Evolution of Human

[FearGod]

Dumb is an adjective. That means someone can BE dumb, but someone cannot be "a dumb" or "dumbs" as you said:

"Only stupids and dumps can believe that Homo Sapiens spent 190000 years to start planting and building."

In fact, the exact same applies to the word "stupid", which is also an adjective, so this entire sentence makes no sense.

So it is wrong to say in English "you're dumb" or "you're stupid",then i think it is correct to say in English "you are a fool"

English isn't my first language and we aren't learning English here, so it is off topic.

Nobody was. Language was something that developed and became more complicated over a very long period of time. Nobody "figured it out" and then "taught" others. Communities developed their own means of communication and their children learned them through osmosis.

But it should be started from one who have the idea to invent words.
It seems that you aren't able to understand the question and hence your answer was a silly one.

How do you not understand this? Learning to build and farm are not things that can be figured out simply just by being smart. It takes time and a vast accrual of knowledge to understand, for the first time, how to plant seeds or design even the simplest of structures. This knowledge did not exist until we developed it.

And 190000 years were needed to start thinking of it.
Are you kidding or you really found it normal that homo sapiens needed that long period of time to start thinking for farming and building.

Animals don't have "language", they have other forms of communication which are less complex and used to convey less information. Some animals are intelligent enough to understand language or mimic language, but animals do not have a developed system of verbal expression like we do.

But they have their own language though,regardless of how complex is their language then who started this language to be understood by similar species.

Do you have a scientific reply or just your own opinion.

You're making no sense. Who has said animals are more intelligent than humans?

Think humans are smarter than animals? Think again! Some creatures have SUPERIOR brains to us - we just don't understand them.

I think you should agree now,they are evolutionary biologists


Humans have long believed that they are smarter than other animals, but an increasing body of scientific evidence suggests that, as a species, we are just being arrogant

Read more: Think humans are smarter than animals? Think again! Some creatures have SUPERIOR brains to us - we just don't understand them | Mail Online

​

BTW, it supports that God doesn't exist because in scriptures God mentioned that humans is the best of all creations, see God was wrong.

Then you're wrong. I don't know how to communicate the idea to you more clearly than I have. You have no understanding of human development whatsoever, and zero grasp of the concepts involved in developing knowledge in the first place. I strongly suggest you back out of this debate with at least a little of your dignity left in tact.

:biglaugh:

Don't worry about my dignity.

 

[FearGod]

Nice source! It outlines the content of a workbook.

It says nothing about the way I constructed one of my previous sentences.

That makes me wonder if you are delusional.

Also, English IS my first language. What part about published/optioned do you not understand?

I've been "blessed" with the ability to work for a year and take a few years off based on my writing skills (or storytelling abilities).

Can you say the same and back it up? I can.

:yes:

Blessed by whom.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So it is wrong to say in English "you're dumb" or "you're stupid",

No. What you said was:

"Only stupids and dumps can believe that Homo Sapiens spent 190000 years to start planting and building."

You can call a person "stupid" or "dumb", but you can't call groups of people "stupids" or "dumbs" because those words aren't nouns - they're adjectives. Do I have to explain this to you again?

then i think it is correct to say in English "you are a fool"

That is correct. Yes.

English isn't my first language and we aren't learning English here, so it is off topic.

It is, but it started with you using English to insult other people's intelligence by calling them stupid, while simultaneously making yourself look stupid by misusing the language and not understanding the difference between a noun and an adjective. I don't care if English is your second, third or fourth language. If you call me stupid, I'm going to call you out on it.

But it should be started from one who have the idea to invent words.

But languages didn't all spring from the same person. "Words" are not an invention in the same way that, say, penicillin in as invention. The idea of using noises created by the voice box to express an idea most likely developed in lots of different human groups at different times. It's not like we were all just using hand signals and then, one day, a caveman invented the entire dictionary.

It seems that you aren't able to understand the question and hence your answer was a silly one.

Stop insulting my intelligence when you cannot grasp the simple idea that languages aren't spontaneously invented.

And 190000 years were needed to start thinking of it.
Are you kidding or you really found it normal that homo sapiens needed that long period of time to start thinking for farming and building.

I'm not kidding, and I don't see how you can even contest it. You keep repeating how absurd you think it is, yet you haven't presented any kind of coherent argument whatsoever that supports your view that it would have taken a much shorter time. I've already explained to you why it would have taken that long, and all you can do in response is act incredulous and repeat your disbelief.

It's really very simple. I really don't know how I or anyone else can communicate it any clearer to you.

But they have their own language though,regardless of how complex is their language then who started this language to be understood by similar species.

Nope. Language is a strictly human capacity to for acquiring and understanding using a complex system of communication. Animals don't have "languages" in the same sense that we do, and if you want to calls the ways animals communicate a "language" then it is only for illustrative, not literal, purposes. Language is a human construct, and thus far humans are the only living species to have fully developed languages. Animals have developed other forms of communication, but they cannot literally be considered "languages".

Do you have a scientific reply or just your own opinion.

I've given you a scientific reply.

Think humans are smarter than animals? Think again! Some creatures have SUPERIOR brains to us - we just don't understand them.

I think you should agree now,they are evolutionary biologists


Humans have long believed that they are smarter than other animals, but an increasing body of scientific evidence suggests that, as a species, we are just being arrogant

Read more: Think humans are smarter than animals? Think again! Some creatures have SUPERIOR brains to us - we just don't understand them | Mail Online ​

You do realize that this is a Daily Mail article, right? I'm about as likely to take it seriously as a source of scientific understanding as I am to take a two-year-old's advice on thermodynamics.

Don't worry about my dignity.

Very well then, I will continue to explain basic facts to you and make you look like a fool.​

 

[FearGod]

No. What you said was:

"Only stupids and dumps can believe that Homo Sapiens spent 190000 years to start planting and building."

You can call a person "stupid" or "dumb", but you can't call groups of people "stupids" or "dumbs" because those words aren't nouns - they're adjectives. Do I have to explain this to you again?

Anyway it is irrelevant to our main topic.

It is, but it started with you using English to insult other people's intelligence by calling them stupid, while simultaneously making yourself look stupid by misusing the language and not understanding the difference between a noun and an adjective. I don't care if English is your second, third or fourth language. If you call me stupid, I'm going to call you out on it.

I didn't insult anyone here, you can report me for doing so.
Where did i call someone here as stupid.

But languages didn't all spring from the same person. "Words" are not an invention in the same way that, say, penicillin in as invention. The idea of using noises created by the voice box to express an idea most likely developed in lots of different human groups at different times. It's not like we were all just using hand signals and then, one day, a caveman invented the entire dictionary.

How then you explain the evolution of language in humans according to the TOE, as it was developed by adults and taught to the next generations.

Stop insulting my intelligence when you cannot grasp the simple idea that languages aren't spontaneously invented.

How i insulted your intelligence when i say you didn't understand the question.

I'm not kidding, and I don't see how you can even contest it. You keep repeating how absurd you think it is, yet you haven't presented any kind of coherent argument whatsoever that supports your view that it would have taken a much shorter time. I've already explained to you why it would have taken that long, and all you can do in response is act incredulous and repeat your disbelief.

It's really very simple. I really don't know how I or anyone else can communicate it any clearer to you.

It is very simple to believe that the wise human (homo sapiens) spent 190000 years not learning anything and then all in a sudden before 10000 years started to think and civilization appeared.

Nope. Language is a strictly human capacity to for acquiring and understanding using a complex system of communication. Animals don't have "languages" in the same sense that we do, and if you want to calls the ways animals communicate a "language" then it is only for illustrative, not literal, purposes. Language is a human construct, and thus far humans are the only living species to have fully developed languages. Animals have developed other forms of communication, but they cannot literally be considered "languages".

And how that is explained according to the TOE, human according to your view didn't have specific language and then language developed by adult humans themselves.

You do realize that this is a Daily Mail article, right? I'm about as likely to take it seriously as a source of scientific understanding as I am to take a two-year-old's advice on thermodynamics.

Humans not smarter than animals, just different
Humans not smarter than animals, just different, experts say

Very well then, I will continue to explain basic facts to you and make you look like a fool.

Did you explain anything.
bla ..bla ...bla, that is the basic facts which you keep offering.

 

[idav]

And how that is explained according to the TOE, human according to your view didn't have specific language and then language developed by adult humans themselves.

They are similar but that is another field of study. They say it started as one language and evolved to the many we see today. At some point we didn't have language, writing, or even tools. We developed these things over time, don't know how thats tough to grasp. Tools and language became more sophisticated as our species intelligence evolved. Start off with sticks and rocks like the chimps, some are now making fire. Then we start carving stick and rocks. It really took off with fire and once we started melting rocks and developed better tools to do what we need.

 

[FearGod]

They are similar but that is another field of study. They say it started as one language and evolved to the many we see today. At some point we didn't have language, writing, or even tools. We developed these things over time, don't know how thats tough to grasp. Tools and language became more sophisticated as our species intelligence evolved. Start off with sticks and rocks like the chimps, some are now making fire. Then we start carving stick and rocks. It really took off with fire and once we started melting rocks and developed better tools to do what we need.

I asked how it is explained according to the TOV,
Language is acquired and developed by humans themselves then how it can be related to mutations and natural selection.

 

[idav]

I asked how it is explained according to the TOV,
Language is acquired and developed by humans themselves then how it can be related to mutations and natural selection.

The theory of evolution explains biology. I mentioned earlier that the vocal cords evolved over time. Vocal cords is how language can be related, also high intelligence coming from the brain is required to understand process and remember language.

 

[idav]

Chimps have the intelligence to speak but don't have our vocal cords. Through evolution of vocal cords, they migrated down in humans allowing us speech but also more susceptible to choking.

 

[FearGod]

The theory of evolution explains biology. I mentioned earlier that the vocal cords evolved over time. Vocal cords is how language can be related, also high intelligence coming from the brain is required to understand process and remember language.

And how those tiny changes of the vocal cord in humans is explained by natural selection while human didn't even use it for so long as assigning words for things and memorizing it has to take very long period of time.

Natural selection definition

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits.

 

[idav]

And how those tiny changes of the vocal cord in humans is explained by natural selection while human didn't even use it for so long as assigning words for things and memorizing it has to take very long period of time.

Natural selection definition

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits.

Mutations aren't always beneficial or detrimental to survival. Some changes don't influence anything but over time the combination could end up beneficial. That being said you should be able to understand that eventually being able to speak is beneficial to us as a species no matter the environment.

 

[FearGod]

Mutations aren't always beneficial or detrimental to survival. Some changes don't influence anything but over time the combination could end up beneficial. That being said you should be able to understand that eventually being able to speak is beneficial to us as a species no matter the environment.

Are you saying that the evolution of the vocal cords has nothing to do with natural selection which favoured survival and reproduction.

So it is up to us where and how to use the definition of natural selection.

 

[idav]

Are you saying that the evolution of the vocal cords has nothing to do with natural selection which favoured survival and reproduction.

So it is up to us where and how to use the definition of natural selection.

I am saying evolution isn't intelligent enough to make or break a species on purpose. Mutations happen on every generation regardless if they are beneficial, harmful or neither. Some mutations may help or harm only in certain regions or certain planets, plus we have to consider other species will be competing. Species surviving best now have evolved to adapt with humans.

 

[outhouse]

I am saying evolution isn't intelligent enough to make or break a species on purpose. Mutations happen on every generation regardless if they are beneficial, harmful or neither. Some mutations may help or harm only in certain regions or certain planets, plus we have to consider other species will be competing. Species surviving best now have evolved to adapt with humans.

There is also a clear evolutionary path for speech, in two parts.

In the brain - size, and in the throat. The mechanics.

 

[idav]

A brother and a cousin. Not too different if you ask me but the minor stuff can make all the difference. Evolution can't know that.

 

[Aman777]

Are you saying that the evolution of the vocal cords has nothing to do with natural selection which favoured survival and reproduction.

So it is up to us where and how to use the definition of natural selection.

Dear FearGod, I can. Eve spoke with NO magical evolution, no natural selection. So did the descendants of Adam, who had inherited his Superior intelligence from Cain, who spread Adam's Human intelligence to the prehistoric people on the first Earth. Gen 4

What is necessary is to inherit Adam's Human intelligence since ONLY the descendants of Adam SPEAK, just like our Father in Heaven did when He spoke the worlds into being. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[FearGod]

I am saying evolution isn't intelligent enough to make or break a species on purpose. Mutations happen on every generation regardless if they are beneficial, harmful or neither. Some mutations may help or harm only in certain regions or certain planets, plus we have to consider other species will be competing. Species surviving best now have evolved to adapt with humans.

Can we say that the homo sapiens were lucky with the beneficial mutations that made him better than other animals.

 

[FearGod]

Dear FearGod, I can. Eve spoke with NO magical evolution, no natural selection. So did the descendants of Adam, who had inherited his Superior intelligence from Cain, who spread Adam's Human intelligence to the prehistoric people on the first Earth. Gen 4

What is necessary is to inherit Adam's Human intelligence since ONLY the descendants of Adam SPEAK, just like our Father in Heaven did when He spoke the worlds into being. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

That what make sense to me and you and other creationists but for evolutionists and atheists they are talking about wise human (homo sapiens) that lived earth for 200000 years and not knowing yet writing and reading.

They checked my grammar mistakes.

 

[idav]

Can we say that the homo sapiens were lucky with the beneficial mutations that made him better than other animals.

Its one way of putting it. Thats why people like to think evolution was guided for humans. Back in the dinosaur age they would think evolution was guided for them. Some species in the future will think the same but it is simply where we find ourselves, if we didn't find ourselves here then we didn't make it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Anyway it is irrelevant to our main topic.

Agreed.

I didn't insult anyone here, you can report me for doing so.
Where did i call someone here as stupid.

I literally just quoted your line from earlier. I'll do it again here:

"Only stupids and dumps can believe that Homo Sapiens spent 190000 years to start planting and building."

You're calling anyone who believes that it took 190,000 years for humans to develop farming or building stupid. Hence, you are calling me - and many other posters on this board, stupid.

How then you explain the evolution of language in humans according to the TOE, as it was developed by adults and taught to the next generations.

That's like asking me to explain baking by the process of evolution. Evolution didn't play a part in the development of language, beyond giving us vocal chords which enabled us to form words. But forming language was a result of that evolutionary change, not the intent of it. We found a way to use our vocal chords to great effect in communication. Evolution didn't teach us language, it just resulted in us having the tools to develop language ourselves.

How i insulted your intelligence when i say you didn't understand the question.

If you don't understand how telling someone that they didn't understand the question and therefore "gave a silly answer" is not insulting the other person's intelligence, I have no idea what you think the phrase must mean.

I am clearly far more educated on this subject than you are. I am more than capable of understanding your questions, and my answers are absolutely not "silly". I am not stupid, I am not dumb, and I certainly have no difficulty grasping your questions, so do not insult my intelligence.

It is very simple to believe that the wise human (homo sapiens) spent 190000 years not learning anything and then all in a sudden before 10000 years started to think and civilization appeared.

Yes, it is, when you realize that the humans who existed 200,000 years ago were extremely primitive, extremely few in number, largely isolated in small groups, had not yet developed an effective means of communication, had an extremely limited capacity for learning, an extremely short life span, and lived, behaved and thought more or less identically to their apelike ancestors.

And how that is explained according to the TOE, human according to your view didn't have specific language and then language developed by adult humans themselves.

Well, yes. Where else do you think it could have come from? Aliens?

Humans not smarter than animals, just different
Humans not smarter than animals, just different, experts say

You're really stretching this point, and I can't help but feel that it really isn't going anywhere.

Did you explain anything.
bla ..bla ...bla, that is the basic facts which you keep offering.

I've repeatedly explained to you the answers to almost every question you have asked and every objection you have had. If you're so childish as to dismiss everything I've said to you as "blah, blah, blah" then I cannot help you. And, yet again, I suggest you to heed the warning in your own signature.

Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.

 

[idav]

That what make sense to me and you and other creationists but for evolutionists and atheists they are talking about wise human (homo sapiens) that lived earth for 200000 years and not knowing yet writing and reading.

If you could refute it instead of poking fun we would all clap for you.