by zagor 24 Replies latest social current
a hypothesis with predictive value is that they had intelligence and communication.
A hypothesis is not the same thing as established fact. And what proof do they have that any of the bipeds you refer to ever uttered a word?
FHN,
i wasn't trying to sneak in the word "hypothesis". i know what it means.
And what proof do they have that any of the bipeds you refer to ever uttered a word?
again, it's a hypothesis that makes more sense in the positive than in the negative.
we are bipedal apes, and we communicate verbally. we didn't just start communicating verbally out of the blue 6000 years ago, while our cousins were bluthering idiots. it was a gradual process that, based on similarities to other hominids now extinct, we most likely shared in degrees with genetic cousins.
all of the bipedal apes i mentioned are closer relatives to us than chimps and apes. therefore, if you look at verbal and mental ability on a continuum from chimps to us, with our hominid ancestors in between, it is a valuable hypothesis that they had some form of verbal cominication, even if it was quite rudimentary compared to us (to favour parsimony). of course, perhaps it was not as rudimentary as parsimony would have it. at any rate, the hypothesis that they used language is more likely to be true than otherwise, especially with regards h.erectus and h.neanderthalis. this hypothesis is not "lonely", considering the amount of related data, which you have not responded to. (of course, much more unparsimonious, is the completely lonely hypothesis that god appeared out of the sky and gave us language via tricked out magic)
a note from a wiki book on the subject:
TSH. ergaster/erectus
[edit]Brain capacity
Their average cranial capacity was just a little short of the modern human minimum, and some individual erectus remains fall within the human modern range. It is difficult to be certain what this fact means in terms of intelligence. [edit]
Brain asymmetry
Paleoanthropologist Ralph Holloway has looked at the structure of H. erectus brains. He made endocasts of the inside surfaces of fossil crania, because the inside of the skull reflects some of the features of the brain it once held.
One intriguing find is that the brains of H. erectus were asymmetrical: the right and left halves of the brain did not have the same shape. This is found to a greater extent in modern humans, because the halves of our brains perform different functions. Language and the ability to use symbols, for example, are functions of our left hemispheres, while spatial reasoning (like the hand-eye coordination needed to make complex tools) is performed by the right hemisphere. This hints that H. erectus also had hemisphere specialization, perhaps even including the ability to communicate through a symbolic language. [edit]
Vocal apparatus
Further evidence of language use by H. erectus is suggested by the reconstruction of the vocal apparatus based on the anatomy of the cranial base. Even though the vocal apparatus is made up of soft parts, those parts are connected to bone; so the shape of the bone is correlated with the shape of the larynx, pharynx and other features. H. erectus had vocal tracts more like those of modern humans, positioned lower in the throat and allowing for a greater range and speed of sound production. Thus, erectus could have produced vocal communication that involved many sounds with precise differences.
Whether or not they did so is another question. But given their ability to manufacture fairly complex tools and to survive in different and changing environmental circumstances, H. ergaster/erectus certainly could have had complex things to "talk about". Therefore it is not out of question that erectus had a communication system that was itself complex, even though some scholars are against this idea.
FHN,i wasn't trying to sneak in the word "hypothesis". i know what it means.
Tet, that was for Chrissy, who thanked you for posting "the facts." And I am clarifying that hypothesis is not the same as factual evidence. I respect that you sincerely believe evolution. I've told you before that I was raised by parents who believed it. My father, who is still alive, is an oceanographer and scientist. I fell for Evolution hook, line and sinker, as a child growing up and as a teen. One of the good things that came from my bad jw experience is that I realized that you can't just accept everything that people, even scientists, present as "fact." Science is full of fact. Science is also full of hypothesis and a lot of speculation and guesswork.
So they found those bones, and unless they are fabrications like the infamous Piltdown skull, it's a fact that they exist. And some facts can be determined from the bones. Then there is a lot of speculation over the bones, a lot of hypothetical thinking. I respect facts about the bones. I will remain skeptical about scientists' speculations, presented and worded to seem factual, until they are proven as fact.
Another thing: Men can design childrens' toys that "talk". Their mouths move and words come out. But you believe that some higher, more intelligent being than man, can't design a voice box, tongue and lips and a brain intelligent enough to learn and to speak words, form sentences, etc?
You are an intelligent person, Tet. What makes you absolutely certain that there aren't higher life forms than you or me, that exist in some other dimension or realm? You gave in to what you called magical thinking when you were a JW. Now it seems you are swinging to the other extreme to avoid being disappointed by "magical thinking" once again. You don't want to be let down. You dismiss any idea of intelligent designer(s). I suspect, that like most atheists or agnostics, a point will come in your life when you will feel more comfortable with the idea that maybe there is something higher than humankind, higher than you.
What makes you absolutely certain that there aren't higher life forms than you or me, that exist in some other dimension or realm?
because there's no reason to believe it? no evidence? anything's possible, but to firmly believe something there must be some reason, not only some idea. don't want to talk for other people, but i think noone's "absolutely certain" bout anything actually.
i for one don't believe in "higher life forms", as i've never experienced such a thing. if someone told me i'd life in the matrix, there's no way to deny that either, but i just have no reason to believe that.
Google, I can respect that you have no have no reason to believe there could be something higher than humankind. I say something, because I am not sure about anything in an absolute sense either. I have seen evidence of life other than material. I've posted about it before. Exactly what it was, I don't know. It was intelligent and I was one of five people who witnessed the phenomena at the same time. I don't expect you to believe it. You weren't there.
My problem with people who tout evolution as indisputable fact, is that they present it like there are vast amounts of factual evidence to support the different theories. They speak of it as if it is all written in stone or painted on cave walls, man's evolution from apes. They speak of it as though there are avalanches of changing fossil stages in the records. And then some scientists will try to steer around the lack of changing fossils by saying they aren't necessary after all. Of course there is evidence, as far back as man that shows his superior intelligence. Man has accomplished intelligent feats ever since he/she appeared in history.
Most of us today have no clue how to survive in this world if suddenly all our technology is taken from us. There is so much that our ancestors did that historians and scientists still cannot figure out. They could survive very well without modern technology.I always assumed there were records of slaves heaving giant stones to the tops of pyramids. I'm finding out now that it's only theory that they did so. It isn't understood how the stones were hoisted and so there is a lot guessing about how it happened. When people speak of evolution, I respect them more if they say that scientists think or speculate that such and such happened. When they speak of it as indisputable fact, with overwhelming amounts of evidence to support their speculations, I do not respect that.
Were there hobbit like creatures who walked more upright than chimps? I'm not going to dispute that there were. Their existence still does not prove evolution.
I'm not a Christian. That doesn't make me swing to the other extreme though: no god(s), no creator, we all evolved from apes.
