Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The short answer: We needed to be able to gossip.
The long answer: Early hominids leaving the forest found themselves in a unique situation in which cooperation among themselves in novel ways gave them a special evolutionary advantage. To do this they needed to communicate, and so they evolved complex facial expressions and voice sounds. As time went on, and communications needed to be more complex, combinations of sounds were the most effective means of doing so.
Why don't all the other animals talk? Most animals do have some basic means of communicating by voice, but nothing nearly as complex as what humans do. Hominids did this at great price. Early on they gave up much of their sense of smell so they could concentrate more brainpower to the difficult task of understanding each other. That led to bigger and bigger brains, but hominids were limited by the size of the head that could pass through the birth canal. So they evolved the novel solution that the brain continued to grow after birth. That's cool, but as a result, babies are very helpless for several years after birth. That required a lot of resources to feed and care for helpless babies, and it required mothers to get commitment from others in the species. Hominids were able to do that. All that patience in caring for babies led to the smartest creatures on earth, creatures that were able to talk and understand each other, creatures that were able to work together to find new ways to get food and protect themselves, creatures that could develop deep relationships based on mutual trust.
Which brings me back to my original point. Hominids needed deep trusting relationships, and to do that they needed to know whom they could trust. There is no better method to find out who will stab you when your back is turned but to gossip. And so hominids spent long hours around the fire in the evenings, telling stories about who did what. And from that, they learned who they could trust, and developed deep relationships with those they selected, and that allowed them to build the communities necessary to grow helpless babies into adults with big brains.
So we learned to talk so we could gossip and commit to each other and grow babies into adults with big brains.
Oh good more assumptions. Many of those so called humans can't be shown to really be humans. And certainly not one of them are of any evidence of all things coming from a common ancestor.
That's a dishonest claim and you know it.None have posted any verifiable, scientific evidence. If you think they have , then you don't understand what scientific evidence is.
Another excuse. It can b e done in a short paragraph of 50 words or less.
What is really happening here is you would if you could but you can't.
A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless.
... and xianghua does waste time on ignorant concepts.That's fine - Pitabread was asking xianghua, not you.
You may be confusing us with creationists. Creationists frequently argue with (out of context) quotes of 50 words or less. Scientists argue with lengthy journal articles when dealing with complex issues.It can b e done in a short paragraph of 50 words or less.
What is really happening here is you would if you could but you can't.
So you can point to a physical vessel that we can examine?
Citation Please.
Citation Please! This all sounds like unsubstantiated claims...
What caused us to lose our prehensile tails? That seems like a very useful characteristic.
The short answer: We needed to be able to gossip.
The long answer: Early hominids leaving the forest found themselves in a unique situation in which cooperation among themselves in novel ways gave them a special evolutionary advantage. To do this they needed to communicate, and so they evolved complex facial expressions and voice sounds. As time went on, and communications needed to be more complex, combinations of sounds were the most effective means of doing so.
Why don't all the other animals talk? Most animals do have some basic means of communicating by voice, but nothing nearly as complex as what humans do. Hominids did this at great price. Early on they gave up much of their sense of smell so they could concentrate more brainpower to the difficult task of understanding each other. That led to bigger and bigger brains, but hominids were limited by the size of the head that could pass through the birth canal. So they evolved the novel solution that the brain continued to grow after birth. That's cool, but as a result, babies are very helpless for several years after birth. That required a lot of resources to feed and care for helpless babies, and it required mothers to get commitment from others in the species. Hominids were able to do that. All that patience in caring for babies led to the smartest creatures on earth, creatures that were able to talk and understand each other, creatures that were able to work together to find new ways to get food and protect themselves, creatures that could develop deep relationships based on mutual trust.
Which brings me back to my original point. Hominids needed deep trusting relationships, and to do that they needed to know whom they could trust. There is no better method to find out who will stab you when your back is turned but to gossip. And so hominids spent long hours around the fire in the evenings, telling stories about who did what. And from that, they learned who they could trust, and developed deep relationships with those they selected, and that allowed them to build the communities necessary to grow helpless babies into adults with big brains.
We know the Egyptian Civilisation built the Pyramids because of the Evidence! Their writing are on the walls talking about their Gods and their Leaders and their Civilisations.... We can examine The Pyramids 'til the cows come home and then some.Can you point to a specific physical vessel that created the pyramids? The pyramids are a big part of the evidence that those "vessels" the Egyptians existed. Not the other way around. You are asking me to present evidence for God. So I present to you with specificity observed in the make up of the laws of physics, the universe, and life, and you then ask for evidence of God. The specificity is the evidence.
Well, the thing is I know it doesn't exist without even a wink of looking because it's either invisible or pink. Just like a Married Bachelor doesn't exist, an invisible pink elephant doesn't exist because of the mutually exclusive descriptors that you use to describe it.You want a citation that something has never been observed coming from nothing? How about a citation that invisible pink elephants have never been observed? We draw the logical conclusion that invisible pink elephants do not exist because no human (sober) has ever reported encountering one.
Could a Multiverse be infinite? Could (as mentioned) this universe be infiniteLikewise we draw the conclusion that something infinite formed the universe because the universe is finite
Have you observed the beginning of something that contains time, like a Universe?and we have never observed something come from nothing.
Do you not understand how the universe contains the time we experience and not time containing the universe we experience? I know this must be hard to get, but Time and the 3 dimensions of space are all WITHIN This Universe! Not outside of it. If you were outside of this universe, there's a chance that there's no time and no space for you to exist in. We've already been able to demonstrate that even in space void of all matter, the universe still has intrinsic properties and fields we know as the very fabric of time & space, it still contains quantum fluctuations, etc. this very fabric of the universe is how particles like the Higgs-Boson interact to give mass and weight, etc. Without it, we simply wouldn't exist.Thus if ever nothing existed then nothing would still exist. Since something exists therefore something must have always existed. If it is not the universe (which we observe to be finite) then that means something else responsible for the formation of the universe must therefore have always existed.
Are you sure it isn't Life that's fine tuned to the exact parameters needed to live in this universe according to the laws of physics that exist here? After all, the universe and laws of physics came first...I cite the whole of human knowledge. The laws of physics are specifically fine tuned at exact parameters needed for life.
Or maybe life is specifically evolved to maximise our advantage in the arrangement of the universe, solar system, and our planet?The arrangement of the universe, solar system, and our planet is specifically set at exact parameters needed for life to exist.
lol! no it doesn't - or Citation for that claim too please...And the code found in the DNA of all life is so specific that it warps our most sophisticated software programs.
Snowflakes aren't observed coming from any intelligence, chemical reactions aren't observed coming from intelligence, Crystals aren't observed coming from any Intelligence, radioactive decay and nuclear reactions aren't observed coming from an intelligence, DNA isn't observed coming from intelligence, RNA isn't observed coming from Intelligence, etc.Specificity has only been observed coming from intelligence.
Except nobody has observed one even exists let alone is responsible for everything, including many things that can be explained naturally. Sorry to break it to you...Thus the infinite something that is responsible for the universe must also be highly intelligent in nature.
Not sure how any of this changes what I said?
(added)
According to the Base Units of the International System, the second is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." The thing to keep in mind here is this is what we as a people have agreed internationally to call a basic unit of time measurement. Even though such a basic unit might be the same for us anywhere in the universe it does not logically mean that if anyone else exists they would have decided to use this same standard of measure. Thus my "base line" comment still stands.
With the SI definition of the second a scientist could construct a clock anywhere in the universe that would keep seconds, minutes, hours, etc., just as well as a terrestrial clock, and he or she could use the clock to make measurements of physical phenomena just as well as another scientist in a terrestrial laboratory. So what is the point of your argument?such a basic unit might be the same for us anywhere in the universe
Prove that a system in life was so irreducibly complex that natural processes of evolution could not have evolved it.
And if you tell me animals are limited by the same limits as mechanical devices, I will disagree.
The simplest eyes in multicellular organisms consist of just 2 cells, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell. So, the minimum is 2 parts, and the formation of darker pigmented cells happens a lot via random mutation. Plus, the photoreceptor would react to light even without that pigmented cell, because the organisms that have these are semi-transparent; it just wouldn't react as strongly.
Two steps really aren't that hard to take.
So what? The parallel evolution of related biological strutures is well understood.ok. but since a tipical protein has about 2-3 domains its actually more like 4-5 different parts. agree?
no they arent real. its just an analogy. and a good one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?