You have no basis in thinking that past first languages did not go much past the equivalent of ugh ugh.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to educate me: which specific word was used for "thing just like me" in 6000BC? I would not be able to distinguish the sound from a grunt. But since you would, I turn to you for instruction. I eagerly await your enligtening reply.

 

We get used to our environment, so does it to us.

If someone is ignorant at some point, that doesn't necessarily mean the latter is not intelligent. Knowing Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply that I'm more intelligent to Sir Newton. The amount of knowledge acquired over time depends on how much work is being done to know more, how successful it is, and how it's being preserved.

If we suddenly just forget everything, we'll have to "redo the maths".

Thanks.

 

thingmaker3,

Perhaps you will be kind enough to educate me: which specific word was used for "thing just like me" in 6000BC? I would not be able to distinguish the sound from a grunt. But since you would, I turn to you for instruction. I eagerly await your enligtening reply.

How would I know the word meaning "those like us" in their language? How would you know that? I would not assume it was a grunt. I think you do make that assumption.

Ratch

 

thingmaker3,



How would I know the word meaning "those like us" in their language? How would you know that? I would not assume it was a grunt. I think you do make that assumption.

Ratch

I would assume that man in the 'grunt' stage would not even comprehend the concept of a human race, let alone have a word to use to communicate the concenpt. Names were most likely limited to self, family unit, possibly clan and beyond that everything else was either a threat or something to eat.

Lefty

 

Certainly the written language has evolved from a nonexistent initial state. It is reasonable to assume the spoken language had similarly humble beginnings.

No doubt those humans of long long ago communicating less imperfectly were able to better adapt to environmental changes than the laconic ones. If the converse were true, we would all be grunting.

 

leftyretro,

I would assume that man in the 'grunt' stage would not even comprehend the concept of a human race, let alone have a word to use to communicate the concenpt. Names were most likely limited to self, family unit, possibly clan and beyond that everything else was either a threat or something to eat.

Well, that's where we differ. If he was created like I think he was, then he probably had a language preprogramed into him. As I intimated before, I don't think he was ever a grunting ignoramous or even went through a "grunt stage". I believe he had the same intelligence we have today, except he did not have access to an accumulated database of knowledge.

Ratch

 

leftyretro,

"If he was created like I think he was"


Ratch

Well then lets cut to the chase. How do you think he was created? I've stated my belief in human evolution based on natural selection, what have you to offer?

 

thingmaker3,

Certainly the written language has evolved from a nonexistent initial state. It is reasonable to assume the spoken language had similarly humble beginnings.

I don't know if you can know what the initial state was back then. But, as I said before, language is a product of intelligence, so it can evolve like the airplane and automobile. I believe I read somewhere that languages are simplifying themselves or devolving, but I have no evidence to back it up.

No doubt those humans of long long ago communicating less imperfectly were able to better adapt to environmental changes than the laconic ones. If the converse were true, we would all be grunting.

Good communications are still important today. Lot's of people I hear talking do so in a street argot that I cannot understand. It does not mean I will learn their "language", or that those people won't survive.

Ratch

 

I still don't see why any self-respecting Deity would violate the rules which they themselves set in motion. Why would they, after billions of years of clockwork, one day toss the plan aside to plop fully developed humans on one of the little blue planets? I give the Divine more credit than that. I believe the dance was set up from the beginning so that we would eventually evolve to appreciate said dance. Darwin did his small part in aiding our appreciation of the Divine.

 

I even heard once, from a religious perspective that:-

"The mere fact that human beings communicate in different languages is a sign of divine curse". Meaning that at one point in human history, our "pre-programmed language" in memory was "erased" and we were forced to live in different "chronologically isolated" locations on the Earth.

Thanks.

 

Truth is, we really have no idea how the human race developed/evolved/was created.
All we have is some really old bones, cave drawings and bits of artifacts. There is still much debate on how long we have actually inhabited this world. We do know that about 10000 years ago the population was bottle-necked with possibly less that a few thousand people making it through the ice age. That is where we start piecing the puzzle together. Before that we can only guess.

 

To be honest, in the very end, we simply don't know what really happened.

Thanks.

 

Maybe the OP is on to something with the "offspring of extraterrestrial life" bit.

 

leftyretro,

Well then lets cut to the chase. How do you think he was created? I've stated my belief in human evolution based on natural selection, what have you to offer?

OK, here is how I look at it. Biological evolution or natural selection cannot possibly work because you don't get a more complex organization without some intelligent guidance. Natural selection can only give you the best offspring of what is possible. Professional breeders know this. They and enviromental changes can only go so far in changing the offspring by enhancing the diminishing their inherent characteristics. There is a limit to how far a species can change. Experiments with insects and bacteria show that. Even with with radiation and a fast breeding cycle to assist in producing a different offspring, the results are still the same type of life form. If a species cannot adapt to or migrate from an unfavorable environment, then it will simply die no matter how slowly the environment changes.

Now a creation that could have happened several times over is a hypothesis that bypasses those problems and explains how life forms suddenly appear in tune with their surroundings. It also explains why life on earth has many characteristics in common. Things like DNA, bilateral symmetry, hemoglobin, etc. Of course I cannot prove it because I was not around when it happened. But it is better to consider something possible instead of clinging to something that could not possibly have happened.

Ratch

 

Interesting way to discredit a considerable body of evidence to the contrary -

But it is better to consider something possible instead of clinging to something that could not possibly have happened

- such as the fossil record.

So you would hold that anytime a species becomes extinct, it takes an explicit act of creation to bring into being another species to replace the one that died out - such as mammalian herbivores that appeared after the majority of the dinosaur species became extinct.

Philosophically, that denies such a thing as free will.

 

Biological evolution or natural selection cannot possibly work because you don't get a more complex organization without some intelligent guidance.

Why do you say this? There is no law of physics that says you can not get greater complexity without intelligent guidance. The laws of entropy says that energy must be used to create greater complexity, and the sun is a great energy source to drive that. The only thing you can say is that large jumps in complexity will have very low probablity. However, evolution can operate by accumulating very small (high probablity) changes. Perhaps, at times, a large change, with low probablity, is critical to generate a major evolutionary advance, but evolution works over very long time periods and operates simultaniously (parallel processing) on a large number of organisms. Even low probability events become probable, if you wait long enough. And once that major advance occurs, it propagates rapidly due to it's superiority over any competition. - Almost like Tiger Woods competing with junior golfers. (sorry , I'm watching the Master's)

If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that whenever people try to draw a dividing line to say where science stops and divine intervention starts, they are eventually proved wrong. The line is then moved to a new frontier. This really tells us nothing about whether a God exists, but it tells us that if he does exist, he is not going to reveal himself in a scientific experiment.

My own personal view is that science has never really demonstrated the ability to truly explain the universe. It just provides an amazing description and understanding of it. I know there are scientist that seek out some universal theory that not only explains all observations, but also explains why that theory must exist indepent of any deity. However, it hasn't been done yet. Personally, I dont' think that can be achieved, but that's just where I choose to place the dividing line. However, my dividing line is fundamentally different than the typical variety because, to cross this barrier, science would need to do something that it never did before - explain it's own inevitibility.

 

beenthere,

Interesting way to discredit a considerable body of evidence to the contrary -

The alternate explanation does not by itself discredit the current explanation. The current explanation discredits itself with its basic premise that things will by themselves develop a higher organization than already present.

- such as the fossil record.

Which shows many inconsistencies and has to be intrepreted subjectively.

So you would hold that anytime a species becomes extinct, it takes an explicit act of creation to bring into being another species to replace the one that died out - such as mammalian herbivores that appeared after the majority of the dinosaur species became extinct.

You will never see the big dinos again less they are recreated.

Ratch

 

steveb,

Why do you say this?

Because I believe it to be true.

There is no law of physics that says you can not get greater complexity without intelligent guidance.

You have never observed it to happen.

The laws of entropy says that energy must be used to create greater complexity, and the sun is a great energy source to drive that.

You mean to get to a higher energy state, not higher organization. No matter how hard and hot the sun shines, it does not organize anything.

The only thing you can say is that large jumps in complexity will have very low probablity.

Effectively zero. You heard of the often cited example of an explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary.

However, evolution can operate by accumulating very small (high probablity) changes.

How does it? Most changes are for the worse, because there are more ways to go bad than to change for the better. And from the macro point of view, the environment is changing along with others in the biosphere.

but evolution works over very long time periods and operates simultaniously (parallel processing) on a large number of organisms. Even low probability events become probable, if you wait long enough. And once that major advance occurs, it propagates rapidly due to it's superiority over any competition.

The given-enough-time-anything-can-happen argument, and the premise that small changes can go outside the boundries of natural mutation is another way of saying that higher organization can come from lower organization. That is not what I see ever happening.

If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that whenever people try to draw a dividing line to say where science stops and divine intervention starts, they are eventually proved wrong.

Only if they bring religious arguments into the discussion. If they just stick to the facts, they are not proved wrong.

My own personal view is that science has never really demonstrated the ability to truly explain the universe. It just provides an amazing description and understanding of it. I know there are scientist that seek out some universal theory that not only explains all observations, but also explains why that theory must exist indepent of any deity. However, it hasn't been done yet. Personally, I dont' think that can be achieved, but that's just where I choose to place the dividing line. However, my dividing line is fundamentally different than the typical variety because, to cross this barrier, science would need to do something that it never did before - explain it's own inevitibility

How can you have an understanding of something and not be able to explain it? If there is a creator, then science can only observe the results, but not explain how they were occomplished. That goes beyond science, and what the human mind can comprehend.

Ratch

 

Maybe the OP is on to something with the "offspring of extraterrestrial life" bit.

Star flight probably takes a while, maybe our aliens were... anxious, and none to picky.

Still, begs the question, where did they come from.

The fossile record does have several examples of pre men. I wouldn't bet they didn't have language and other skills. By any reasonable persons definition, sapient. Given some of the disgusting habits of modern man (in a primative state) they were probably eaten by later models, or just killed because they were different. It hasn't been until the 20th century that other could be accepted, though the majority of movies made during the 50s and earlier show "other" with fear and revulsion.

Given the fossel record overall, I find it interesting how people can dismiss and ignore inconvienent evidence, even to the point of arguing against. You also have to look what we've done to domesticated breeds in just a few short centuries. If man were to disappear I doubt the various small breeds of dogs will forget us in stature. Cats, well, the biggest change in cats with man is their markings, overall they haven't changed that much.

 

I actually find evolution via natural selection quite elegant and intelligent in design. To take chaos and random events and utilize them to seek advantage is a brilliant plan worthy of even a 'higher being'.

One does have to have a healthy respect for the time spans needed for such a strategy to be effective. Just glad we came out top of the food chain, at least for our duration or time on this planet. One thing we do need to start thinking about and that is how we are going to leave this planet if we wish to continue our existence. The sun is about half done so it's not too soon to get ready to pack.

Lefty