Cavemen

[Nostromo]

Literacy rising over time supports your idea in some way?

A "large minority" is still some way short of the 99% literacy where I live.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, he's asking where you get this idea that science promotes the idea of prehistoric men being low intelligence. Technologically unadvanced is not the same as stupid.

Social brain hypothesis -
The model was proposed by Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather intelligence evolved as a means of surviving in large and complex social groups.


Sexual selection -
This model is proposed by Geoffrey Miller who argues that human intelligence is unnecessarily sophisticated for the needs of hunter gatherers to survive.




Ecological dominance-social competition model -
a predominant model describing human intelligence's evolution is ecological dominance-social competition (EDSC) [7] explained by Mark V. Flinn, David C. Geary and Carol V. Ward based mainly on work by Richard D. Alexander. According to the model, human intelligence was able to evolve to significant levels due to human domination over its habitat.

 

[SkyWriting]

Literacy rising over time supports your idea in some way?

A "large minority" is still some way short of the 99% literacy where I live.

The topic is cave men. Not grand pappys.

 

[Skaloop]

Very tough to answer.

"What constitutes literacy has changed throughout history. It has only recently become expected and desirable to be fully literate and demeaning if you are not. At one time, a literate person was one who could sign his or her name. At other points, literacy was measured by the ability to read the Bible." Read more: literacy - World literacy rates, Literacy and the Industrial Revolution, Teaching literacy literacy - World literacy rates, Literacy and the Industrial Revolution, Teaching literacy


But the last 80 had a clear trend of illiteracy falling:


Mostly tied to the Bible:

"Examples of highly literate cultures in the past

The large amount of graffiti found at Roman sites such as Pompeii, shows that at least a large minority of the population would have been literate.
Because of its emphasis on the individual reading of the Qur'an in the original Arabic alphabet many Islamic countries have known a comparatively high level of literacy during most of the past twelve centuries. In Islamic edict (or Fatwa), to be literate is an individual religious obligation.

In the Middle Ages, literacy rates among Jews in Europe were much higher than in the surrounding Christian populations.
In New England, the literacy rate was over 50 percent during the first half of the 17th century, and it rose to 70 percent by 1710.
In Wales, the literacy rate rocketed during the 18th century, when Griffith Jones ran a system of circulating schools, with the aim of enabling everyone to read the Bible (in Welsh). It is claimed that, in 1750, Wales had the highest literacy rate of any country in the world."

​

Nice evasion.

8-year olds today are more literate than the vast majority of adults 200 years ago could even dream of. They couldn't even type! Or text! Clearly, then, this trend demonstrates that people of today are that much more advanced than their ancestors.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nice evasion.

8-year olds today are more literate than the vast majority of adults 200 years ago could even dream of. They couldn't even type! Or text! Clearly, then, this trend demonstrates that people of today are that much more advanced than their ancestors.

Again, the topic is not about how well your great- grandpa could read the Bible.
It's about Cave men and the claim they never existed, and that "early Man" had a higher intellect than modern man could hope for. If you wish to point to literacy, it's not a steady indicator, nor a well grounded concept. It's most often a measure of ability to read scripture and is not suitable for monitoring intelligence levels. IMHO

 

[Nostromo]

So why don't you present something which actually supports your case?

Is there any evidence that unambiguously points to early man having a higher intellect?

 

[peadar1987]

So why don't you present something which actually supports your case?

Is there any evidence that unambiguously points to early man having a higher intellect?

I doubt there's even any that ambiguously points to it

 

[SkyWriting]

So why don't you present something which actually supports your case?

Is there any evidence that unambiguously points to early man having a higher intellect?

That no one has been able to unambiguously dispute it certainly goes a long way to show that evolutionary theory is wrong. When a concept, such as evolutionary theory, proposes to be the foundation of life as we know it, it shouldn't have to be proven.

It should be as obvious and picking up a piece of rock and stating that "This is made of atoms" then having the ability to check and see that it is. (There is a Scanning Electron Microscope here in town that may be suitable for the task.)

Yet proof for Evolutionary Theory is NOT pervasive. It's darn hard to find. Chemicals just don't want to form life at all. And the old fable about the "narrow band" of life on our planet called "The life zone" was intended to show how hard it is to find life.

Of course, that Myth and the propagandists that perpetuated it in the name of Science were exposed as liars.....I mean..Science corrected itself and admitted that life could be found miles underground in undisturbed isolation, deep at the bottom of the sea, and miles high in the upper atmosphere.

Similarly.....why can't we find evidence of the evolution of intelligence?

We can't even find evolution in single celled organisms claimed to be 2 billion years old. You wonder how something could have been made so perfect, right from the start.

"The Cave Man" with shaggy hair who grunted and hit things with sticks is a Myth. People lived in caves to get out of the rain. Maybe they were coming back from the library or the barber shop.

 

[Nostromo]

Are you taking a leaf out of Agonaces' book and going off on a new tangent whenever challenged to evidence your claims?

That no one has been able to unambiguously dispute it certainly goes a long way to show that evolutionary theory is wrong.

Dispute what? Higher intellect in the good old days? Generally when someone makes a claim they back it up, rather than everyone assuming it is true until proven otherwise.

When a concept, such as evolutionary theory, proposes to be the foundation of life as we know it, it shouldn't have to be proven.
It should be as obvious and picking up a piece of rock and stating that "This is made of atoms" then having the ability to check and see that it is. (There is a Scanning Electron Microscope here in town that may be suitable for the task.)

Evolution is another word for change. Life has changed and continues to change, this much is obvious, you can see it all around you.

Something does not, however, need to be self-evident or intuitive for it to be true. That things were made of atoms was not always obvious.

Yet proof for Evolutionary Theory is NOT pervasive. It's darn hard to find. Chemicals just don't want to form life at all.

You're thinking of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Of course, that Myth and the propagandists that perpetuated it in the name of Science...

OK, now i know you're imitating Agonaces.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is another word for change. Life has changed and continues to change, this much is obvious, you can see it all around you.

Something does not, however, need to be self-evident or intuitive for it to be true. That things were made of atoms was not always obvious.

Suggesting that something is made of atoms is not self evident nor intuitive. So you make no point there. It's provable in every instance. That's what makes it a fact.

You're thinking of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

So you buy into the idea that all life evolved from one common form of life that did not evolve from anything else that was lifeless? I accept your assumption as evidence that intelligence is gone from society and ancient man was smarter that we are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That no one has been able to unambiguously dispute it certainly goes a long way to show that evolutionary theory is wrong.

I suspect that you are, in fact, a extremely intelligent English Sheepdog named "Bosko." That you are unable to unambiguously dispute this goes a long way to show that you are.

Now, can you see the problem with shifting the burden of proof, or must we throw you another bone?

Good boy.

 

[SkyWriting]

I doubt there's even any that ambiguously points to it

A false claim is easy to dispute.
All indicators show man had high intelligence from the beginning of time.

 

[SkyWriting]

Both these factors will bias the results heavily, if you compare the quality of the average writings of today with the average writings of the past.
Peter

Ancient languages are both more sophisticated and difficult than languages currently used. No matter who used them, on average.

 

[LightHorseman]

That no one has been able to unambiguously dispute it certainly goes a long way to show that evolutionary theory is wrong. When a concept, such as evolutionary theory, proposes to be the foundation of life as we know it, it shouldn't have to be proven.

It should be as obvious and picking up a piece of rock and stating that "This is made of atoms" then having the ability to check and see that it is. (There is a Scanning Electron Microscope here in town that may be suitable for the task.)

Yet proof for Evolutionary Theory is NOT pervasive. It's darn hard to find. Chemicals just don't want to form life at all. And the old fable about the "narrow band" of life on our planet called "The life zone" was intended to show how hard it is to find life.

Of course, that Myth and the propagandists that perpetuated it in the name of Science were exposed as liars.....I mean..Science corrected itself and admitted that life could be found miles underground in undisturbed isolation, deep at the bottom of the sea, and miles high in the upper atmosphere.

Similarly.....why can't we find evidence of the evolution of intelligence?

We can't even find evolution in single celled organisms claimed to be 2 billion years old. You wonder how something could have been made so perfect, right from the start.

"The Cave Man" with shaggy hair who grunted and hit things with sticks is a Myth. People lived in caves to get out of the rain. Maybe they were coming back from the library or the barber shop.

1. "Rocks are made of atoms" is hardly "obvious".

2. If being "obvious" makes something more likely to be true than something that explains the same phenomena in more less common sence ways, I take it you are a heliocentrist, and believe in Newtonian gravity over Einsteinian relativity?

 

[LightHorseman]

Ancient languages are both more sophisticated and difficult than languages currently used. No matter who used them, on average.

[citation needed]

 

[plindboe]

A false claim is easy to dispute.

Plato had three nipples. Show me wrong.

Ancient languages are both more sophisticated and difficult than languages currently used. No matter who used them, on average.

This unsupported claim doesn't address my point.

Peter

 

[Nostromo]

Suggesting that something is made of atoms is not self evident nor intuitive. So you make no point there.

Mmm... I thought that was your point. Maybe I missed something, because now I'm not really sure what you're saying.

So you buy into the idea that all life evolved from one common form of life that did not evolve from anything else that was lifeless?

The Theory of Evolution is concerned with change in life, but not where that life came from initially. Abiogenesis is concerned with life from non-life.

Evolution has much stronger evidence in support of it than Abiogenesis, but yes, I do think abiogenesis is a possibility and a more reasonable alternative than religion X's supernatural creation tale.

I accept your assumption as evidence that intelligence is gone from society and ancient man was smarter that we are.

You haven't presented any evidence of ancient man's level of intelligence yet, so a comparison is impossible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

A false claim is easy to dispute.
All indicators show man had high intelligence from the beginning of time.

What indicators would those be, Bosko?

 

[SkyWriting]

1. "Rocks are made of atoms" is hardly "obvious".

2. If being "obvious" makes something more likely to be true than something that explains the same phenomena in more less common sence ways, I take it you are a heliocentrist, and believe in Newtonian gravity over Einsteinian relativity?

No it's not obvious. But it's true in every case.
And everyone has the ability to test the idea in
many different ways and they will always find it to be true.
Therefore it is a fact.

Not maybe, not under some conditions, not if you look at it from the right angle, not it's true but we really don't know how it works, but in every case, it will be found to be true. That's what makes it scientific and a fact.

That all life has a common ancestor is false.
That intelligence evolved from nothing is false.

 

[sandwiches]

No it's not obvious. But it's true in every case.
And everyone has the ability to test the idea in
many different ways and they will always find it to be true.
Therefore it is a fact.

Not maybe, not under some conditions, not if you look at it from the right angle, not it's true but we really don't know how it works, but in every case, it will be found to be true. That's what makes it scientific and a fact.

That all life has a common ancestor is false.
That intelligence evolved from nothing is false.

So, what is this unequivocal, objectively and independently verifiable evidence of an intelligence having guided evolution?