[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Doulos Iesou]

And science is notorious for misusing science.. I have all the evidence i need right here..:yes

http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/index.html

tob

The Bible is not a scientific book, please do not force it to be such.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Greetings Doulos Iesou! It seems to me there are some assumptions there relevant to the discussion. I wonder if you are willing to at least entertain the idea those assumptions could be wrong? Or would a discussion be fruitless?

Hi Vaccine,

I would disagree with the charge of assumptions being at play as these are claims I am making are backed up with substantial evidence in the scientific community. The Homo heidelbergensis did in fact leave Europe and seemed to be the point at which Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis would eventually branch off. We have mapped the genome of the Homo neanderthalensis and discovered that they do not come from us, but rather are in effect "cousins." The outcome of different populations evolving under different conditions and it was the introduction of Homo sapiens in Europe that led to the extinction of the Homo neanderthalensis about 32,000 years ago. Exactly how this extinction happened we can only speculate on, but via the fossil record and genetic evidence we can speak quite confidently about the nature of the neanderthalensis and just how they came about.

After all that is an important evidence for evolution, at different times and in different places we observe in the fossil record various species going extinct and various species showing up on the scene. There is no better interpretation of the existing data than biological evolution.

I wonder if you are willing to at least entertain the idea those assumptions could be wrong? Or would a discussion be fruitless?

Of course I am open to being wrong, science has no room for the close minded, it is those who doubt their conclusions and continually test and search for more evidence that come up with the best theories (and please don't misunderstand the usage of the word theory when used by a scientist).

I am however unable to be convinced of things for which there is no support and every reason to believe in the contrary, but if you feel you have some pertinent evidence that is compelling enough to overthrow all of modern biology, then I would like to hear it.

Regardless of how long ago or evolution, this question is simply to anyone who sees Genesis as a parable, how did language originate?

Not sure why this would be the chief concern of yours, if I attempted to speak to the origin of language it would only be speculative though I can say that it was more recent and only occurred with Homo sapiens as we are the only hominid with a brain developed enough to have that capacity.

 

[felix]

I would disagree with the charge of assumptions being at play as these are claims I am making are backed up with substantial evidence in the scientific community. The Homo heidelbergensis did in fact leave Europe and seemed to be the point at which Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis would eventually branch off. We have mapped the genome of the Homo neanderthalensis and discovered that they do not come from us, but rather are in effect "cousins." The outcome of different populations evolving under different conditions and it was the introduction of Homo sapiens in Europe that led to the extinction of the Homo neanderthalensis about 32,000 years ago. Exactly how this extinction happened we can only speculate on, but via the fossil record and genetic evidence we can speak quite confidently about the nature of the neanderthalensis and just how they came about.

After all that is an important evidence for evolution, at different times and in different places we observe in the fossil record various species going extinct and various species showing up on the scene. There is no better interpretation of the existing data than biological evolution.

Sorry, there is no substantial evidence for anything. The there is only fallacy and deceit: 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA in Eurasians is wrong!. Personally processed 1 terrabyte of Neanderthal DNA and calculated admixture only to find there is no European DNA and their closest population is Pygmies and San. (Neanderthal DNA and Denisova DNA). I found several interesting things that are full of deceit, scientific racism and false evolutionary propaganda. Technically, so far, I haven't found any single "isolated" population based on their autosomal DNA and everyone ~50th cousins (Ref: Noise threshold on atDNA Matches). Since there is no isolated population, any calculations based on them is futile. We are all related to each other because of Pedigree Collapse. The only proof so far they have is presence of chimpanzees and just 3 chimpanzee teeth - nothing else for hold on to Africa. Neanderthal and Denisova DNA are actually against those theories because their admixture is African but found in Siberia. Have you ever wondered why there are so many fossils for human side from common ancestor while nothing on the chimpanzee for evolution to be true?

 

[Sparkey]

I've merged select posts from the FoS area to here for a more complete record of the conversation.
NOTE: They are merged according to system timestamp order.

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

Regardless of how long ago or evolution, this question is simply to anyone who sees Genesis as a parable, how did language originate?

Growth of the brain, and consequent enlargement of Warnicke's and Broca's areas. Apes already have a limited ability for language, so it's not surprising that humans developed greater language ability; our common ancestor likely already had some ability to communicate symbolically. Because vocalizations are difficult for apes, much of their symbolic communication is gestural.

Asymmetric Broca’s area in great apes
A region of the ape brain is uncannily similar to one linked with speech in humans.
Nature. 2001 November 29; 414(6863): 505.
Brodmann’s area 44 delineates part of Broca’s area within the inferior frontal gyrus of the human brain and is a critical region for speech production1,2, being larger in the left hemisphere than in the right1–4 — an asymmetry that has been correlated with language dominance2,3. Here we show that there is a similar asymmetry in this area, also with left-hemisphere dominance, in three great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus and Gorilla gorilla). Our findings suggest that the neuroanatomical substrates for left-hemisphere dominance in speech production were evident at least five million years ago and are not unique to hominid evolution.

To our knowledge, no one has assessed whether there is any consistent left–right anatomical asymmetry in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) of any non-human primate. This is surprising because it is known from cytoarchitectonic and electrical stimulation studies that many non-human primates, including the great apes5,6, possess a homologue of area 44. We have therefore investigated whether homologous neuro-anatomical asymmetries are present in area 44 in great apes.

From magnetic resonance images (MRI) obtained from 20 chimpanzees (P. troglodytes), 5 bonobos (P. paniscus) and 2 gorillas (G. gorilla; Fig. 1a), we found that area 44 in these species shows a pattern of morphological asymmetry that has left-hemisphere surface-area predominance similar to the homologous cortical area of humans (mean left, 127.7 mm2±8.1 s.e.; mean right, 104.2 mm2±6.1 s.e.; F(1,25) = 7.45, P=0.011; see supplementary information for details of the statistical analysis, and see Fig. 1b for individual asymmetry measures). In humans, this region is part of Broca’s area, a key anatomical substrate for speech functions, particularly in motor aspects of speech such as articulation and fluency2,7.

 

[Vaccine]

I would disagree with the charge of assumptions being at play as these are claims I am making are backed up with substantial evidence in the scientific community.

In order to understand better why I take the position assumptions are at play:

Our knowledge of Neanderthals is based on a limited number of remains and artifacts from which we must make inferences about their biology, behavior, and relationship to ourselves.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5802/1113.short

The charge is not at you directly, I realize there is substantial evidence backing up evolution and millions of years, but rather my charge is that evidence involves a substantial amount of assumptions and conclusions. We are not on a solid foundation when discussing evolution or dating and alternative conclusions do have some merit. I have no problem with the theory of evolution, that it can explain the origin of the species is where it runs into trouble.

Exactly how this extinction happened we can only speculate on, but via the fossil record and genetic evidence we can speak quite confidently about the nature of the neanderthalensis and just how they came about.

We need to find where this piece of the puzzle fits in:
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52020
Neanderthals are the closest hominid relatives of modern humans, yet the assumptions of their age and intelligence gives them a growth rate of 5x to 12x that of humans, whereas chimps are 2x that of humans. An alternative explanation would put Neanderthals at the advanced ages talked about in Genesis.

I am however unable to be convinced of things for which there is no support and every reason to believe in the contrary, but if you feel you have some pertinent evidence that is compelling enough to overthrow all of modern biology, then I would like to hear it.

That seems a fallacious appeal to authority, nobody is trying to overthrow biology. If anything, a strictly materialistic approach to science is what is being overthrown. Intelligent design theory offers some very compelling evidence, there are a few other threads about it in this forum if you are interested.

Not sure why this would be the chief concern of yours, if I attempted to speak to the origin of language it would only be speculative though I can say that it was more recent and only occurred with Homo sapiens as we are the only hominid with a brain developed enough to have that capacity.

I commend your commitment to truth, very refreshing to see such an honest answer. The reason this is a chief concern of mine is there is no evidence language is the inevitable result of brain size. Meaning, puberty is inevitable, communication is inevitable, language is not. There have been documented cases of feral children "who often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language."
Jill Bolte Taylor is a neurologist that lost language after a stroke, but regained it later. Her story offers insight to a world without language. Her world without language was completely stress free. She didn't think, she felt the world around her. She related to the world around her in a completely different way, without any contemplation. The way humans learn language actually transforms the synapses and organization of thoughts in our brains, and most importantly gives us the ability of contemplation. Explaining the origin of language in humans cannot be dismissed easily. Language is extraordinary, completely foreign to an evolutionary explanation, but fits with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Vaccine]

Regardless of how long ago or evolution, this question is simply to anyone who sees Genesis as a parable, how did language originate?

Growth of the brain, and consequent enlargement of Warnicke's and Broca's areas. Apes already have a limited ability for language, so it's not surprising that humans developed greater language ability; our common ancestor likely already had some ability to communicate symbolically. Because vocalizations are difficult for apes, much of their symbolic communication is gestural.

Asymmetric Broca’s area in great apes
A region of the ape brain is uncannily similar to one linked with speech in humans.
Nature. 2001 November 29; 414(6863): 505.
Brodmann’s area 44 delineates part of Broca’s area within the inferior frontal gyrus of the human brain and is a critical region for speech production1,2, being larger in the left hemisphere than in the right1–4 — an asymmetry that has been correlated with language dominance2,3. Here we show that there is a similar asymmetry in this area, also with left-hemisphere dominance, in three great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus and Gorilla gorilla). Our findings suggest that the neuroanatomical substrates for left-hemisphere dominance in speech production were evident at least five million years ago and are not unique to hominid evolution.

To our knowledge, no one has assessed whether there is any consistent left–right anatomical asymmetry in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) of any non-human primate. This is surprising because it is known from cytoarchitectonic and electrical stimulation studies that many non-human primates, including the great apes5,6, possess a homologue of area 44. We have therefore investigated whether homologous neuro-anatomical asymmetries are present in area 44 in great apes.

From magnetic resonance images (MRI) obtained from 20 chimpanzees (P. troglodytes), 5 bonobos (P. paniscus) and 2 gorillas (G. gorilla; Fig. 1a), we found that area 44 in these species shows a pattern of morphological asymmetry that has left-hemisphere surface-area predominance similar to the homologous cortical area of humans (mean left, 127.7 mm2±8.1 s.e.; mean right, 104.2 mm2±6.1 s.e.; F(1,25) = 7.45, P=0.011; see supplementary information for details of the statistical analysis, and see Fig. 1b for individual asymmetry measures). In humans, this region is part of Broca’s area, a key anatomical substrate for speech functions, particularly in motor aspects of speech such as articulation and fluency2,7.

Hello Barbarian! I don't question the development of speech, it's a form of communication. I am asking for an account of the origin of language. Speech and language are different. Speech is not necessarily dependent upon language (grunts, screams, etc). Language is not dependent upon speech (written, sign language).

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

When infants make the discovery everything has a name, they radically depart from any communication found in animals. There is a window of opportunity for infants to develop language and this is why feral children have an almost insurmountable time learning language. Apart from some outside source, people would not have developed language.

 

[Sparkey]

The question about language has a correlation to the subject of math and money itself. I've recently spent a quarter of my school year sitting while engaged in the IDS (Interdisciplinary) class called "Ethonomathmatics" taught by a professor of Anthro and Sociology. She instructed us to consider the things found by evidence common to currency, counting, calendars, time tracking, all the while citing from a related source book documenting African Fractals.

My conclusion? There's more to it than meets the eye. I'm available to share my class notes and private thoughts, should any be interested in interdisciplinary studies of this sort. Very difficult to explain and many experts have failed to come up with any answer that satisfies all those that study such things from such diverse angles.

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

It was quite a revelation to researchers when it was discovered that ape spontaneously name things. Koko, a signing gorilla named her pet cat "All Ball."

It happens that apes already have the neurological capacity for language. People with damage to Broca's or Warnicke's areas lose language abilities. So, the question is "how did primates gain an ability for language?" Seems to be a consequence of a larger brain.

 

[Sparkey]

Seems [to some] to be a consequence of a larger brain.

Agreed as edited here. There's just too much dispute amongst professionals of diverse as well as similar backgrounds to succinctly conclude such a thing. Maybe you have a persuasive poll of scientists that could persuade me? Although I am all about the persuasive power of polling of various persuasions, I'm not even certain that the view you speak of is representative of a majority let alone a consensus of opinion.

I like this video while thimking about brains and stuff:

and this one while contemplating language:

 

[turnorburn]

Doulos lesou said

The Bible is not a scientific book, please do not force it to be such.

Are you saying God doesn't know anything about science?

tob

 

[felix]

Thank you for the PDFs. Just a few questions for clarification. You note that the sun, etc. were created on Day 4 according to Gen. 1:16 so would you interpret day 4, 5, and 6 as 24 hour days? How do you justify Gen. 1:11 prior to Gen. 1:16? What verses in Genesis do you base your belief in evolution upon? Thanks............

A creation day is different from the timeline created by God on 4th day. The 4th day ends with an evening and morning just as the previous 3rd day. However, the 4th day creates a "new timeline" for signs, seasons, years and days for His creation. This is consistent with the view presented in Hebrews 4:4-5, 9-10 where we are in still in the 6th day of creation because we are yet to enter His rest on the 7th day.

I don't believe on Evolution at all. However, there are some observations presented as evidences for evolution which I had explained using Bible that they are not because of evolution, but several other Biblical facts like curse of God for vestigial organs for snakes and birth pain for females, and things were Bible is silent on carnivorous animals which God did not originally create - where I believe it is a result of fallen angels polluting God's creation. I had explained this better on the presentation. Bible is silent on several things but does leave some traces of truth.

 

[felix]

I'm sorry felix, but that simply is not true. Your findings are contradicted by the various dating techniques as I mentioned in my last post. Simply stating "it does not contradict" does not demonstrate anything if you do not contend with the scientific observations that do indeed confirm that these fossils predate 6,000 years ago.

These aren't assumptions rather there is widely documented evidence for them accepted by all Paleontologists. Carbon 14 Dating and other Radiometric Dating techniques are not speculative work, they have mathematical equations demonstrating the half life of that isotope and accurately measuring the rate of decay.

It's simply picking and choosing different scientific observations while ignoring those that contradict it to formulate a theory based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. I have pointed out to you in my response the scientific observations (namely that the various fossils of hominids predate 6,000 years ago) to show that they do not fit with your explanation.

I want you to exclude any scientific explanations but post only observations.

In my response to you I not only talked about the observations, but also HOW we are able to observe them.

Care to talk about my remarks about Carbon 14 Dating or Thermo-luminescence.

I think you didn't read my presentation fully/properly. Yes, there are fossils that predate 6000 years and yes, I did address them all.

 

[Vaccine]

The question about language has a correlation to the subject of math and money itself. I've recently spent a quarter of my school year sitting while engaged in the IDS (Interdisciplinary) class called "Ethonomathmatics" taught by a professor of Anthro and Sociology. She instructed us to consider the things found by evidence common to currency, counting, calendars, time tracking, all the while citing from a related source book documenting African Fractals.

My conclusion? There's more to it than meets the eye. I'm available to share my class notes and private thoughts, should any be interested in interdisciplinary studies of this sort. Very difficult to explain and many experts have failed to come up with any answer that satisfies all those that study such things from such diverse angles.

~Sparrow

So true, there is more than meets the eye. It amazes me how something can seem so ordinary, yet is fundamental to so many aspects of life. I didn't know there was a correlation with math and money. The info on African fractals sounds interesting. Fractals in general are interesting.

I wonder where this fits in:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1.

Can we safely infer the origin of language was from God, not man?

 

[Barbarian]

Ironically, the presentation makes a point that makes my point. The great difference in being human is the ability to step back, take a look at the other person, and empathize (in the sense of being able to infer a mental state in others). That is what allows us to deceive others. And that ability exists in the apes as well as in humans.

Apes will tip off other apes or even humans about things they know, when they perceive that the others don't know about it, and cooperation is rewarded. Apes also lie and deceive, something that would be impossible, if they did not have some sort of theory of mind. Monkeys, on the other hand, seem completely unable to do this.

And then there's that fact that we only see language ability in organisms with detectable Broca's and Warincke's areas in the brain. And damage to those areas cause deficits in language ability.

And it appears that language didn't pop up de novo. Evidence indicates that it came about in portions of the brain used for other purposes, but related to language:
A new study from the University of Rochester finds that there is no single advanced area of the human brain that gives it language capabilities above and beyond those of any other animal species.

Instead, humans rely on several regions of the brain, each designed to accomplish different primitive tasks, in order to make sense of a sentence. Depending on the type of grammar used in forming a given sentence, the brain will activate a certain set of regions to process it, like a carpenter digging through a toolbox to pick a group of tools to accomplish the various basic components that comprise a complex task.

"We're using and adapting the machinery we already have in our brains," said study coauthor Aaron Newman.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100429173005.htm

So the evidence is pretty clear. Language is very likely the result of the growth of the brain, in specific areas, using existing functions to a new purpose. And we can show it was a gradual process, since our closest relatives have a more limited set of language abilities, it is very likely that it existed in a modest form in our common ancestor. Darwin would be pleased.

 

[Vaccine]

So the evidence is pretty clear. Language is very likely the result of the growth of the brain, in specific areas, using existing functions to a new purpose.

Interesting ToG just started a thread about fact v interpretation. I see your interpretation has merit. I have a different interpretation.

 

[Sparkey]

Can we safely infer the origin of language was from God, not man?

Mankind's first representative walked and talked with God. Adam, from the day he was born, knew the fellowship and the kinship that he shared with his Father.
He understood authority and responsibility. Not everything was communicated in a day but the essentials were.
There were hidden things that God had done just waiting for his discovery and delight.

Was language the same at it is today? No in fact, because prior to the confusion that was introduced at the tower of Babel it was not the same. WE are downstream from that event where our languages were 'scrambled'. I don't know how communication worked prior to Babel but we might imagine that words worked in a way that was more conducive to the Vulcan Mind-meld, without the heavy emphasis on logic? Did language originate from the Father of all things good and pure? Yes, as did we.

Do animals have communication methods also? They certainly do. All manner of speculation may and does arise when these things are considered but in reality? The question, "who taught us to be considerate?" might only be answered correctly with our God in mind.

 

[Barbarian]

Interesting ToG just started a thread about fact v interpretation. I see your interpretation has merit. I have a different interpretation.

Sorry, I don't buy the postmodernist idea that reality is what we make of it. There is an objective reality, and as you see, the evidence shows that language is neither uniquely human, nor did it appear out of nowhere.

 

[Vaccine]

the evidence shows that language is neither uniquely human

The evidence shows certain features of the brain or behaviors are not unique. Language is unique to humans and the genetic code.

 

[Sparkey]

Just a little bit more about brain size: