Marmosets call each other by name.

[HonestJoe]

 

[Revoltingest]

I was created by Allah and the first man was Adam. We are Adam's descendants and, though you might not like this, so are you.

One look at me would disabuse
you of that notion.

 

[anotherneil]

Are there any social animals that don't call each other by name or have some way of distinguishing each other apart?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are there any social animals that don't call each other by name or have some way of distinguishing each other apart?

A candidate....

Naked mole-rat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

And that is true, too. I'd like you to look at something. The picture here shows (left to right) my grandfather, my father and me -- all at about the same age. Remarkable likenesses, eh? And yet, we're all different from one another, and if there were some way we could be alive at the same time at the same age, nobody would have the least difficulty telling us apart.

So small differences are quite noticeable, really. But that's only 3 generations of the same paternal bloodline. Now multiply that by 30, or 300, or 3,000. What do you think those "small differences" might add up to when you look at my 3,003rd great grandfather? But that would only have been around 60,000 years ago, and we humans have been here for at least 3 times that! And hominids for even longer, and mammals for much, much longer than that, and the ancestors of mammals for vast ages longer still!

What do you think small changes, when multiplied by literally millions and hundreds of millions, might amount to? View attachment 96549

Nice looking people is my first reaction. But again and I'm going to say this until PROVED otherwise and by proved I will even take fossil remains demonstrating BEYOND DOUBT that there is a common denominator from which the various branches just happened, by that I mean evolved.to gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. .One question is about the last common ancestors said to be of apes. No one knows. There is nothing but fragments of bones along with conjecture to say that humans descended from that branching off from that to the solid organisms like bonobos, chimps and humans. honest anyway, while I see chimps have ears, arms and legs, etc. I do not see any real resemblance from your beautiful family pictures to monkeys, etc.

 

[anotherneil]

A candidate....

Naked mole-rat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's one freak of nature.

 

[danieldemol]

This isn't about linguistics. This is about are the descendants of humans apes. Forget the fancy scientific vocabulary. It's not important

Scientific vocabulary is what allows us to understand the physical realm with precision and makes us scientifically literate as I see it.

When a preacher tells you it's unimportant run the other way - they just want you to remain ignorant so they can take advantage of you with superstition in my view.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This isn't about linguistics. This is about are the descendants of humans apes. Forget the fancy scientific vocabulary. It's not important

Whenever we discuss scientific topics, precision of language is absolutely essential. If you think you can discuss a complicated scientific topic using the sixth grade language of the streets, think again.

 

[Secret Chief]

Dear god this is tedious.

 

[Pogo]

Whenever we discuss scientific topics, precision of language is absolutely essential. If you think you can discuss a complicated scientific topic using the sixth grade language of the streets, think again.

Too many of your words were multisyllabic.

 

[Secret Chief]

Too many of your words were multisyllabic.

Man = Ape

 

[Pawpatrol]

Whenever we discuss scientific topics, precision of language is absolutely essential. If you think you can discuss a complicated scientific topic using the sixth grade language of the streets, think again.

Depends on exactly what is being discussed.

Afaik the gist of the topic is marmosets call each other by name = proof for evolution of humans from apes. I don't need to read or write an essay, or use any scientific words or even evidence to say, "I don't think so."

If I was asked about the Islamic sciences when it comes to the creation of man — that I would be interested in. But I doubt that the evolutionarists here would be interested in that scientific topic. They'd just say, "I don't think so."

 

[gnostic]

I don't mind your words at all. But, while you might feel some sense of communion with monkeys, I do not. I was created by Allah and the first man was Adam. We are Adam's descendants and, though you might not like this, so are you.

Actually, your Quran claimed that Adam was made from clay.

If what Islam teaches you all, were all true, then there should be evidence or trace evidence that clay minerals, eg kaolinites, which are silicate-based minerals, should still exist in our bodies, if we inherited everything from Adam.

There are no evidence that we, humans - the Homo sapiens - were ever made of clay.

Your Qur’an is no better than the Bible’s Genesis.

The origins of humans being made of clay by any deity, originally came from myths of either ancient Sumerian religion or ancient Egyptian religion, from the 3rd millennium BCE.

it doesn’t matter where or when the myths came from. They are all - including your Qur’an - are all scientifically incorrect & false.

You cannot turn any inorganic silicate-based minerals into organic living cells or living tissues of a human being.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Depends on exactly what is being discussed.

Afaik the gist of the topic is marmosets call each other by name = proof for evolution of humans from apes. I don't need to read or write an essay, or use any scientific words or even evidence to say, "I don't think so."

That is true. However, you THEN wanted to present you actual reasons for reaching that conclusion, THEN you would have to use very precise language, since then you are discussing science.

Islamic sciences

Primitive attempts at science are to be commended. However, as history advanced, improvements to scientific method were made. The primitive Islamic sciences to which you refer don't hold a candle to today's Scientific Method, so when the two contradict, the only sensible thing to do is to go with the modern science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Too many of your words were multisyllabic.

LOL. Yeah.

You are most likely joking, LOL, but just in case you are not...

If you are referring to scientific discussion, you are absolutely right. The precise language that is required is not only complex and rarely used, but it is often in Greek or Latin, and the average person doesn't have the knowledge to piece together what those words mean. Even I often have to look up these words in a dictionary.

If you are referring to me personally, you are certainly not the first person to say so. I am the sort of person that has always had a book or two or three that I'm reading. I have picked up an extensive vocabulary from this. Oh, not as good as some others; there are people I hang out with that are so erudite that I feel incredibly stupid. However, I think for many people, the vocabulary I use actually puts them off. Just as my friends make me feel lost, I'm sure other people feel lost when they try to understand me, and resentful that I make them feel that way. For this reason, I do make the effort to tone down my vocabulary as much as possible. But sometimes I just screw up and forget. And other times, there simply isn't a more commonly known word that says what I'm trying to say.

If it is my vocabulary that irritates you, I completely understand, and I'm sorry it does. If you choose not to read my posts for that reason, I totally get it.

 

[Kathryn]

LOL. I do understand your concern.

You are most likely joking, LOL, but just in case you are not...

If you are referring to scientific discussion, you are absolutely right. The precise language that is required is not only complex and rarely used, but it is often in Greek or Latin, and the average person doesn't have the knowledge to piece together what those words mean. Even I often have to look up these words in a dictionary.

If you are referring to me personally, you are certainly not the first person to say so. I am the sort of person that has always had a book or two or three that I'm reading. I have picked up an extensive vocabulary from this. Oh, not as good as some others; there are people I hang out with that are so erudite that I feel incredibly stupid. However, I think for many people, the vocabulary I use actually puts them off. Just as my friends make me feel lost, I'm sure other people feel lost when they try to understand me, and resentful that I make them feel that way. For this reason, I do make the effort to tone down my vocabulary as much as possible. But sometimes I just screw up and forget. And other times, there simply isn't a more commonly known word that says what I'm trying to say.

If it is my vocabulary that irritates you, I completely understand, and I'm sorry it does. If you choose not to read my posts for that reason, I totally get it.

I also have two or three books going at a time, but I find it very easy to switch off the high vocabulary, if you will, when necessary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I also have two or three books going at a time, but I find it very easy to switch off the high vocabulary, if you will, when necessary.

Excellent that it is easier for you.

 

[gnostic]

Depends on exactly what is being discussed.

Afaik the gist of the topic is marmosets call each other by name = proof for evolution of humans from apes. I don't need to read or write an essay, or use any scientific words or even evidence to say, "I don't think so."

If I was asked about the Islamic sciences when it comes to the creation of man — that I would be interested in. But I doubt that the evolutionarists here would be interested in that scientific topic. They'd just say, "I don't think so."

Let me give you a brief preview of what is and what isn’t science…just so understand the proper usages of scientific terms. That way, it will you avoid using the incorrect terms in the future…as you are relatively new as member of RF.

In science, particularly Physical Sciences or Natural Sciences, like physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc, the term PROOF is actually a logical or mathematical statement, like a formula for a chemical reaction, or a mathematical equation.

So for example, Newton’s equation for forces is F = m a, where m is mass & a is acceleration. That equation is the mathematical PROOF.

Proof is logical expression or logical model, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE!

Like all logic, proofs are only abstract representations of the real world, but proofs themselves are not real. They can be true or they can be false, but they are not real.

Evidence are physical specimen of physical phenomena or natural phenomena. So to have evidence, you would need to be able to observe.

Observations, in science, isnt just about seeing for your own eyes: observations can be detected by instruments or devices, plus observations should provide other information or DATA, like quantities, measurements, etc. So observations should provide the physical properties of evidence or the physical composition or components of the evidence.

Do you understand what I am saying, here, Pawpatrol?

Sciences, like physics, chemistry or biology, require observations of the evidence, not mathematical equations, not proofs.

While equations are excellent tools to represent a reality, equations are abstract logic, not physical evidence, and only evidence (and data) can TEST a hypothesis, to find if hypothesis is scientifically true or false.

TESTING A HYPOTHESIS, is an important part of Scientific Method, that all hypotheses must meet. The tests would either verify or refute a hypothesis, that’s the way to weed out weak or incorrect hypotheses.

So failing the tests, would mean that a hypothesis has failed to meet the requirements of the Scientific Method. Refuted hypotheses can be discarded.

And the only way to test a hypothesis, is with EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENTS, and the all-important DATA that you would acquire from the experiments or evidence.

You cannot test a hypothesis with proofs, like equations or formulas.

That’s the differences between proof and evidence.

Evidence are important to science, not proofs.

so please, don’t use the word proof, when you are talking about science, like physics or biology.

 

[Kathryn]

Excellent that it is easier for you.

Thanks, it really is.