Communication between apes and human language

[Eli G]

I had a parrot that said "Praise Jehovah." Yes.

 

[Tamino]

The question is: how is it possible that suddenly and without evidence of a previous slow development, so many advanced arts and skills appear, if supposedly those humans had been uncivilized apes before that? Isn't it supposed that little by little, step by step, some uncivilized apes were developing their sciences, arts, language, research methods, etc.? Where is the evidence of such supposed slow learning of animals?

To what school did the apes go to learn and systematically make compendiums of knowledge, which would later be used to create advanced civilizations only from the 5th millennium BC?

Well, there's the entire literal ages of the neolithic, mesolithic and paleolithic which present evidence of exactly such a slow development of knowledge and technology in the last roughly 50000 years (or longer, if you count in all evidence of tool use by hominids)
So I don't think I understand your question. Would you like a course in archaeology? Shall we start with tool-making and stone-age art and music, or jump straight to the neolithic revolution?

As for the astronomy in Sumer: please consider the bias introduced by written versus orally transmitted knowledge. If the ancestors of the Sumerians already had a tradition of astronomic observation and knowledge, well, we wouldn't know about that, because they didn't write it down yet.
Things that "suddenly" appear in the archaeological or historical record might well be part of a gradual development, and we just haven't found the earlier stages (yet).

 

[Secret Chief]

information

Hee hee.

 

[Secret Chief]

Can I suggest that if someone wishes to join RF they need to pass a basic intelligence test in order to be eligible? Just high school level. Otherwise, we'll end up with godnose what; a flat-earther ...oh wait we have one of those already...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Creationism is a malignancy that feeds on attention.

 

[Eli G]

@Tamino You can start by telling us in what age the uncivilized aborigines are in the middle of the jungles in this year 2024.

 

[Tamino]

@Tamino You can start by telling us in what age the uncivilized aborigines are in the middle of the jungles in this year 2024.

- I don't understand the relevance of this question. One thing developing from another does not mean the original ceases to exist.
- why would you call aborigines uncivilized?
- only a minority of indigenous Australians live in jungles

 

[Eli G]

There are jungles in the Amazon, islands in different oceans, remote places in African jungles, and probably many other places, where there are indigenous tribes and communities that walk almost naked and whose development is very backward.

It is not difficult at all for me to compare the uncivilization of humans that evolutionists consider previous species before the neolithic age, with the social development of those modern uncivilized communities, which are often not even settled in permanent places.

In the same way, it is very easy to realize that at the same time that the Sumerians had tables of the movement of the planets, there were men living in caves and drawing animals on their walls. So it is not difficult to understand why the supposed development of apes into humans is so unnecessary and false with respect to human social development.

Facts prove that humans have always been rational; It was their knowledge that increased, not their ability to reason. So the story of the development of ape-like races in advanced societies is simply an invention of the imagination of evolutionists, which seeks to explain, with fictitious reasons, solutions to human social differences that even today are clearly perceptible.

That's why we can find tables of the movement of the planets that old, in the Sumerian civilization, just in the middle of the Neolithic age ... exactly the time when the Bible say humans were created AND in the same place.

 

[Tamino]

There are jungles in the Amazon, islands in different oceans, remote places in African jungles, and probably many other places, where there are indigenous tribes and communities that walk almost naked and whose development is very backward.

It is not difficult at all for me to compare the uncivilization of humans that evolutionists consider previous species before the neolithic age, with the social development of those modern uncivilized communities, which are often not even settled in permanent places.

Hunter-gatherers have a different lifestyle. That does not mean they're "backward", they're just different. I don't see the wearing of clothes as a marker of civilization.

In the same way, it is very easy to realize that at the same time that the Sumerians had tables of the movement of the planets, there were men living in caves and drawing animals on their walls. So it is not difficult to understand why the supposed development of apes into humans is so unnecessary and false with respect to human social development.

There's such a thing as dating methods. Multiple options of chronology, actually: relative dating by strata and stylistic developments, dendrochronology, C14 and other isotope analysis, genetic analysis... All of these support dates far older than then biblical 5000 or 6000 years and suggest that Lascaux cave art and Sumerian culture are not contemporaneous

Facts prove that humans have always been rational; It was their knowledge that increased, not their ability to reason.

Science suggests that the species homo sapiens has had a similar rational ability since the stone age, yes. That does not in any way disprove evolution.

So the story of the development of ape-like races in advanced societies is simply an invention of the imagination of evolutionists, which seeks to explain, with fictitious reasons, solutions to human social differences that even today are clearly perceptible.

We ARE an "ape-like race". Our evolutionary development into the species homo sapiens is far removed in time from the neolithic revolution and the invention of writing and large-scale state administration.
You seem to believe that "evolutionists" are some kind of unified group. But actually there's lots of different fields and specialists involved.
It's one thing to study anatomical and genetic traits if different species and try to figure out evolutionary developments, and an entirely different field of people who do archaeology and try to figure out cultural and social development.

That's why we can find tables of the movement of the planets that old, in the Sumerian civilization, just in the middle of the Neolithic age ... exactly the time when the Bible say humans were created AND in the same place.

I am not aware of a Sumerian table of planet movements in the "middle of the Neolithic".
They invented writing in the late 4th millennium . That's Early Bronze Age. And while the Sumerians probably had impressive astronomical knowledge, the texts contain more allusions than clear statements, afaik. The more explicit stuff is Babylonian. Iron Age. Please correct me if you have other sources that I am not aware of.

 

[Eli G]

Of course, if a scientist is in an environment where it has already been "officially decided" that apes became humans, they are going to interpret any discovered fact from that perspective. That turns the doctrine into a kind of box where everything has to be put. Tell me honestly: what would happen to a scientist who interpreted an archaeological find in a way that called into question the doctrine of the evolution of species? It is no longer a scientific issue, but a political one. An example of this is the vulgar way the sectarian fanatics of that doctrine respond to the honest questions they are asked in this and other internet forums.

The Neolithic has been framed from the 10th millennium to 2200 BC.

For more than a century, a very strange-looking round cuneiform tablet from the library of King Ashurbanipal in Nineveh was thought to have been created in the 7th century BC. But with technological advances, a computer analysis concluded that the tablet was what is known as an astrolabe, a stellar record that reproduced the sky of Mesopotamia around the third milleniun BC (Neolithic age), so it was demonstrated that it is of Sumerian origin, a much older civilization that disappeared by this time and was replaced by the Akkadian. It probably remained for centuries in some temple in southern Mesopotamia, where sacred cities abounded (Ur, Uruk, Lagash), until Ashurbanipal's collecting desire moved it to Nineveh to form part of the Great Library, which sought to bring together all the know about the known world.

And we arrive at the same point: how did a human group that barely invented writing, already know how to record planetary positions? Who can invent a story about some community of "apes", evidently very different from the Sumerians, were already studying the sky and recording meteors in the Mesolithic, like the one represented in that astrolabe and which collided in Köfels, Austria, sometime around 3100 BC.? (More info about this in Spanish in LA INQUIETANTE TABLILLA SUMERIA DE HACE 5000 AÑOS)

It is evident to me that they cannot invent a supposed chronological order of human advancement based on assumptions alone and that evidently distorts the real facts shown by ancient discoveries.

There is no evidence that humans changed from simple apes to beings that observed space and recorded astronomical data from one moment to the next, just because someone is disgusted with the idea that humans were created with the ability to reason just when they began to use it, and did not arise from apes that developed those abilities little by little... something for which there is not the slightest evidence; or they would have already discovered a primitive astrolabe that would have served as a model for the relatively advanced one that was created in the third millennium BC.

PS: I don't need indoctrination, so save the lectures. I am a rational, free-thinking being, and no one is going to pigeonhole me into some kind of doctrine that I do not agree with according to my own reasoning.

 

[Tamino]

Of course, if a scientist is in an environment where it has already been "officially decided" that apes became humans,

Technically untrue. We're still apes, one does not evolve out of a clade

they are going to interpret any discovered fact from that perspective.

Good scientists, as opposed to religious fanatics, for example, try to limit bias, or at least try to be aware of it

That turns the doctrine into a kind of box where everything has to be put. Tell me honestly: what would happen to a scientist who interpreted an archaeological find in a way that called into question the doctrine of the evolution of species?

If that scientist had good data, they would eventually succeed.

It is no longer a scientific issue, but a political one. An example of this is the vulgar way the sectarian fanatics of that doctrine respond to the honest questions they are asked in this and other internet forums.

You might be confusing "sectarian fanatics" with "people who disagree with you and criticize your

The Neolithic has been framed from the 10th millennium to 2200 BC.

Depends on the geographic region. In the Middle East, the Bronze Age conventionally begins in the late 4th millennium. But nomenclature of eras is not really important to our debate here

For more than a century, a very strange-looking round cuneiform tablet from the library of King Ashurbanipal in Nineveh was thought to have been created in the 7th century BC. But with technological advances, a computer analysis concluded that the tablet was what is known as an astrolabe, a stellar record that reproduced the sky of Mesopotamia around the third milleniun BC (Neolithic age), so it was demonstrated that it is of Sumerian origin,

"A" round cuneiform tablet? I found evidence of a whole group of such artifacts existing, and the evidence for it being more that 5000 years old is not conclusive..
But let's go with your point, for now, and assume that the early dating is correct for at least one of those things

And we arrive at the same point: how did a human group that barely invented writing, already know how to record planetary positions?

Human groups that did not use writing clearly had an understanding of astronomy and observed the skies. This is aptly demonstrated by tombs and ritual spaces oriented towards solstices or other important dates, such as Newgrange, Goseck, Stonehenge or Nabta Playa. Or artifacts auch as the Nebra sky disk.
Writing does not seem to be a prerequisite for astronomy.

Who can invent a story about some community of "apes", evidently very different from the Sumerians, were already studying the sky and recording meteors in the Mesolithic,

Our species emerged at least 200 000 years ago, perhaps even 300 000, and we already inherited the use of tools and fire from earlier species.
Noone suggests that a species of tree-dwelling primates spontaneously transformed into Sumerian farmers.
However, I would absolutely find it plausible that humans in the Mesolithic were already looking at the sky and tracking its seasonal changes.

It is evident to me that they cannot invent a supposed chronological order of human advancement based on assumptions alone and that evidently distorts the real facts shown by ancient discoveries.

I think our current model is a pretty good reflection of the ancient discoveries. Where exactly do you see a mismatch?

There is no evidence that humans changed from simple apes to beings that observed space and recorded astronomical data from one moment to the next,

And nobody in the scientific community is suggesting this.

just because someone is disgusted with the idea that humans were created with the ability to reason just when they began to use it, and did not arise from apes that developed those abilities little by little... something for which there is not the slightest evidence; or they would have already discovered a primitive astrolabe that would have served as a model for the relatively advanced one that was created in the third millennium BC.

A more primitive astrolabe? A possible precursor to the one created (perhaps) in the third millennium? Something like this, perhaps?

Nabta Playa - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

or this:

Goseck Circle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

PS: I don't need indoctrination, so save the lectures. I am a rational, free-thinking being, and no one is going to pigeonhole me into some kind of doctrine that I do not agree with according to my own reasoning.

That's perfectly fine. I am just trying to understand your reasoning and pointing out which problems I see with your arguments.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Fans of the evolutionary doctrine have no idea how animal ape communication could have evolved into sophisticated human language.

Seriously?
1. We know that there are animals that do have language, even though it may be unlike ours. Chimps have a vocabulary of 400 words.
2. Human beings evolved a larynx that was much more conducive to a variety of sounds.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fans of the evolutionary doctrine have no idea how animal ape communication could have evolved into sophisticated human language. To avoid talking about the subject, they say that the specialty of "them" (who knows who is "them" and who is not "them") has nothing to do with the intellectual development of humans. So "the science of evolution", so often mentioned by them, seems to be a ridiculous figment of these fans' imaginations. It is evident from the point of view of intellect, including the sophistication of understanding and spoken language, humans are not apes... although they tend to confuse artificial classification with real nature.

Modern scholars have many written documents that reflect a sophistication of understanding and language, as well as advanced knowledge of art, mathematics, animal domestication, astronomy, medicine, agriculture, engineering, food and beverage industry, etc... and those documents and their corresponding human intellectual framework does not exceed the 5th millennium BC. There are no documents from before that stage.

The question is: how is it possible that suddenly and without evidence of a previous slow development, so many advanced arts and skills appear, if supposedly those humans had been uncivilized apes before that? Isn't it supposed that little by little, step by step, some uncivilized apes were developing their sciences, arts, language, research methods, etc.? Where is the evidence of such supposed slow learning of animals?

To what school did the apes go to learn and systematically make compendiums of knowledge, which would later be used to create advanced civilizations only from the 5th millennium BC?

You have gotten just about everything wrong here. So much so that I don't even know where to begin to start correcting it all.

You live in a fantasy world.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Fans of the evolutionary doctrine have no idea how animal ape communication could have evolved into sophisticated human language.

Not at all. We know from animal speech that the brain structures to link ideas to sounds existed prior to human beings. Add to that the evolution of a larynx that could produce a much wider range of sounds, and increased intelligence, and voila! You have the evolution of human speech as we see it today.