with this, but perhaps this belongs in another thread. It is a complex issue.
IamJoseph writes:
We're talking about 100K years ago - before the word 'pollution' was invented.
But not before death, disease, famine, war and accidents were invented. It is true that the polluted living conditions of the Middle Ages weren't healthy, but that was more than offset by the advances in agriculture and health care that came along with civilisation.
IamJoseph writes:
Yes, but the reverse applies pre-4500 years.
Nonsense. At least in the Middle Ages, people had farms that (usually) supplied them with food, and surgeons that could set broken bones (though they were fairly useless at preventing or curing infections).
Take, as an example of how we would have lived 10,000 years ago, the current natives of New Guinea and Africa, mostly untouched by westerners. They don't live long healthy lives due to the lack of pollution.
Why would you think cavemen would reproduce faster than medieval citizens?
IamJoseph writes:
Teaching; encouaging; prompting. Its akin to a bird teaching its offspring to attempt the first flight - an inherent attribute with birds.
But who would be teaching speech to humanity?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 8:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 10:24 PM Doddy has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 79 of 107 (408788)
07-04-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Doddy
07-04-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Numbers are good
quote:
doddy
Why would you think cavemen would reproduce faster than medieval citizens?
Most of the deseases came with interaction between new groupings, and when an immunity had not been developed. Before this time, the planet was unpolluted, and people lived to greater lifespans. Wars and other deaths are common factors for all spacetimes. The bigger lifespans of biblical figures is true - people never ventured out of their communites and we have a fully intergrated calenderised diary of their lifespan datings, with no motive to fake or implement such a math vindicated historical account.
quote:
But who would be teaching speech to humanity?
Like all other pivotal factors which sustain the universe and this planet, speech is a bestowed phenomenon. It never emerged via coos and hisses, as is thought: speech arrived suddenly and in an already advanced state - in oral form first - independently in all areas of the planet. This is why million year old life forms never attained speech despite evolution, adaptation and every other facility available. Speech is a higher, exclusive form of communication unique to humans - as is a superior attribute of maths: neither are evolutionary results.
Who would be teaching superior math to humanity and not any other life form despite every beneficial advantage of time and conditions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 7:48 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by DrJones*, posted 07-04-2007 10:32 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 90 by Doddy, posted 07-05-2007 9:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 80 of 107 (408790)
07-04-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 10:24 PM


Re: Numbers are good
and people lived to greater lifespans
Your evidence for this is?

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 10:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:39 PM DrJones* has not replied
 Message 82 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:40 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 81 of 107 (408795)
07-04-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by DrJones*
07-04-2007 10:32 PM


Re: Numbers are good
quote:
Your evidence for this is?
When we consider what factors give longevity and what negates it, aside from wars and natural disasters, we find the positive conditions would have existed in ancient periods. Although medicine was not yet invented - its requirement would be less because deseases would be less common.
In ancient times peoples seldom ventured out of their communities, so there was less interaction for spreading of desease, and the air would have been cleaner. This is also backed by the OT - a diarised historical account with dates, names and places over a period of 2500 years, and which evidence a gradual decline in life spans. The current increase in lifespan is likewise a reversal factor, whereby many deseases are being cured, indicating a longer lifespan existed in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by DrJones*, posted 07-04-2007 10:32 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 82 of 107 (408796)
07-04-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by DrJones*
07-04-2007 10:32 PM


Re: Numbers are good
quote:
Your evidence for this is?
When we consider what factors give longevity and what negates it, aside from wars and natural disasters, we find the positive conditions would have existed in ancient periods. Although medicine was not yet invented - its requirement would be less because deseases would be less common.
In ancient times peoples seldom ventured out of their communities, so there was less interaction for spreading of desease, and the air would have been cleaner. This is also backed by the OT - a diarised historical account with dates, names and places over a period of 2500 years, and which evidence a gradual decline in life spans. The current increase in lifespan is likewise a reversal factor, whereby many deseases are being cured, indicating a longer lifespan existed in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by DrJones*, posted 07-04-2007 10:32 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 83 of 107 (408798)
07-04-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Doddy
07-04-2007 1:27 AM


Re: Made Up Descriptive Terms
quote:
I think for Mr A to answer that question, he would first have to understand what "internally derived factor" actually means. Otherwise, you have asked an essentially meaningless question of him.
Let me see if I can understand. Essentially, you are referring to a seed being part of the parent organism. This distinguishes the seed from external factors, such as soil acidity, sunlight and so on, that determine the appearance and characteristics of the seedling. Thus, you are then describing what I, as a scientist, would call either a zygote or an embryo. Perhaps you could look up those terms and see if they express what you are trying to.
Spot on! Soil and sunlight being externally impacting factors, as opposed the internally derived seed. An embryo is internally derived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 1:27 AM Doddy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 84 of 107 (408799)
07-04-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by anglagard
07-04-2007 4:05 AM


Re: On language aquisition
double post!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 4:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 85 of 107 (408801)
07-04-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by anglagard
07-04-2007 4:05 AM


Re: On language aquisition
quote:
I'm also sure that we both agree that such developments were gradual and therefore placing an arbitrary date of 40,000 years ago is imposing an artificial boundary upon a continuous process.
There is not a shred of evidence to back this up, of speech being gradually developed and evolving. There are no grads of 40K, 30K, 20K and 10K years! All of what we associate with speech endowed human developments and its history are only seen in the last 6000. There is a clear reason for not acknowledging this blatancy - because of its inferences and impacts which give credibility to Creationism: go ahead - deny it! But no sector of humanity recalling via memory and oral transmissions, a single 'NAME' or event pre-6000 is an undeniable stretch. The retreat to cave markings, with no surrounding back-up, is what we are left with - but here, science becomes pseudo and surreal, akin to improvised sci-fi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 4:05 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2007 3:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 86 of 107 (408802)
07-05-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by anglagard
07-04-2007 2:14 AM


Re: On language aquisition
quote:
This statement is not true.
Findings from the science of psychology clearly show that children subject to extreme abuse to the point where they are not exposed to human communication not only have tremendous difficulty in learning a language they are unable to completely learn the nuances involved in learning any and all languages. Therefore any 'switch' must be turned on by human communication during the first 6 months to 3 years of life, all learning at or beyond that point is done through parents, teachers, or other sources in the child's environment. I directly remember an article in Psychology Today in the 70s concerning a subject named 'Mary' that was subject to such abuse and directly showed this to be true. Worse for the anti-science crowd which can usually, yet unfortunately, be associated with conservative political beliefs, the findings concerning language acquisition directly supported the theories of language acquisition proposed by Noam Chomsky!
You are going in a scenario where the 'switch' is not ignited, siting abuse and exceptional conditions. Denying one from breathing will have the same effect - though a child inherently possesses the breathing attribute. Speech is not an evolved phenomenon: apes are older than humans, and equally possess adaptation, have brains and communication faculties.
Cholmsky has been wrong in almost everything he has ever said - exploiting knowledge he begat selectively via manipulation and for self-serving purposes.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 2:14 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 107 (408810)
07-05-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 12:06 AM


Re: Made Up Descriptive Terms
Here's another one I made up: WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY MADE-UP STATEMENT - IS A SEED NOT AN INTERNALLY DERIVED FACTOR?
What's wrong with it is that the phrase "internally derived factor" does not mean anything.
If you want to ask questions about biology, learn the language of biology. Otherwise no-one will understand your questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 12:06 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 107 (408812)
07-05-2007 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 11:57 PM


Re: On language aquisition
There is not a shred of evidence to back this up, of speech being gradually developed and evolving. There are no grads of 40K, 30K, 20K and 10K years! All of what we associate with speech endowed human developments and its history are only seen in the last 6000.
But this is not so. There are civilisations dating well before 6000 years ago. Try not to base your case on made-up stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:57 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 89 of 107 (408853)
07-05-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:35 AM


Re: Usual Junk Assertions
The point of humans is misleading here: better we apply the term, speech endowed life form - which is what genesis refers to, and the factor which separates modern humans from all other life forms. The 6000 figure does not apply to any other life forms.
So you are defining humans as those who were around 6000 years ago, then concluding that humans have been around for 6000 years.
I am arguing that it has taken hundreds of thousands of years for humans to get to the point (physically and socially) where humans were 6000 years ago.
Your only evidence that humans came into existence 6000 years ago is that thats when we started writing stuff such that modern humans can read it (stone/continually rewriting/etc).
Speech endowed life forms align with what we see of modern humans within the last 6000 phase: pyramids, writings, wars, nations, names and dates - and there is no 'history' prior to the 6000.
Will you agree with me that it takes a lot more than just the ability to communicate to have pyramids, writings etc? A civilization where every member has to work all day long in order to get the food they need to survive probably can't build pyramids. They probably won't be too concerned about developing a written language when they don't have the time, nor need to read or write.
You seem to be assuming that once a being can speak that the ability and desire to write are going to happen at the same time. This is why others have cited the development of the larynx and the 40,000 plus year history of human speech.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by IamJoseph, posted 07-05-2007 10:31 PM Max Power has not replied
 Message 95 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2007 5:47 AM Max Power has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 90 of 107 (408906)
07-05-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 10:24 PM


Re: Numbers are good
IamJoseph writes:
It never emerged via coos and hisses, as is thought: speech arrived suddenly and in an already advanced state - in oral form first - independently in all areas of the planet. This is why million year old life forms never attained speech despite evolution, adaptation and every other facility available.
I've already explained why other organisms didn't develop speech but hominids did - much the same reason that only elephants gained a prehensile nose. Why are you not claiming that an elephants trunk is bestowed, as no other animal, despite billions of years, has developed it.
Evolution does not have any set "aim" or "goals". It is not a process with the intent to create as many smart creatures as possible, or as many talking creatures as possible, or as many creatures with long noses as possible. The only criteria is survival, and that can be solved in a myriad of ways, only one of which is intelligence and speech.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 10:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by IamJoseph, posted 07-05-2007 10:49 PM Doddy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024