Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Did you not read @blü 2’s comprehensive timeline summary?



blue has covered much of the basis.in the above timeline.

No. The timeline can be, and probably is guesswork by scientists, of course, based on what is deemed to take that much time to develop. My main point is that humans supposedly eventually evolved from a few fish. Because that is what is proposed by scientists, yet I'm getting a lot of clatter about it. I didn't propose that humans eventually evolved from fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought when I said a lot went on pre fish it might have been a clue.

I figured you knew that I knew a lot supposedly happened according to the theory of evolution pre-fish. While I'm certainly not an expert, I do understand the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

John Snow was an English physician and is credited as one of the founding fathers of epidemiology. He was able to determine the source of a cholera outbreak in 1850's Soho, London through observation and analyzing his data. No experiments. Good observation and evidence. Real science. Not some nonsense about languages that can't be determined to have ever existed.

If experiment is the criteria for real science, than ancient science, ancient language, homo omniwhatever and so on are not science and just belief. There isn't even evidence of these things, let alone experiments demonstrating them.

There are no experiments that show that fish still being fish means anything except as a meaningless observation.

There is no experiment that demonstrates a controversy in science means that a theory no longer exists and ideology gets to replace it by default.

There is no reason to see these latter things as anything but empty assertions, wishful thinking and nonsense.

You don't have to have all the answers or know everything to recognize nonsense.

The situation is such that fish remain fish at present. Maybe they're satisfied? Ok a little levity there, truthful nonetheless.

 

[Augustus]

I agree that it is people using whatever is at hand to promote their own ends. It keeps getting said in one way or another and continues to be ignored with claims that some science is inherently evil.

It doesn't even make sense to blame it on Darwin, since he wasn't around and neither was his theory during most of recorded history and the attendant human atrocities that occurred during that span.

The combination of evolutionary theories (not necessarily Darwinian) with human society certainly contributed to the rise of harmful beliefs, and these were in part given greater credence because of the esteem in which science was held.

But it is silly to blame Darwin (especially as others like Wallace were on the verge of similar breakthroughs), or science in general as nothing forces people to apply knowledge in the manner they do.

What people choose to do with their knowledge and technology is on them. Knowledge and technology are what they are, and we will always be gaining new knowledge and tech.

I find the ideas that science is "bad" as silly as the idea that science is somehow intrinsically noble and benevolent. The former is so silly it barely merits a response, but the latter seems to be a not uncommon view held by otherwise reasonable people.

Anything that humans create is an extension of ourselves that opens up new options and possibilities. No human creations will save us from ourselves as is often assumed by techno-optimists, scientific meliorists, etc.

We invent medical tech to save people, and then weaponise it to kill people. We create the internet to share knowledge and connect people, and use it to spread hate and engage in cyber warfare.

If people can use something for good, they can almost always use it for bad too. And if things can be used for bad, then someone will certainly do so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Creationists and others grossly underestimate what has been accomplished by science.

They indict science and anyone that accepts science as some sort of believer, because that is how they see everything, as belief-based. They have all the answers and will just repeat on heavy rotation, because they must be correct. These omniscient have no evidence, only claims of evidence they never present. They have fanciful stories of ancient this and ancient that. They speak as if their beliefs are fact and they are believers that are the holiest of all. They are omniscient.

The only people that seem to believe they know everything are not the people that accept science based on the reason and evidence. It is those that repeat Denis Noble says, or fish are still fish or nonsense about ancient civilizations.

That is what the evidence tells us.

It is interesting to note the tenor of the posts offering alternative versions of reality that offer nothing. Not even a work in progress. Fantastical speculation with no basis to show anyone. Some even sound as if they are convinced of their own omniscience. It all represents what I consider closed minds that no longer think they need to learn anything.

I'm sure there are conspiracy theories aplenty without having to scratch the surface too much.

I'm not clear why the continual queuing up for another bite at the apple, when the claim is that there is no evidence and scientific explanations are rejected. At least those that create uncomfortable problems with ideology. You'd think if someone said they were done, they would follow through and be done.

Fish ARE the ancestors to a degree notwithstanding per the theory as to what came BEFORE them (naturally, of course, by "natural selection") and evolved, according to the theory INTO fish and then, of course, humans. Can you deny that is your current belief?

 

[blü 2]

The amount of actual evidence [for the "speciation event" in 2000 BCE] depends on many definitions. Suffice to say that this theory as it applies to the nature of the "speciation event" depends largely on logic and speculation. That there was such an event is far better supported.

That sounds like total nonsense. As I pointed out to you, humans have been speaking for at least 70,000 years and maybe much more; and a "speciation event" that significantly alters human language could not have found its way to Asia, the Americas, Australia, the world's islands, in 2000 BCE or for more than 2000 years later.

Indeed even humans before the tower of babel knew it.

The evidence against the Tower of Babel as an event in reality is overwhelming. The credibility of the tale as an event in reality is zero. For a start, language is at least 70,000 years older than Yahweh (c. 1500 BCE).

It is probably a defining characteristic of consciousness so even an acorn knows it.

How do you define "consciousness"? Last time I looked, you couldn't, making your statement meaningless, no?


Oh, and you forgot to tell me what test will inform me whether any language is a "metaphysical language" or not.

 

[blü 2]

You can buy bulk agar from China and that is the main (only) evidence offered against the Lenski E. coli experiment.

It's a real case cracker.

I tried to tell him, I said, Lenski, Lenski, they're Commies, dammit, your result'll be meaningless or worse. But did he listen to me...?

 

[cladking]

As I pointed out to you, humans have been speaking for at least 70,000 years and maybe much more; and a "speciation event" that significantly alters human language could not have found its way to Asia, the Americas, Australia, the world's islands, in 2000 BCE or for more than 2000 years later.

Language changed. The very nature of language changed. Ancient Language was metaphysical and universal and arose naturally like the bee's dance. It became too complex as humans progressed for some people to use it. Pidgin languages using the same vocabulary arose and writing had to be invented to preserve the meaning in these. Even with fewer and fewer people contributing to this scientific language it still progressed and fewer and fewer people could speak it. Eventually there were not enough Ancient Language speakers to even operate the state so the official language had to be changed to the local pidgin languages causing the loss of science and history. They had no other means than language to preserve or perform science. Science could not even be formatted in pidgin languages. Everything everywhere collapsed. The old ways were lost.

Any isolated populations would have eventually suffered the same fate.

Perhaps referring to this as a "speciation event" is something of an exaggeration but then all the writing about it says that is was calamitous, pervasive, and utterly changed everybody. It is apparent that each individual who speaks modern language also has a slightly different brain structure which includes a brocas area that "homo sapiens" lacked. I consider us a new species based largely on the change in behavior which has simply been stood on its head. They operated on knowledge like every other species in existence and we operate on our beliefs. Our consciousness is expressed in a new and unique way. All other species are a force of nature and ours is a force of our beliefs and we seem to be transitioning to a force of our belief in science.

I believe science makes the most dangerous belief system the world will ever know and our species can not survive it. All belief, all superstition, is dangerous which is why it never existed in nature until the tower of babel. Arming belief is a kind of suicide but we can't see this because we don't understand even the most fundamental things about life and consciousness nor our own natures.

Oh, and you forgot to tell me what test will inform me whether any language is a "metaphysical language" or not.

I thought I had.

Every single language on earth except every single homo omnisciencis language is metaphysical. Even computer code is metaphysical. Mathematics is metaphysical.

Any language we invent will necessarily be non-metaphysical unless the inventor understands the nature of metaphysical language. Conversely without understanding the nature of such language it's impossible to devise a test for it. The individual who cracked the bee's dance had to experience ideas that correlate to it which were events I call "cleverness". All consciousness displays cleverness at times.

 

[cladking]

The arguments for evolution are reasonable, tested and productive.

Arguments and testing are not science. What is "reasonable" to one individual is not reasonable to another. Remember I keep saying everyone makes sense in terms of his premises? We each have different premises except for peers who by definition have the same premises. I keep telling you why these premises are wrong but they are hand waved, gainsaid, ignored and used for word games.

Reality is highly complex and we can use experiment to catch little tiny peeks at bits of it. Ancient people understood this. The called "reality" "the hidden" and named it "amen". Now millions use this name after every prayer.

Just because experiment has given us many thousands of little peeks at reality doesn't mean we can extrapolate and interpolate the entire picture. We still need experiment to see in between and outside of existing experiment or we run the risk of misinterpretation. There is simply no evidence to show a gradual change in the fossil record. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" you think it is.

 

[gnostic]

No. The timeline can be, and probably is guesswork by scientists, of course, based on what is deemed to take that much time to develop.

How would you know?

You don't know anything about paleontology, and you are certainly no biologist, so how would you know what is guesswork?

Whatever biology you might have learned in high school, you are in no position to judge what is or isn’t guesswork. You have no qualifications in any scientific field, let alone in paleontology, so what you have to say about fossils, are meaningless, baseless. In fact, whatever you say only counts as personal opinion, which means nothing to anyone except to yourself.

You don't even understand what constitute as “scientific evidence”.

Scientific evidence are observations of the physical phenomena or the natural phenomena, and their properties.

Observation is not just seeing with eyes or hearing with ears; observations are what can be also detect by any device, equipment or instrument, as well as to quantify its quantities, measure the values (in specific units), examining the properties of the evidence, and to compare one evidence against the others. Whatever information scientists gain from the observations, are data.

Data are also counts as observations, as well as evidence.

The observations (evidence plus data) would either support or verify the model (eg hypothesis or theory) or the observations will refute the model.

That’s how you would test any new hypothesis or existing scientific theory. If you were scientist, YoursTrue, which you are not, but if you were, you would allow the evidence to determine if a model succeed or fail, and not by your personal and obvious very biased opinions.

But here is the punchline, YoursTrue.

If you have physical evidence, then the theory isn’t just a set of guesswork.

Guesswork would be something you would do. Guesswork is all you have even doing since you joined this thread.

 

[cladking]

Why are your answers not of the form, "I agree" or "The reason you are wrong is because ..."?

It's off topic and because it gets into support for some of the oddest parts of the Bible which people will not believe. You simply can't appreciate the gravity of the fact that everybody always makes sense because you choose to dismiss everything you deem to not be supported by Peers or science. It would never occur to most people that while science is right within its definitions and experiment everything else is based in reality as well. Have you read the book of Enoch recently? Don't bother because it will be invisible to you. We all see what we believe and I believe everyone makes sense in terms of his premises. You look for truth, I look for premises.

The world is infinitely more complex than we imagine it. There are meta-patterns which I call the formatting of life and reality.

I disagree that Darwin or his beliefs killed anybody or could be held responsible for the genocides others perpetrated,..

No Darwin is not responsible but millions have been killed who wouldn't have been otherwise. People should be more careful what beliefs they adopt.

Darwin was correct. The theory is correct. It has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

And this doesn't address Darwin's assumptions.

 

[gnostic]

Language changed. The very nature of language changed. Ancient Language was metaphysical and universal and arose naturally like the bee's dance. It became too complex as humans progressed for some people to use it. Pidgin languages using the same vocabulary arose and writing had to be invented to preserve the meaning in these. Even with fewer and fewer people contributing to this scientific language it still progressed and fewer and fewer people could speak it. Eventually there were not enough Ancient Language speakers to even operate the state so the official language had to be changed to the local pidgin languages causing the loss of science and history. They had no other means than language to preserve or perform science. Science could not even be formatted in pidgin languages. Everything everywhere collapsed. The old ways were lost.

Any isolated populations would have eventually suffered the same fate.

Perhaps referring to this as a "speciation event" is something of an exaggeration but then all the writing about it says that is was calamitous, pervasive, and utterly changed everybody. It is apparent that each individual who speaks modern language also has a slightly different brain structure which includes a brocas area that "homo sapiens" lacked. I consider us a new species based largely on the change in behavior which has simply been stood on its head. They operated on knowledge like every other species in existence and we operate on our beliefs. Our consciousness is expressed in a new and unique way. All other species are a force of nature and ours is a force of our beliefs and we seem to be transitioning to a force of our belief in science.

I believe science makes the most dangerous belief system the world will ever know and our species can not survive it. All belief, all superstition, is dangerous which is why it never existed in nature until the tower of babel. Arming belief is a kind of suicide but we can't see this because we don't understand even the most fundamental things about life and consciousness nor our own natures.



I thought I had.

Every single language on earth except every single homo omnisciencis language is metaphysical. Even computer code is metaphysical. Mathematics is metaphysical.

Any language we invent will necessarily be non-metaphysical unless the inventor understands the nature of metaphysical language. Conversely without understanding the nature of such language it's impossible to devise a test for it. The individual who cracked the bee's dance had to experience ideas that correlate to it which were events I call "cleverness". All consciousness displays cleverness at times.

Blah, blah, blah.

What would you know about ancient languages, when you have studied any, or attempt to read & translate any language?

Are you a philologist? Do you have qualification in reading ancient texts? Have you ever attempted to translate any language from their sources?

Are you a linguist? Can you speak any language other than English? Can you speak, read or write ancient language?

You said there are no word for “belief” prior to 2000 BCE, prior to the nonexistent and mythological Tower of Babel. You claimed that if there were no word for “belief”, then religious belief, superstition and religions didn’t exist.

Answer the following questions below, cladking:

If that (your claim) were true, then by following your logic, are there written words or symbols of the following words - “language”, “science” and “metaphysics” - existing 40,000 years ago?​

​

Can you show the 40,000 years old symbol for “language”, symbol for “science”, and symbol for “metaphysics”?​

If none of these words existed 40,000 years ago, then language, science & metaphysics would also not exist. There would be no metaphysical language, if you cannot find inscribed in 40,000 years old symbols.

That’s your bloody logic, cladking. I would predict that you would that you make some absurd & apologetic excuses for special exceptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Language changed. The very nature of language changed. Ancient Language was metaphysical and universal and arose naturally like the bee's dance.

This is a just so story. There is nothing substantial leading to your claims.

It became too complex as humans progressed for some people to use it. Pidgin languages using the same vocabulary arose and writing had to be invented to preserve the meaning in these. Even with fewer and fewer people contributing to this scientific language it still progressed and fewer and fewer people could speak it. Eventually there were not enough Ancient Language speakers to even operate the state so the official language had to be changed to the local pidgin languages causing the loss of science and history. They had no other means than language to preserve or perform science. Science could not even be formatted in pidgin languages. Everything everywhere collapsed. The old ways were lost.

A history of language leaving nothing by way of evidence as a foundation for the story you are telling is at the same time lost, ensuring that there is nothing for you to base your story on. Incredible!

Any isolated populations would have eventually suffered the same fate.

Isolated populations evolve along the lines of selection that exist for them given the basal selectable make up of the population.

Perhaps referring to this as a "speciation event" is something of an exaggeration

It is a preposterous notion with no reason to consider it anything, let alone a speciation event. And another example of you stretching the useful meaning out of the terminology. One you don't seem to consider an exaggeration, but an actual fact without evidence. More just so story.

but then all the writing about it says that is was calamitous, pervasive, and utterly changed everybody.

What "all the writing" is there? Oh, I forgot, you don't provide evidence as a basis for your claims. My mistake.

It is apparent that each individual who speaks modern language also has a slightly different brain structure which includes a brocas area that "homo sapiens" lacked.

Non of this is apparent. If it were, there would be some evidence to render it so. It is just more of your just so speculation that you have come to believe in as if it were soundly based on evidence and a rational explanation of evidence. You are the source. These claims begin and end with you.

I consider us a new species based largely on the change in behavior which has simply been stood on its head.

Changes that don't exist and you cannot point to. You point to a story and declare that it is a written description of an actual event when it is the result of cultural contamination from previous and concurrent cultures by the culture that finally wrote a version down.

What you believe is not a sound basis for arguing human speciation. It is another just so story you want to believe is real.

They operated on knowledge like every other species in existence and we operate on our beliefs.

More empty and incorrect claims. The evidence indicates that humans learn and use that knowledge, but other species--not all--also learn and also use what they learn. There is evidence of this.

I'm firmly convinced that there is a subset of the human population that acts on specific beliefs that are either cultural in origin or from their own heads, but that doesn't mean that some people don't act on what they experience and see and learn from that experience or that your empty claim does any justice to debilitating the scientific method that shreds your claims. That seems to me to be the big reason you are so against science, it nullifies, no, it destroys your speculative just so stories as meaningless and without basis.

Our consciousness is expressed in a new and unique way.

So what. Every new avenue of thought is potentially new and unique. How would that support a just so story that is also unique, but with no reason to consider it a model of reality.

All other species are a force of nature and ours is a force of our beliefs and we seem to be transitioning to a force of our belief in science.

We are a part of nature. This is seems to be the application of hyperbole to give some sort of grit to your empty story and make your passionate belief somehow seem real.

I believe science makes the most dangerous belief system the world will ever know and our species can not survive it.

Science isn't a belief system. It is a methodology of discovery. How people use it is the problem. If you find how people use knowledge is an existential threat, than you are contributing to that by inventing baseless narratives that further detract from rational solutions.

All belief, all superstition, is dangerous which is why it never existed in nature until the tower of babel.

An opinion based on a mythical event that is believed by some to be real. Do you not understand the concept of irony?

Arming belief is a kind of suicide but we can't see this because we don't understand even the most fundamental things about life and consciousness nor our own natures.

Yet here you post regularly claiming vast understanding of what you, at the same time, declare we do not and cannot understand. I believe the contradictory applications of your revealed truth have been regularly cited, but this is certainly another good example.

I thought I had.

I believe you. I think you believe that you always offer evidence and explanation. Unfortunately, for all of us, you never do. To be fair, you never offer explanations that have any described basis in fact or evidence. It is just what you believe and you believe what you want and see what you believe.

Every single language on earth except every single homo omnisciencis language is metaphysical.

Meaningless, given that you've confessed that your "homo omnisciencis" is an exaggeration and not a described species or recognized to exist for any valid reasons. You imagined this and decided this species is real. You offer only your imagined story as evidence that such a species might exist or does exist. All the evidence indicates that we have been a single species for as much as the last 300,000 years and remain so today.

You have a species forming for reasons you can only claim are valid, but not show. During an event that is mythological and has never been established to have occurred as described. It flies in the face of evidence of writing that predates the alleged timing of the event. There is so much against your claim and nothing to hold it up.

You believe something. You start to see what you believe everywhere.

Even computer code is metaphysical. Mathematics is metaphysical.

Even if anyone agreed, this isn't answering the question. It is extending your claim. You seem to believe extending your claim answers your claim. Seeing is believing and believing is seeing what you want to believe.

Any language we invent will necessarily be non-metaphysical unless the inventor understands the nature of metaphysical language.

So, you have to understand something that you cannot explain to anyone and cannot provide valid examples? You are just making declarative statements. This is not an explanation. It doesn't reveal examples to show that these things exist as you describe or compare and contrast some real examples for others to understand and discuss.

Conversely without understanding the nature of such language it's impossible to devise a test for it.

More impossibilities, yet you know all of this.

The individual who cracked the bee's dance had to experience ideas that correlate to it which were events I call "cleverness". All consciousness displays cleverness at times.

I'm familiar with the work and that individual. It was a very good use of science. Got him a Nobel Prize. I have never run across anything that indicates he had to experience ideas you claim. I think you are giving him your ideas and claiming they were his own. It is convoluted, but I don't know that it is clever. People project their own beliefs on others all the time.

You make statements about "all" of everything all the time, yet, it would be astounding to find one individual in the world that has looked at even a significant portion of "all". It must be something to know everything and "all" as you do. I prefer the approach that I don't know things, but I can find out or at least make a go at it. Admittedly, it is easier just to invent speculation, "suddenly" consider it fact and then preach it to others as fact. But what is it about your ideology that would compel others to embrace it? Do you have a choir? Ancient songs?

 

[cladking]

Answer the following questions below, cladking:

If that (your claim) were true, then by following your logic, are there written words or symbols of the following words - “language”, “science” and “metaphysics” - existing 40,000 years ago?Can you show the 40,000 years old symbol for “language”, symbol for “science”, and symbol for “metaphysics”?
If none of these words existed 40,000 years ago, then language, science & metaphysics would also not exist. There would be no metaphysical language, if you cannot find inscribed in 40,000 years old symbols.

There were no "symbols". Our language has symbols, words are symbols, ideas are symbols, even letters are symbols. Ancient Language was representative. "Words of the gods" represented our symbol "language". "Thot" was the closest representation to what we call "science'. They said "thot had no mother" because when you se logic to think and communicate logic (the mother of thot) becomes unseeable.

There were no symbols.

There were no abstractions.

 

[Valjean]

No. The timeline can be, and probably is guesswork by scientists, of course, based on what is deemed to take that much time to develop. My main point is that humans supposedly eventually evolved from a few fish. Because that is what is proposed by scientists, yet I'm getting a lot of clatter about it. I didn't propose that humans eventually evolved from fish.

Why do you say the timeline is guesswork? Science publishes its methods and reasons for believing what it does. It tests its "guesswork" and drops it if it doesn't work.
Do you understand why science believes we evolved from a long line of different organisms? Do you understand the mechanisms involved?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's off topic and because it gets into support for some of the oddest parts of the Bible which people will not believe. You simply can't appreciate the gravity of the fact that everybody always makes sense because you choose to dismiss everything you deem to not be supported by Peers or science.

People do not always make sense. Is declaring that they always make sense some sort of built in defense of what you claim?

I don't agree with your conclusion. There is no evidence that @It Aint Necessarily So or anyone that challenges you is just taking some party line or following in the footsteps of one of your favorite conspiracy theories.

You get asked straight forward questions and you perform a waggle dance to get away. You aren't showing us high quality food sources when you do that either.

It would never occur to most people that while science is right within its definitions and experiment everything else is based in reality as well.

Is this supposed to mean something? I think it is widely recognized by those that aren't trying to create a straw man to beat on, that science cannot be used to learn everything and answer all the questions.

Have you read the book of Enoch recently? Don't bother because it will be invisible to you.

More invisible evidence. How unexpected. Is this more built in back door to duck out of when you realize that others aren't giving up on the fact that you don't have evidence?

We all see what we believe and I believe everyone makes sense in terms of his premises.

I agree, that in this case, I am seeing someone that believes what they see and sees what they believe. That is not so much the issues as your efforts to try and get others to believe what you cannot show them.

You look for truth, I look for premises.

That doesn't seem to ring true. You look for people that will buy into a just so story that you created.

Science isn't a pursuit of the truth, just the best answers that can be found based on the evidence and what we have learned about it. Unlike some, those using science recognize that they could be wrong. In fact, a lot of science is just attempting to demonstrate just that.

The world is infinitely more complex than we imagine it.

That assumes that your imagination is a model for all others and a knowledge of the imagination of others that you couldn't reasonably possess. You may look for premises, but the ones you are finding and using are not holding up as very good premises.

There are meta-patterns which I call the formatting of life and reality.

You are at liberty call anything by any name you choose. But what you are trying to do is get others to follow your lead and for no established reason other than "you assert".

No Darwin is not responsible but millions have been killed who wouldn't have been otherwise.

How do you know they wouldn't have been? I have no reason to conclude that you do. It just fits with what you want to see.

People should be more careful what beliefs they adopt.

I believe we are here exercising that care.

And this doesn't address Darwin's assumptions.

And neither have you. Ever.

 

[Valjean]

The situation is such that fish remain fish at present. Maybe they're satisfied? Ok a little levity there, truthful nonetheless.

As long as a viable nich persists, there's no selective pressure to abandon it. Inhabitants may radiate into and adapt to new niches, but as long as a fish lifestyle is viable, fish will persist.
My ancestors came from Scotland and Germany, yet there are still Scots and Germans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There were no "symbols".

So how is anyone supposed to agree with your claims? You are admitting you have no basis to make them.

Our language has symbols, words are symbols, ideas are symbols, even letters are symbols. Ancient Language was representative.

Claims about a language that hasn't been established to exist are meaningless.

"Words of the gods" represented our symbol "language". "Thot" was the closest representation to what we call "science'. They said "thot had no mother" because when you se logic to think and communicate logic (the mother of thot) becomes unseeable.

Are you claiming that ancient Egyptian was this language? I am unaware that you speak or read ancient Egyptian, let alone have the evidence to back up your claims regarding it's structure, use and antiquity.

Did you make a computer out of tinker toys and model all of this or something?

There were no symbols.

There were no abstractions.

So nothing to base your claims on and we can dismiss them.

 

[cladking]

Meaningless, given that you've confessed that your "homo omnisciencis" is an exaggeration and not a described or recognized to exist for any real reasons. You imagined this and decided this species is real. You offer only your imagined story as evidence that such a species might exist or does exist. All the evidence indicates that we have been a single species for as much as the last 300,000 years and remain so today.

I can no more create a species out of thin air nor destroy them. Reality does not conform to what people believe. Just because the tower of babel can be thought of or defined as a speciation event hardly means it must. Language is highly flexible, reality is not.

Non of this is apparent. If it were, there would be some evidence to render it so.

So far as I know every homo omnisciencis has a brocas area. It varies a little in location but web each have one.

A history of language leaving nothing by way of evidence as a foundation for the story you are telling is at the same time lost ensuring that there is nothing for you to base your story on. Incredible!

All the evidence is misinterpreted as "incantation".

Changes that don't exist and you cannot point to.

I point to them many times. People don't see them because we see what we believe.

During an event that is mythological and has never been established to have occurred as described.

I seriously doubt the tower of babel occurred in the way or for the reasons that most people will parse the story in the Bible. While I believe it is probably true the author of the story didn't understand the original source and interpreted it the best he could. Subsequently each translator since has done the best he could.

You're looking for literalism in a symbolic language that must be parsed to have any meaning at all even after it has been translated between several confused languages! And worse you begin with the assumption that there is no basis in reality despite the fact it occurs in other versions in other language dating back to 1800 BC and is contained in countless myths. I never wanted to believe it either until I found so much evidence for it and it became the simplest explanation to tie together disparate other evidence.

So, you have to understand something that you cannot explain to anyone and cannot provide valid examples?

I've explained this in great detail but not in this thread and not much on this site. People don't like the explanation so I tend to avoid it. Perhaps I can start a new thread but I'm not sure it's wholly relevant to this forum despite the fact the language is highly scientific and became the basis of "all" modern religions.

More impossibilities, yet you know all of this.

No. If you look for a metaphysical language you can solve its meaning in context. This is how I learned. When I started I didn't even understand the concept of "metaphysical language". It's easy enough though; just imagine a bee's waggle dance sufficiently complex to talk about anything at all except abstractions. This is the nature of homo sapien and all other species languages before homo omnisciencis.

You make statements about "all" of everything all the time,

I speak in tautologies and prefer to use as few quotation marks as possible. Frankly when I say "all" I prefer the reader adjusts his definitions to make the statement true. Of course few do.

Ancient songs?

Ancient people danced to nature and heard her music. Once in a while I can almost hear a stray note wafting in the breeze of a warm summer evening.

 

[cladking]

So how is anyone supposed to agree with your claims? You are admitting you have no basis to make them.

Ancient words (what you call "symbols") were representations. Whether they were spoken or drawn on the walls of a cave they represented real things. There were no symbols.

Claims about a language that hasn't been established to exist are meaningless.

I can read it and make accurate predictions based on author intent where scientists can not and not make predictions or even explain how my prediction manifests.

Are you claiming that ancient Egyptian was this language?

No!! The language was universal and had numerous mutually intelligible dialects.