Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So, were languages designed, or did they evolve?

 

[Skaloop]

It's communication through voice. It is language.

That's not the definition of language in this context. Unless you want to disqualify people who use American Sign Language. Also, laughing, screaming, sighing, etc. are communications through voice, but do not qualify as language.

Here's the basic breakdown from Wikipedia:

Human language is unique in comparison to other forms of communication, such as those used by animals, because it allows humans to produce an infinite set of utterances from a finite set of elements, and because the symbols and grammatical rules of any particular language are largely arbitrary, so that the system can only be acquired through social interaction. The known systems of communication used by animals, on the other hand, can only express a finite number of utterances that are mostly genetically transmitted. Human language is also unique in that its complex structure has evolved to serve a much wider range of functions than any other kinds of communication system.

 

[Skaloop]

So, were languages designed, or did they evolve?

The ability evolved, and languages themselves generally evolved and continue to evolve. But some (such as Esperanto or Klingon) were designed.

 

[mpok1519]

Well here's the stickler for me? Why are any apes even left if we evolved from apes? Was there a "pause" in the evolution process? A flaw? Were some apes just stubborn and ran from it, time-traveled from it? Please explain. Anyone. Thank you kindly.

There are more than just one type of ape, all with their own evolutionary descent based upon enviornmental influences.

A chimpanzee will evolve according to its environmental influences, and an orangutan will evolve according to its environmental influences. Both live in different environments, both will evolve differently.

Our ape ancestors were influenced by a different set of enviornments. Hence, why we evolved differently.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not the definition of language in this context. Unless you want to disqualify people who use American Sign Language.

Then could we include gorillas and chimps who have learned sign language?

Human language is unique in comparison to other forms of communication, such as those used by animals, because it allows humans to produce an infinite set of utterances from a finite set of elements, and because the symbols and grammatical rules of any particular language are largely arbitrary, so that the system can only be acquired through social interaction. The known systems of communication used by animals, on the other hand, can only express a finite number of utterances that are mostly genetically transmitted. Human language is also unique in that its complex structure has evolved to serve a much wider range of functions than any other kinds of communication system.

I would agree with that. Cetaceans do not transmit their communication genetically, but it is not as abstract or as flexible and human language at it is described above.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Christine O'Donnell & Richard Dawkins - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

What you are describing is a designer with all of the flaws that humans have.

Either way -- let me make my point.

Don't call yours "science" and ours "religion".

If you think God has done flawed work, again that's your prerogative -- you've been doing that here since I've been here.

But don't call yours "science" and ours "religion".

 

[Skaloop]

Then could we include gorillas and chimps who have learned sign language?

No, because they didn't learn sign language. They learned to communicate using signs. But this is a transcript of one of the longest "sentences" signed by a chimp: "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." That's not language. He learned to make signs to get what he wanted, which is impressive to be sure, but is no more language than a dog doing a trick to get a treat.

 

[mpok1519]

Question: How did humans get this infinite ability to combine words, create sentences, and then revise them in almost infinite ways?

Because we evolved advanced methods of communication because our environment influenced us to do so. We needed to develope specific avenues of communication to communicate with each other. Most social animals have also developed infinite abilities to communicate, whether through verbal or physical means.

This infinitely creative language facility that human possess distinguishes us from apes, chimps, birds, and bees. This language facility did not just evolve.

So, one characteristic we have, distinguishes and separates us from the entire animal kindgom, but, the infinite characteristics birds, bees, and apes all have contrasting to each other, does not distinguish them from each other? Huh?

Language does evolve; language still is evolving. Old english is not new english. New english will not be future english. Language does evolve.

This is why I do not believe in random evolution. There had to be a God-factor at work here, call it what you may.

Nothing is random; everything has a reason for it.

 

[mpok1519]

Oh, you must be referring to the Internet, the laptop, the cell-phone, and the Smart phone.

Technology is a huge influence on language evolution; most new words we make up are almost always related to new tech.

The word "blog", for example.

 

[mpok1519]

I beg to differ.

While humans fall under primates as do the apes, we are not apes.
We are not even the same species, but fall under homo sapiens.

Ape isn't a species. And yes, we are classified as apes (hominids), according to biologists, zoologists, and anthropologists.

 

[mpok1519]

Even though I majored in biology, I never agreed with this "family tree" to which you allude.

Well, you don't have to. It is still true, however. You can see a blue sky and call it green all you want. But its still blue.

 

[mpok1519]

Just the innate human language faculty is a huge leap. Human creativity is another. Have any apes created electrical tools?

Apes create simple umbrellas. Beds. Even toys. Young chimps have been noted as having "dolls", which were just small logs. One chimp has been studied lugging its toy around everywhere it went, and it even cared for it, making a separate bed for it. The chimp would become hostile if other chimps tried to touch it. the chimp would cradle and even mimic nursing it. From what could be seen, it was a doll to the chimp. Human children display the same type of behavior, imagining their toys as real beings, becoming protective of them.

One chimp even created art. It would make piles of rocks and twigs for no apparent reason. And when other chimps knocked it over, the artist chimp would become upset, distance itself from the rest of the troop, gather its rocks and twigs, and go to another place to rebuild the pile. It was reported that this chimp had several rock piles. Biologists concluded that there was absolutely no reason for these rock piles, other thann the chimp found them asthetically pleasing.

Another chimp, named Mike, found tin-cans left by other biologists. What this chimp would do was grab these cans, and bang them loudly, screaming and running through the grounds. This got the attention of other chimps. Eventually, Mike, although no the largest or physically dominant of all the males within the troop, became the dominant chimp through his displays of aggression with this use of technology.


I don't have any sources, sorry. this is just interesting stuff I learned in physical anthropology that details art, recreation, and technological innovation within chimpanzee society.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Either way -- let me make my point.

Don't call yours "science" and ours "religion".

If you think God has done flawed work, again that's your prerogative -- you've been doing that here since I've been here.

But don't call yours "science" and ours "religion".

Would you prefer we call religion 'superstition,' then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you prefer we call religion 'superstition,' then?

You call it what you want ... just don't call yours "science" and ours "religion" and expect us to play along.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MariaRegina I beg to differ.

While humans fall under primates as do the apes, we are not apes.
We are not even the same species, but fall under homo sapiens.

Ape isn't a species. And yes, we are classified as apes (hominids), according to biologists, zoologists, and anthropologists.

Interesting.
Some places in the Bible refer to men as "beasts".
Would an ape be classified as one?

NKJV) 2 Peter 2:12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption,

(NKJV) Jude 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

KJV) Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't call yours "science" and ours "religion".

Why not?

If you think God has done flawed work, again that's your prerogative -- you've been doing that here since I've been here.

What God? Evidence please.

Also, you completely missed what I was saying. Common design in no way indicates a supernatural deity. We could be talking about aliens that are like us. In fact, your common design argument describes us to a T. You admit that the designer had limited knowledge, limited time, and limited resources. These are the only reasons that there are for reusing designs. If shared features indicates a common designer, then it is describing a designer with all of the flaws that make us mortal and human. Even worse, this designer is even less intelligent than us because it is limited to a nested hierarchy. Even humans are smart enough to know that they are not limited by such arbitrary relationships.

 

[Loudmouth]

just don't call yours "science" and ours "religion" and expect us to play along.

Why not?

 

[MariaRegina]

Apes create simple umbrellas. Beds. Even toys. Young chimps have been noted as having "dolls", which were just small logs. One chimp has been studied lugging its toy around everywhere it went, and it even cared for it, making a separate bed for it. The chimp would become hostile if other chimps tried to touch it. the chimp would cradle and even mimic nursing it. From what could be seen, it was a doll to the chimp. Human children display the same type of behavior, imagining their toys as real beings, becoming protective of them.

One chimp even created art. It would make piles of rocks and twigs for no apparent reason. And when other chimps knocked it over, the artist chimp would become upset, distance itself from the rest of the troop, gather its rocks and twigs, and go to another place to rebuild the pile. It was reported that this chimp had several rock piles. Biologists concluded that there was absolutely no reason for these rock piles, other thann the chimp found them asthetically pleasing.

Another chimp, named Mike, found tin-cans left by other biologists. What this chimp would do was grab these cans, and bang them loudly, screaming and running through the grounds. This got the attention of other chimps. Eventually, Mike, although no the largest or physically dominant of all the males within the troop, became the dominant chimp through his displays of aggression with this use of technology.


I don't have any sources, sorry. this is just interesting stuff I learned in physical anthropology that details art, recreation, and technological innovation within chimpanzee society.

Very primitive forms of animal play.
Cats can also entertain themselves.

However, I repeat my question, has any chimp or ape managed to create a wheel to transport things. deliberately strike flint together to start a fire, and then proceed to cook food in a pan, use a potato to make a primitive battery, or design an electrical tool?

We already know that animals use primitive tools such as sticks, rods, and rocks to retrieve things or smash things. Even crows drop a snail on cement or a pile of rocks and then fly down to retrieve the now smashed snail for its meal. We have seen crows dive bomb a cat, possum, or squirrel and force it back into the road with the hopes that a car will strike it, and then this crow can eat the dead animal. Premeditated murder anyone?

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, you completely missed what I was saying. Common design in no way indicates a supernatural deity. We could be talking about aliens that are like us. In fact, your common design argument describes us to a T. You admit that the designer had limited knowledge, limited time, and limited resources. These are the only reasons that there are for reusing designs. If shared features indicates a common designer, then it is describing a designer with all of the flaws that make us mortal and human. Even worse, this designer is even less intelligent than us because it is limited to a nested hierarchy. Even humans are smart enough to know that they are not limited by such arbitrary relationships.

Just don't call yours "science" and ours "religion".