I have no problem with evolutionary theory ,it describes how we see nature working today , and assumes this carries back down into the distant past , without much interference, but a few things niggle me. Lets take for example the evolution of speech. It has been said that evolution of speech must have taken a very long time and was very gradual. A little advance at a time. First a grunt ,then a cry until we have the oxford dictionary on English words. So obviously by the time people could talk fluidly like today, they were very different to non-talking creatures to such an extent they we didn’t know we they came from them. But how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence? 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 comprehension? Do current well known defects and damage to the brain result in only small differences in speech patterns? What numerous small changes to speech centres would be continually advantageous to human-like creatures but not so small that they will not make a difference and how many of these are divisible into thousands and thousands of years? If changes are small how are they an advantage ?And what prevents digression back to previous states? What types of environment could only direct these changes in the human line not others? What types of environments are needed to select small changes continually and causes extinction of other related species 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 statements 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. Looking back in time and looking into the micro world. The same has not been so true with looking back into earths evolutionary past. It is not so easy to measure this past as much of it no longer remains. We can only build a picture with a the few remains around today. 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?
I don't see what your point is in asking questions like these on a JW-related forum. Not that it's off-topic, because many posts are, but I'm not sure what kind of enlightment you expect from us on such specific problems. There many other resources on the Web that will answer your questions, if you're really interested in the topic and not just trying to test us.
"The earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing" - The Golden Age [SYN], Unseen Apostate Directorate of *SOMEWHERE*.
D Wilt. "I see evidense in speach evolution today by the fact live language keeps on expanding."
This is not quite the same thing. I'm talking about the speech centres of our Brains and how they would develope from basically non-existence to comples stuctures that we have today, which are capable of allowing such things as language to alter. The ability to speech is a very complex thing involving many parts of the brain. Often lesions to certain areas can have wild and peculiar effects. You dont just gradually lose words or understanding of them. Sometimes people can recognise a animal , but can not label it with a word , while ordinary speech may be fine .
JJ. The point is to show there are questions. If they can be answered then fair enought.
Rescently some of my posts have come down heavily on the side of current evolutionary ideas, I like to look at the other side too.
I think that is great to have the picture from many sides you can evauate better that way. It is very hard to be unbiased but worth the effort. Keep thinking free!
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
But how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?
True, but the concept of using a symbol to signify a thing or an idea does not relate to just speech. For example, the symbolic sound, “God”, obviously refers to a deity, but also the carved figurine of a deity does the same thing. Both are symbols. This is abstract thought in action.
Whilst it is difficult to prove if our ancestors spoke, were any ancient hominids capable of abstraction & symbolism or art? Yes. Finds include cave paintings and carvings of female images – even amongst Neanderthal artefacts. Now, whilst they are not our ancestors, it still serves the point that there is a way that traces of abstract thought can be left for posterity.
Religion n. An organisation designed to promote atheism.
You mean, “models.” No. But then you are expecting too much. For example, the Newtonian gravitational model was proved wrong by Einstein, but NASA still sent a rocket to the Moon using Newtonian “laws” of motion. In other words, Newton’s model was not water tight, but it gave us a damn good view of the universe that wasn’t far off “water tight” – even if such a concept were even valid.
Does scientific theory have to be water tight to be useful? Clearly, no.
Religion n. An organisation designed to promote atheism.
