Why no monkey stories?(evolution)

by sleepy 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Xander

  Doesn't matter if its english french or Boga woga.
  We all have the same structures in or brain to understand language.
  To interperate gramma and sounds.
  All humans have this same ability.

  As do all animals. A domestic puppy understands a bengalese (?sp?)
  tiger's 'Stay Away' communication just as well as other tigers do.

  The point is top show that these changes that can occour in the human brain are often large and have other side effects.

  But what I'm suggesting is that the ability to communicate is simply inherent in all beings. All living things MUST communicate ideas somehow. Generally, the level of information that can be transmitted changes as the brain of the species in question grows in complexity. Hence, chimps can be taught to communicate with people pretty good and hamsters can't.

  The point is that the presence of language is not evidence of divine intervention. (Almost) all animals have language - they do all have at least some method of communication. That our language is more complicated than animal languages is...interesting...but I'm not sure it is critical.

  I don't understand why they would 'create' a creator for the purpose of control. If I wanted to control someone, I would make them believe that I was the ultimate authority on everything.

  Problem is then, what happens when you die? People immediately start questioning your divinity, and your children then have to start all over. Or if someone does something to hurt you or your family, and you can't magically stop them. Same deal.

  If, however, you convince the population that there is an almighty and powerful diety who smites foes and will eternaly remember their transgressions...Well, then you only have to convince the population that you and your descendants (and appointed representatives) are the only ones who can even sometimes get 'god's' attention.

  See, that way you handle the mortality thing, you can still keep people in line when petitions to 'god' fail, etc. Like how the WTBTS works now, for example. If the GB claimed THEY were gods, no one would believe them. If they only claim they REPRESENT god, well, suddenly 6 million people believe them. Works nice, huh?

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  patio34

  so many good points and I'm at work so can't read them all carefully, but here is my two cents:

  Sleepy said

  If you can speek (sic) you can tell stories.

  the way i see it is this all depends on level of speech. A one-year-old can't tell stories, but can speak. If early man simply had the capabilities of one-syllable words and very few of them, he would not be able to tell stories much. However, the ones who could say more may well be the ones with the evolutionary advantage and therefore reproduce more. This would go far in propelling language further.

  The more speaking an individual could do or group of persons, the better they would be at planning a hunt and so would survive better than the non-speakers. you can imagine pointing and grunting not doing as well as more complicated plans for the hunt.

  

  WTBS: Quit peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
• 

  sleepy

  "The point is that the presence of language is not evidence of divine intervention."

  That wasn't what I was suggesting.
  I'm looking at here noe the point that has beenraised that speech must have developed slowly over a long period of time.Maybe it did, but is there evidence of this?

  Lets consider a few things.
  Can anyone show what the many thousands of stages of speech would be if it has developed very slowly over thousands and thousands of years?
  Can they show that many small alterations and defects to the speech centres in the brain only result in little changes in speaking ability and comprehention?
  Do current well known defects and damage to the brian result in only small differences in speech patterns?
  What numerous small changes to speech centres would be continually advantageous to humen like creatures but not soo small that they will not make a difference and how many of these are divisable into thousands and thousands of years?
  If changes are small what prevents degression back to previous states?
  What types of enviroment could only direct these changes in the human line not others?
  What types of enviroments are needed to select small changes continually and casues extiction of other related specises without these changes in their family line?

  In fact many of these question apply to all the brain functions we have.
  I'm not saying that any of this proves it didn't happen that way .But at the moment a lot of our statments about how evolution works and what has happened biologically in the past are conjecture based on neat models that are not fully proved to have worked uniformly through out the entire history of earth.

  Through out the last few hundred year scientist have gone through many models as regard the way atoms and the universe works.They have tested models and as evidence has become easier to find due to better technology they have had to revise their models to continually fit in.
  Often very small measurements were needed in order to show a current model to be flawed.
  Physicists have had the luxury of being able to test out many of there ideas and to view the universe with ever greater clarity.
  The same has not been so true with looking back into earths past.It is not so easy to measure the past as much of it no longer remains.
  How do we know that current models really work unless they can be fully tested?
  Should we be so confident that are current ideas are so correct?
  This does not mean that we should invoke some God or other as a cause but that we should continually question what we think we know and ask why and how do we know it?

  The way our understanding of history stands at the moment is basically that the entire realm of written human history is completely wrong.Everything that ancinet people believed or taught about our origins is false .Whether this is true or not I dont know and am just encouraging debate on the issue.
  How can we know there is no grain of truth in anything they say?
• 

  Xander

  How can we know there is no grain of truth in anything they say?

  Because, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, they don't AGREE on anything (well, very little, actually). Seriously. Compare Judeo-Christian creation tales w/ those of the Buddhists or Hindus, or ancient Egyptians or Celts and Druids or American Indians. They just don't agree.

  If one being WAS ultimately responsible for creating life at a single point in the past, why don't the creation tales agree?

  It's particularly interesting to note that the religious tales of 'civilized' conquering nations differ from those of the people they conquered in excluding animals from the equation (most tribal religions teach that there is a certain harmony between humans and animals, and most favor reincarnation). Coincedence?

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana