Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

What do you consider writing to be significant indicator of?

Writing was invented strictly so the leaders could communicate with people who spoke the pidgin languages that became the precursors of modern languages. Writing wasn't necessary before so never ever thought of it. But you couldn't just relay messages to the pidgin speakers because the message would be affected like a chinese telephone; it would change with each retelling. When about 5% of the population became illiterate around 3200 BC writing was invented for them. It could have been a pidgin speaker who thought of it but unlikely since these early illiterates tended to be dim witted.

What selective pressure would lead to monkeys or other animals learning to write?

Without complex abstract language there is almost no need. Of course some species use scent marking but I doubt this can really be considered writing.

Do you consider evolution to be progressive?

No. Change in species is a random walk until there is a sudden speciation event. These are like jokes or experiments played by mother nature because they occur when consciousness sets odd individuals apart as breeding stock. Mutation is a leading cause of change in species and these are random as well but in this case there is a sort of survival of the fittest because bad mutations die out and good ones spread (on average).



D'oh. I mistakenly believed this was addressed to me. I'll leave it anyway.

 

[Valjean]

Oh!
Why don't you tell me one single event that is recorded in words, in history. You can't because we can't understand the writing. The pyramid builders said "osiris tows the earth by means of balance" but this is not understood as the means by which the pyramids were built.

Most of human history isn't recorded in writing.

Here I thought writing went back only to 3200 BC.

Let me ask, "if someone really wrote down "I am homo sapien" 8000 years ago how would you know he even knew what "homo sapien" means? I know if he italicizes it then he mustta been right.

Are you contending that prehistoric cultures were some other species? If so, where's the evidence?

 

[Valjean]

Well, perhaps when corroded, the gold nugget takes longer than flesh to corrode but both probably go back to the soil in time. With different time qualities. Pushing into the soil and leeching into bones, etc.
Oh, yes, and evolution is not a gold nugget anyway.

Huh?

 

[Valjean]

The brain of Lucy is rather small. Her body is small. If you and scientists want to tell that whatever she was evolved after a long time to develop bigger brains and bodies, hey, go for it. There is nothing to really back it up showing the actual links beyond fossils and that doesn't really tell the real story. Maybe you think it does, I no longer do because -- while Lucy had the appearance of a small brained ape there is nothing to suggest it developed (morphed/evolved) to a larger brained body. And now I wonder -- did Lucy come from the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of the so-called ape family? Maybe you know what scientists say. I mean you and some are so convinced that Lucy was a forerunner in evolutionary terms to "homo sapiens."

Scientists are not saying she evolved a bigger brain or body. Australopithecus isn't thought to be a direct ancestor of Homo, just one of many hominid species that have existed over the past few million years.

If fossils, DNA and artifacts don't tell the real story, what does? What is the real story?

 

[shunyadragon]

The Tower of Babel is symbolic of spoken language suddenly becoming more diverse.

First, humans had vocal cords over 300,000 years ago. Spoken languages evolved from primitive regional cultures as humans migrated out of Africa several times over periods of the tens of thousands of years. Based on the fossil evidence our immediate primate relatives like Neanderthals and primate ancestors also had the ability of speech. Isolated primitive Stone Age Cultures in Africa still have simple primitive spoken languages.

As far as written languages they did not "suddenly" appear and become diverse,. They evolved independently in different regions of the world including the Americas over a period of thousands of years from proto-writing which is thousands of years older than written languages,

 

[shunyadragon]

Here I thought writing went back only to 3200 BC.

Let me ask, "if someone really wrote down "I am homo sapien" 8000 years ago how would you know he even knew what "homo sapien" means? I know if he italicizes it then he mustta been right.

If someone wrote homo-sapiens 300 years ago they would not know what it means.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet here we are still unable to communicate after years and you can't see the language might be confused! You can't accept that it is known fact that we see what we believe. You can't imagine that every scientist has different models and 50% of aviation engineers and 3% of physicists incorrectly answer the question of whether or not an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt moving toward it. We can't see our own confusion and can't see the confusion of those who agree with us. I can explain in detail why physicists get the question wrong. Its root is confusion caused by language and the way we think.

Darwin's problems were caused by language as well. Then he's enjoyed centuries of support because people are still confused. 19th century scientists were great but we were misled.

I do not simply see what I believe, neither do other scientists.

It is a problem that you apparently cannot comprehend and speak High School English vocabulary, and only see what you want to see,

 

[shunyadragon]

Then how were the pyramids built?

Egyptian engineering. Virtually all the very practical engineering techniques used by Egyptians have been discovered includingtheir mistakes and failures.. The sometimes tried to make things to big

The following is a simple reference, there are more to follow if necessary for more detailed research on Egyptian engineering.

We May Finally Know How the Pyramids Were Built

Scientists have discovered new evidence that may explain how these iconic structures were built.

www.discovery.com

History's Greatest Mystery​

The oldest of the most famous pyramids in the world is also the largest. At 481 feet (146.5 meters) tall, it's not called the Great Pyramid of Giza for nothing. It was constructed at the order of Pharoah Khufu sometime around 2560 B.C.E., although how it was actually constructed has been shrouded by history. Still, bit by bit, archaeologists have been able to explain various mechanisms behind the building's construction. The stones themselves were mined from a quarry just south of the pyramid, and researchers believe that their journey across the desert was made easier by wetting the sand first. But that only explains how the stones got from one location to another, not how they were then lifted high into the air and deposited in an enormous triangle.

Researchers believed that action would have involved a ramp of some sort, and that's a pretty fair guess. It's not as if they had a five-story crane. But as for the actual evidence of such a ramp? Researches were coming up empty-handed. It's a particular challenge because the ramp would have needed to be very steep — an incline of about 20 degrees or so — and that would have posed a significant challenge for a 2.5 ton stone. Now, a new discovery at a different quarry might shed light on how ancient people managed such a feat.

A Ramp Above​

At Hatnub, another rock quarry located in Egypt's eastern desert, an Anglo-French team found a very unusual ramp carved into the ground that hinted at some surprisingly advanced technological achievements. For one thing, it was pretty steep, but more significantly, it was flanked on both sides by staircases. These stairs were marked with recurring holes that could have contained wooden posts (which would have rotted away long ago). According to the mission's co-director Yannis Gourdon, "This kind of system has never been discovered anywhere else." What's more, it's dated to about 4,500 years ago, well before construction began on Khufu's big legacy.

Roland Enmarch, another scholar who participated in the expedition, noted that the patterns of the post holes in the stairs suggested a particular kind of rope-and-pulley system. Similar pulley systems are well-documented in Greek technology, but this discovery predates those devices by some 2,000 years. Since this specific ramp is cut into the rock itself, it wouldn't have been used to build the actual Great Pyramid. But it does suggest that the ancient Egyptians had a firm grasp on the kinds of simple machines that can be used to turn an impossible amount of hard work into just a whole lot of hard work.

More references can be provided concerning research and discoveries concerning Egyptian engineering including their failures and mistakes.

 

[Valjean]

The age of humans. It took time to develop writing, I am sure of that. But not that much time. And I'm not talking about 20 years, but time.

Why would humanity be dated by a cultural development? You might as well date us from the development of electricity, or atlatls, or neckties.

Couldn't anatomical humans have existed before language developed? and when did language develop, anyway? Certainly well before writing.

Hmm, good question. Do you? If you do think evolution is is progressive, progressive in what way? Remember, it's by chance...kind of.

Very "kind of." Adaptation is directed by environmental factors.
Why do you keep asking these questions you know the answer to?

ok, thay're monkeys Not moths I suppose. I looked up some info about the so-called "tree of life" scientists made up. And I see they're having some questions about it.

Scientists always have questions about everything. This tree is just a visual aid; a diagram to make the evolutionary relationships easy to see or understand. There's no actual tree.

Before I read about the questions by scientists I looked at the diagram of the "tree of life" evolutionary-style and found it -- absurd is the best word I can think of. Because -- it (1) is ridiculous and (2) it doesn't make sense, and (3) there is absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

Why is it ridiculous? It's just a way to visualize the relationships between species. Why doesn't it make sense?
What's to "substantiate?" The species are there. Their relationships are what they are. The tree just diagrams what's out there.

 

[Valjean]

Writing was invented strictly so the leaders could communicate with people who spoke the pidgin languages that became the precursors of modern languages.

Fully developed languages existed long before writing, and early writing was about economic records and agreements. Religious writings and proclamations came later.
Pidgins develop when different, fully developed languages come into contact. Pidgins are simplified inter-communication shortcut languages. They're not early stages of language development. No partially developed language has ever been discovered.

Writing wasn't necessary before so never ever thought of it. But you couldn't just relay messages to the pidgin speakers because the message would be affected like a chinese telephone; it would change with each retelling.

Huh? What are you talking about? A pidgin is not an undeveloped language. People spoke with complex, fully developed languages.

When about 5% of the population became illiterate around 3200 BC writing was invented for them. It could have been a pidgin speaker who thought of it but unlikely since these early illiterates tended to be dim witted.

What happened in 3200 BC? Are you saying writing was invented when a small percentage of some population was suddenly struck illiterate?! What percentage was literate before that point?
The early illiterates were dimwits? Where do you come up with this stuff?

No. Change in species is a random walk until there is a sudden speciation event. These are like jokes or experiments played by mother nature because they occur when consciousness sets odd individuals apart as breeding stock. Mutation is a leading cause of change in species and these are random as well but in this case there is a sort of survival of the fittest because bad mutations die out and good ones spread (on average).

Please stop it. This is all a delusional fantasy you've concocted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you can't tell me because you know I'll rip it apart like a wolf with a steak.

Well, aren't we thinking highly of ourselves....
How tough you are.

You know I define history as what transpired after the tower of babel and I don't believe in Evolution

Uhu.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there any field in which you don't know everything?

Plenty. However, I know enough to know that nothing in anthropology says what you claimed.

This is relatively new research.

Citation required.
Won't hold my breath.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are severe anomalies and almost no facts to support this contention.

You mean, aside for literal evidence of homo sapiens of that age?

You believe that it's impossible for science to be wrong and you say it in every single post.

False.
However, when the evidence of reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are rejecting all data points in favor of doctrine and belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are extrapolating a species into existence and ignoring the cause and nature of change in species.

Not at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Originally, the fossils was expected to be found in the late Devonian, because it was though that the transition between fish and tetrapod’s took place during that period.

We now know that probably the transition took place long before that ………… therefore it should count as a correct prediction any more………that is my point……….feel free to agree or to disagree but your video doesn’t address my concern

I can only repeat myself.
And yet, they found the exact fossil they expected to find in the strata they expected to find it in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

this is the defintion of paraphyly:
Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages.


The “grouping” is the subjective part of the definition there is no objective/empirical way to make the groups………………..

How silly. No. The word "grouping" simply notes that it concerns a group of species. And what that group is, is defined immediately afterwards: last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages.

Look at the graph again:

In the case of "fish", the yellow lineage isn't included. That goes for the entire lineage.

we decided to include tuna, eels and sharks in the “fish group” and exclude humans and dolphins from that group for no objective nor empirical reason …………..we simply found it convenient

No. Humans and dolphins... are on the yellow lineage. It's not arbitrary. It's everything on that yellow lineage.

What is a fish?

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That has happen multiple times in the past, sharks eels and tuna all evolved from different ancestor that we wouldn’t call “fish”

Tell us all what lineage that sharks, eels and tuna are on that weren't fish and then were fish, while the common ancestor was considered a fish.

………the descendants of humans could be fish there is no taxonomical rules that prevents it.

We have been explaining to you ad nauseum how that's not the case at all.

You keep forgetting that both fish and paraphyletic groups are subjective terms,

They aren't monophyletic groups. That doesn't mean that they are therefor "subjective".
A whale is objectively not a fish.

weather if 2 organisms are part of the “paraphyletic group fish” or any other paraphyletic group is subjective and depends on what we as society decided

Nope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yessss, birds can produce species of different colors and beak sizes -- but, as I have said more than once, birds stay birds and monkeys stay monkeys.

And every time I've seen you say that, as if it is an argument against evolution, I pointed out the idiocy of that mistake and have been doing that for over 3 years now.

Yet, here we are.... with you stubbornly insisting on being wrong about it. As if repeating it enough times will make it a proper argument.

Hint: it won't. It was wrong the first time you said and it will continue to be wrong regardless how many times you repeat it.

Nothing, in fact, to show that apes evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor,

Except, off course, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc...

which, according to the science, supposedly died out--disappeared--a long time ago.

It didn't die out. It evolved.

 

[blü 2]

Well, perhaps when corroded, the gold nugget takes longer than flesh to corrode but both probably go back to the soil in time. With different time qualities. Pushing into the soil and leeching into bones, etc.
Oh, yes, and evolution is not a gold nugget anyway.

No, it's a product of ongoing reasoned enquiry, and as you know, reasoned enquiry, of which science is one (large) aspect, has enabled the heavy lifting that's created the modern world.

I don't speak merely as an admirer looking on, or as one communicating with you on the net. In 2004 I underwent a successful treatment for throat cancer, so modern medicine is the reason I'm still here. And religion is not.

Reasoned enquiry stresses maximizing objectivity. Religion stresses maximizing subjectivity ─ you're required to learn about a particular version of an imaginary world and then impose that view on the reality around you. That works fine for lots of people, but it doesn't work for me.