Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
31 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,272 Year: 22,308/19,786 Month: 871/1,834 Week: 371/500 Day: 4/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 107 (408495)
07-03-2007 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Max Power
07-02-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Usual Junk Assertions
quote:
max

Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (we come to this conclusion due to many independent scientific studies spanning many different fields) and it has taken all of that time to get people to the moon.


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. The issue of 100s of 1000s of years must thus apply not to alledged skeletal similarities but speech. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Max Power, posted 07-02-2007 1:50 PM Max Power has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Max Power, posted 07-05-2007 10:44 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 62 of 107 (408501)
07-03-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:24 AM


Made Up Descriptive Terms
I used a made up descriptive term to express a point ...

Yes. You keep on using "made up descriptive terms".

Now, can you say what you want to in English, rather than in some private stupid language that you made up in your head?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:24 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:54 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 63 of 107 (408522)
07-03-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:24 AM


Re: Numbers are good
heiroglifics

Please continue to teach me about ancient history, you know so much about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:24 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 64 of 107 (408535)
07-03-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2007 5:38 AM


Re: Made Up Descriptive Terms
quote:

I used a made up descriptive term to express a point ...

Yes. You keep on using "made up descriptive terms".

Now, can you say what you want to in English, rather than in some private stupid language that you made up in your head?


One has to make up descriptive statements. What's so wrong in expressing a seed as internally derived - differentiating it from externally impacting evolution as per darwin?

quote:

heiroglifics

Please continue to teach me about ancient history, you know so much about it.


One is allowed grammatical and spell-check liberty in a forum, where speed applies. But thanks anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 5:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:19 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 65 of 107 (408542)
07-03-2007 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:00 AM


Re: Usual Junk Assertions
Is there really any need to think about it if a seed causes data transfer to be inherited from the parental host?

You're right. That statement is so clearly complete and utter gibberish that one doesn't really need to waste any time thinking abou it.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:00 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 66 of 107 (408556)
07-03-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 9:54 AM


Re: Made Up Descriptive Terms
One has to make up descriptive statements. What's so wrong in expressing a seed as internally derived - differentiating it from externally impacting evolution as per darwin?

What's wrong with it is that it's a language you've made up which no-one else speaks. "A seed as internally derived"; "externally impacting evolution"; these are phrases which you have made up and which do not mean anything.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:54 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4253 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 67 of 107 (408637)
07-03-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:24 AM


Re: Numbers are good
IamJoseph writes:

Exactly. But this also says that the first 6000 in the 60,000 period never elevated in mental prowess, which the last 6000 is manifestly a series of graduated elevation, culminating in man going to the moon. Further, unlike the last 6000 again - there are no graduated imprints of human development interspersed at different intervals in the last 60,000 years. Eg: we don't see community imprints at 55K; pyramids at 50K, nations and wars at 45K; in fact not a single histrical feature to represent speech humans and what it represents.

Well, the natives of New Guinea did not put a man on the moon, nor build pyramids, nor even write anything. However, they are indeed speech-endowed human beings. The same thing can be said of many sub-saharan African tribes and the Australian Aborigines.

So, perhaps the presence of such things as pyramids and lunar landers is not a good indicator of whether the populance had speech or not. Why? The link between speech and writing is not always present. Perhaps the environment is much harsher than in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and thus the people spend so much time trying to work out how to get the next meal and how to keep their children alive that they don't have time to think about astrophysics or even an alphabet. So, perhaps it was the case that before a few thousand (10,000 plus) years ago, all people worldwide were doing the same thing. Then, in those areas where some major advances were made, namely agriculture and domestication, and the climate was suitable for this to occur easily, then only did people start recording their history.

Speech, on the other hand, is biological, so should be expected across all human cultures, regardless of their environment.

IamJoseph writes:

What I am saying is, we should see a population increase for a 60,000 year humanity: we do not. The current world population of some 6B is the result of the last 6000 years - not 60,000. So in both, population, and mental prowess, we find a disfunction with the 60K claim.

Hmm, perhaps we should consider an example. Consider a species of bacteria (weighing 665 femtograms = 6.65 × 10-16), which double every hour. We put this bacteria in a petrie dish, and incubate. After a year, we should expect 1 x 102637 bacteria, which would weigh 7 x 102621. By comparison, the Earth is estimated to weigh 5.9736×1024kg.

Thus, could I say that bacteria must not have existed before one year ago, as we don't see enough? No, I can't, because the majority of bacteria die before they undergo fission. They run out of room, food, air, get killed by chemicals or sunlight etc.

The same thing happens with humans - infant mortality and disease was commonplace even up until a hundred years ago, how much worse would it have been without safe water and easy food sources? It is only with the advent of a stable food source (agriculture), a body of knowledge to prevent disease and infant mortality (writing) and so on, that we humans have been able to reproduce so rapidly. Why, for a modern example, look at the drastic rise in population since the Industrial Ages (where agriculture and industry took a massive leap forward, so too did the population growth), and even more recently, the growth of Third World nations since the introduction of modern medicines and agricultural practices. In fact, the majority of the 6.5 billion population we see today is a result of the last 200 years, rather than the last 6000.

Thus, as population growth in fact depends on writing (and related advances), why then are you so surprised to see it only start to grow consistently after writing was invented? Doesn't that reasoning seem a bit circular to you?

Edited by Doddy, : numbers

Edited by Doddy, : elaborate

Edited by Doddy, : typo


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 60 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:24 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 12:18 AM Doddy has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 68 of 107 (408651)
07-04-2007 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2007 12:19 PM


Re: Made Up Descriptive Terms
quote:
dr adequate
What's wrong with it is that it's a language you've made up which no-one else speaks. "A seed as internally derived"; "externally impacting evolution"; these are phrases which you have made up and which do not mean anything.

Here's another one I made up: WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY MADE-UP STATEMENT - IS A SEED NOT AN INTERNALLY DERIVED FACTOR?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 1:27 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2007 3:17 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 69 of 107 (408653)
07-04-2007 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Doddy
07-03-2007 10:25 PM


Re: Numbers are good
quote:
doddy
Well, the natives of New Guinea did not put a man on the moon, nor build pyramids, nor even write anything. However, they are indeed speech-endowed human beings. The same thing can be said of many sub-saharan African tribes and the Australian Aborigines.

The point concerns 'when' that speech emerged, not if it emerged with humans. And speech has surrounding indicator evidences, seen with the aboriginals today and the last 6000 years - but this is 'time' factored: it did not occur 120K years ago.

quote:

So, perhaps the presence of such things as pyramids and lunar landers is not a good indicator of whether the populance had speech or not. Why? The link between speech and writing is not always present. Perhaps the environment is much harsher than in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and thus the people spend so much time trying to work out how to get the next meal and how to keep their children alive that they don't have time to think about astrophysics or even an alphabet. So, perhaps it was the case that before a few thousand (10,000 plus) years ago, all people worldwide were doing the same thing. Then, in those areas where some major advances were made, namely agriculture and domestication, and the climate was suitable for this to occur easily, then only did people start recording their history.

Speech, on the other hand, is biological, so should be expected across all human cultures, regardless of their environment.


Agreed that some speech endowed humans did not attain writings - perhaps due to isolation. But there are a host of other evidences for speech endowed humans - and apes and zebras do not evidence this - nor do we have evidence of speech 120K years ago. Nor is speech biological - else every life form would have it: they predate humans! Parents and teachers do not 'teach' a child to talk - they merely ignite a switch and the rest happens.

quote:

Thus, could I say that bacteria must not have existed before one year ago, as we don't see enough? No, I can't, because the majority of bacteria die before they undergo fission. They run out of room, food, air, get killed by chemicals or sunlight etc.

More impacting here is, you cannot say the previous bacteria existed.

quote:

The same thing happens with humans - infant mortality and disease was commonplace even up until a hundred years ago, how much worse would it have been without safe water and easy food sources? It is only with the advent of a stable food source (agriculture), a body of knowledge to prevent disease and infant mortality (writing) and so on, that we humans have been able to reproduce so rapidly. Why, for a modern example, look at the drastic rise in population since the Industrial Ages (where agriculture and industry took a massive leap forward, so too did the population growth), and even more recently, the growth of Third World nations since the introduction of modern medicines and agricultural practices. In fact, the majority of the 6.5 billion population we see today is a result of the last 200 years, rather than the last 6000.

The factors of desease and death are common to all scenarios and thus factored in. Unless you are saying it was not present in the middle-east? The current population is a result of natural prevailing conditions on this planet the last 6000 years - they apply for any period you select.[/quote]

quote:

Thus, as population growth in fact depends on writing (and related advances), why then are you so surprised to see it only start to grow consistently after writing was invented? Doesn't that reasoning seem a bit circular to you?


Population does not depend on writings but on the ability to reproduce.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Doddy, posted 07-03-2007 10:25 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 1:18 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 72 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 2:14 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4253 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 70 of 107 (408665)
07-04-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 12:18 AM


Re: Numbers are good
IamJoseph writes:

But there are a host of other evidences for speech endowed humans


That's right. Writing is not the only way to tell if speech was around.
IamJoseph writes:

Nor is speech biological - else every life form would have it: they predate humans! Parents and teachers do not 'teach' a child to talk - they merely ignite a switch and the rest happens.


You are contradicting yourself. Why would there be the 'switch' (the brains capacity to pick up language) if it wasn't biological?

Consider the following: Feathers are biological, but we do not have them. Why? Exoskeletons are biological, but we do not have them. Why? Speech is biological, and other animals do not have it for precisely the same reasons as you should have given to the other two characters - not every creature evolves towards a certain goal.

IamJoseph writes:

More impacting here is, you cannot say the previous bacteria existed.


Nor can you say they didn't. We need other evidences for this. Your population argument is moot.

IamJoseph writes:

The factors of desease and death are common to all scenarios and thus factored in. Unless you are saying it was not present in the middle-east? The current population is a result of natural prevailing conditions on this planet the last 6000 years - they apply for any period you select.


It is true that diseases have been around for many years. But antibiotics haven't. It is true that famine is ever-present, but farms haven't been. It is true that child mortality has been ever-present, but hospitals and midwives haven't been. Unless you factor in health care, agriculture, domestication of animals and so on, your calculations will be incorrect. You cannot assume that the rate of death from all causes will remain static when humans have endeavoured to decrease them.
IamJoseph writes:

Population does not depend on writings but on the ability to reproduce.


Analogy:Lightbulbs don't depend on me turning on the switch, but on electricity passing through a filament.

Flicking a switch is what causes the electricity to drastically increase from a tiny, tiny amount to that needed for the light bulb. Analogously, writing causes reproductive success (the probability of raising a child to adulthood, when he or she can reproduce) to increase from a small percentage of children born to almost all children.


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 69 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 12:18 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 6:55 AM Doddy has responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4253 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 71 of 107 (408669)
07-04-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 12:06 AM


Re: Made Up Descriptive Terms
IamJoseph writes:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY MADE-UP STATEMENT - IS A SEED NOT AN INTERNALLY DERIVED FACTOR?


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.


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 68 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 12:06 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:45 PM Doddy has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 72 of 107 (408674)
07-04-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 12:18 AM


On language aquisition
IAmJoseph writes:

Parents and teachers do not 'teach' a child to talk - they merely ignite a switch and the rest happens.

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!

Edited by anglagard, : change subtitle as per previous admin desires


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 12:18 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2007 3:20 AM anglagard has responded
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 07-05-2007 12:08 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3868
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 73 of 107 (408680)
07-04-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by anglagard
07-04-2007 2:14 AM


Re: On language aquisition
In addition, there is physical evidence of whether someone should be capable of speech. The positioning of the larynx, the development of areas of the brain. These can be determined in fossil remains. While there's no universal agreement, this places the origin of speech, based on fossil and anthropological evidence, at somewhere between 40,000 years ago to about 2 million years ago, though the 40,000 year mark seems to be prefered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language).

With all due respect, the idea that human speech could not have existed but for a rather short time before writing developed seems downright ludicrous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 2:14 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 4:05 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 74 of 107 (408685)
07-04-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by dwise1
07-04-2007 3:20 AM


Re: On language aquisition
Yeah, I was considering posting the same thing concerning human anatomy and speech. Of course I don't have to tell you that fossil evidence concerning the position of the larynx or the inter-cranial markings on the left side of the brain associated with language development provide evidence of speech far into the past. 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. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2007 3:20 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:54 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 85 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:57 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 75 of 107 (408707)
07-04-2007 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Doddy
07-04-2007 1:18 AM


Re: Numbers are good
quote:
doddy
That's right. Writing is not the only way to tell if speech was around.

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.

quote:

You are contradicting yourself. Why would there be the 'switch' (the brains capacity to pick up language) if it wasn't biological?


Speech is an inherent intergrated attribute with humans. I meant, parents to not inculcate it: it cannot be thought to non-humans.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
More impacting here is, you cannot say the previous bacteria existed.


But if it was, it is potentially catered to in the text.

quote:

It is true that diseases have been around for many years. But antibiotics haven't. It is true that famine is ever-present, but farms haven't been. It is true that child mortality has been ever-present, but hospitals and midwives haven't been. Unless you factor in health care, agriculture, domestication of animals and so on, your calculations will be incorrect. You cannot assume that the rate of death from all causes will remain static when humans have endeavoured to decrease them.

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.

quote:

Analogy:Lightbulbs don't depend on me turning on the switch, but on electricity passing through a filament.

Flicking a switch is what causes the electricity to drastically increase from a tiny, tiny amount to that needed for the light bulb. Analogously, writing causes reproductive success (the probability of raising a child to adulthood, when he or she can reproduce) to increase from a small percentage of children born to almost all children.


Let the attribute of speech replace electricity here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 1:18 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Doddy, posted 07-04-2007 7:26 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019