[_ Old Earth _] Homologous organs and Analogous organs

[Barbarian]

The origin of language would have to come from children teaching children, which seems unreasonable to me

Turns out, that's how it works.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040920071439.htm

and...

The formation of Hawaiian Creole by children:
http://www.ohio.edu/people/thompsoc/Creole.html

 

[Vaccine]

The first article was not about the origin of language, rather how children created a new sign language. The children were not totally isolated from language, they were around other signing children and it didn't mention what influence there was from parents. Also, the capacity for children to communicate is built in.
"So what they're doing looks very language-like and does not look gesture-like, even though they're taking gestures to make the language. And that tells me there's something really core about that drive," Senghas said.
The article went on to says "Thus, parents may not need to worry too much about teaching children to talk by a certain age or using special tools like flashcards or vocabulary drills, she said. All they need is natural social interaction"
Whoever said that doesn't know much about the neuralplasticity of children or speech therapy.

The second article actually dealt with the origin of language, but said this: "Many more studies of language acquisition will have to be carried out before the structure of creole languages can be firmly accepted as the basis of first-language acquisition."
Language is a gift from God not a byproduct of evolution. What separates us from other animals is an alphabet, Words, and sentences (syntax plus grammar).
Communication and language are different things.
Similarity: Both are composed of SIGNS (forms with meaning)
Six Key Differences:
1. Animal: The signs of animal systems are inborn.
Human: The capacity to be creative with signs is inborn,
but the signs (words) themselves are acquired culturally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Animal: Communication is set responses to stimuli (indexes).
Human: Not limited to use as an index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Animal: Each sign has one and only one function; each meaning can be expressed only in one way
Human: Signs often have multiple functions; one meaning can be expresses in many ways
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Animal: Not naturally used in novel way
Human: Creative, can be adapted to new situations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Animal: Closed inventory of signs; only a set number of different messages can be sent
Human: Open ended. Grammar (rules of syntax) allows a virtually unlimited number of messages to be constructed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Animal: Change extremely slowly, with the speed of genetic evolution.
Human: Change rapidly as a cultural phenomenon."
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test1materials/Animalchart.htm

More differences between forms of communication and human language:
Design features of Language:
Charles Hockett, linguist, believed that there existed 16 features of human language that distinguished human communication from that of animals. Charles Hockett also articulated that even the most basic human languages contained all 16 features. While the list initially contained 13 features, in a subsequent article Hockett expanded his list with three more features, for a total of sixteen:
Vocal-Auditory Channel – Spoken language is produced in the vocal tract and transmitted/heard as sound, whereas sign language is produced with the hands and transmitted by light.
Broadcast transmission and directional reception – The audible sound of language is heard in all directions but listeners will interpret it as coming from one specific direction.
Rapid fading – The sound made by speech diminishes quickly after being released.
Interchangeability – The speaker has the ability to receive and also send the same message.
Total feedback – Individuals are able to hear and internalize a message they have sent.
Semanticity – Speech sounds can be linked to specific meanings.
Arbitrariness – There is no direct connection between the signal and its meaning.
Discreteness – Each unit of communication can be separated and unmistakable.
Specialization – Speech is produced for communication, not chiefly for some other function, such as echolocation.
Displacement – The ability to talk about things that are not physically present.
Productivity – The ability to create new messages by combining already-existing signs.
Traditional transmission – The learning of language occurs in social groups.
Duality of patterning – Meaningful signs (words) are made of—and distinguished from one another by—meaningless parts (sounds, letters). A finite number of meaningless parts are combined to make a potentially infinite number of meaningful utterances.[1]
Prevarication – The ability to make false statements (to lie). Involves the purposeful manipulation of a given shared communication system in order to fool other members of the communicating group.
Reflexiveness – Language can be used to refer to (i.e., describe) itself.
Learnability – Speakers of one language can learn to speak another.
It was Hockett's belief that the first nine features were characteristics of communication held by all primates. Hockett determined that the last seven features are what distinguishes human language from all others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_features_of_language

 

[Barbarian]

The first article was not about the origin of language, rather how children created a new sign language.

Turns out, signing uses the same brain functions as any other languages.

The children were not totally isolated from language, they were around other signing children and it didn't mention what influence there was from parents.

Not a very good excuse. They had no concept of a signing language, because where wasn't any in their country. As the article notes, most deaf people didn't go out much, and there was no grouping of deaf people until recently. But as you see, it wasn't older people who invent languages. It's children.

Also, the capacity for children to communicate is built in.

More so in humans than in apes, which use language, but to a lesser degree. Which is the point.

The second article actually dealt with the origin of language, but said this: "Many more studies of language acquisition will have to be carried out before the structure of creole languages can be firmly accepted as the basis of first-language acquisition."

Nevertheless, it is a new language, and again, children invented it, not adults.

Language is a gift from God not a byproduct of evolution.

Two ways of saying the same thing.

What separates us from other animals is an alphabet,

So the Chinese aren't human? How so?

Words, and sentences (syntax plus grammar).

Apes can do that much.

1. Animal: The signs of animal systems are inborn.

Gorillas are born with the ability to converse in American sign language? Do you have any evidence for that?

Human: The capacity to be creative with signs is inborn,

Apes have been observed to make new words out of old ones.

2. Animal: Communication is set responses to stimuli (indexes).
Human: Not limited to use as an index.

Show us that Washoe or Koko were merely using "set responses."

3. Animal: Each sign has one and only one function; each meaning can be expressed only in one way
Human: Signs often have multiple functions; one meaning can be expresses in many ways

Show us that the apes who are proficient in sign language can only use words with one function.

4. Animal: Not naturally used in novel way
Human: Creative, can be adapted to new situations

Chimps can do that. The most notable failure of language in apes is the apparent inability to ask complex questions. Far as I know, no ape has ever done that. So they are certainly less capable than us, but much more capable of language than any other organism aside from humans.

6. Animal: Change extremely slowly, with the speed of genetic evolution.
Human: Change rapidly as a cultural phenomenon."
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test1materials/Animalchart.htm

We are able to change culture much more rapidly than apes. But...
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/MonkeyCulturalBehavior.html

It's true, though, that human positioning of the larynx makes us uniquely able to use sounds for language, rather than gestures. But that just points up the transitional nature of language in primates.

 

[Sparkey]

Can you do it [give us what you consider to be the best evidence for creationism] without mentioning evolutionary theory? If not, isn't that a tip-off in itself?

Who is this "us" you are talking about, please? I had no idea you were a spokesman for others here. Where did that come from, please?

Also, and in reply to your observation(s), can you give us an example of a poisonous well that has no water? We can't announce all things good simply because some parts are true and/or are needed to carry other stuff.

Consider the challenge from both sides. What if one person could give "us" the best evidence for creation and what if that same person could do so without mention of evolution? Then consider the alternative and answer the question now to you, Barbarian, "What does this little test prove?"

Here's the next consideration, "What if another person could not give "us" the best evidence for creation or if they did they mentioned something similar to evolution while communicating their idea?"

I don't understand this "conundrum" that you present as any kind of fulcrum that we may hang things on to judge them. That scale simply does not work for your implied purpose. But I could be wrong. Convince me, if you'd like.

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

Who is this "us" you are talking about, please?

People taking part in this forum?

I had no idea you were a spokesman for others here.

I had no idea anyone said I was.

Where did that come from, please?

Seems entirely random to me.

Also, and in reply to your observation(s), can you give us an example of a poisonous well that has no water?

Sure. Desert wells, when the water table drops, eventually dry up, often leaving deposits of poisonous salts.

We can't announce all things good simply because some parts are true and/or are needed to carry other stuff.

Consider the challenge from both sides. What if one person could give "us" the best evidence for creation and what if that same person could do so without mention of evolution? Then consider the alternative and answer the question now to you, Barbarian, "What does this little test prove?"

It would, if true, establish some reasons to believe in creationism, rather than reasons to doubt science.

Here's the next consideration, "What if another person could not give "us" the best evidence for creation or if they did they mentioned something similar to evolution while communicating their idea?"

If it were only an attempt to disparage the theory, then it would not be any support for creationism.

I don't understand this "conundrum" that you present as any kind of fulcrum that we may hang things on to judge them.

It is merely a way to see if there is evidence for creationism.

That scale simply does not work for your implied purpose. But I could be wrong. Convince me, if you'd like.

It seems self-evident to me.

 

[Sparkey]

That proves it then.

 

[Barbarian]

The idea that rejecting evolution proves creationism depends on the assumption of a dichotomy that does not exist. Strip away that assumption, and the idea becomes absurd.

 

[Sparkey]

Similar could be said for the counterargument that attempts to prove evolution by rejecting God. It goes something like this, "Well, if Genesis is a allegory it follows that the Holy Spirit must have been describing Evolution to a primitive people in the only way they could understand."

My thought is that those who advance such things have lost more than they realize. The Word of Truth address the "why" behind the willing belief of a lie: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.…"

Part of the understanding of that comes with knowing what was meant by "myth" at that time. The Greeks were famous for their mythos where they invented stories (allegories) to explain an aspect of larger truth. They created fictional accounts of 'gods' and their actions in order to ponder the mysteries and get at the 'truth'.

Peter flatly denies that this [mythos or 'cunningly devised stories or fables'] is what happened or was described in the Word of Truth for Christians:

Context
We were Eyewitnesses
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "​

Cross Reference
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.​

 

[Barbarian]

Similar could be said for the counterargument that attempts to prove evolution by rejecting God. It goes something like this, "Well, if Genesis is a allegory it follows that the Holy Spirit must have been describing Evolution to a primitive people in the only way they could understand."

Genesis is, of course, allegorical. You don't have mornings and evenings with no Sun in existence. But I don't see evolution in Genesis any more than I see mitosis. Not everything true is in Scripture.

My thought is that those who advance such things have lost more than they realize. The Word of Truth address the "why" behind the willing belief of a lie: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.…"

Hence, YE, invented in the early 1900s.

Part of the understanding of that comes with knowing what was meant by "myth" at that time. The Greeks were famous for their mythos where they invented stories (allegories) to explain an aspect of larger truth. They created fictional accounts of 'gods' and their actions in order to ponder the mysteries and get at the 'truth'.

Not all myths are false, although they can be. A myth can be a poetic retelling of a deep truth.

Peter flatly denies that this [mythos or 'cunningly devised stories or fables'] is what happened or was described in the Word of Truth for Christians:
Context
We were Eyewitnesses
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "

Peter was talking about the historical truth of the NT; he clearly applies it to that. But not to Genesis. I think I know why.

 

[Sparkey]

A skeptic may say, "Genesis is, of course, allegorical. You don't have mornings and evenings with no Sun in existence."
My reply is simple: You would not expect it, right? But with God all things, even inexplicable things, are possible. I have no reason, none whatsoever, to not trust Him utterly. That will never happen.

Although I do not enjoy heated debate in regard to this issue, the mention of "history" and New Testament seems to form a disconnect in me where we are now allowed to think that one section of the Word of Truth, the one that describes our New Covenant may render the other, which describes the first, false. It does not.

Jesus mentioned Adam as if he was a real person because Adam is a real person. The account of the creation of man is not just a story. It is a historical even relayed by the Holy Spirit who is utterly apart from all sin and remains apart from even the appearance of evil. Adam happened. That's what we're talking about.

What does it matter when one comes to day, "There was no flood"? What does it matter when one comes and declares that the story of the creation of man, spoken by God, recorded for our benefit, for our reproof and for our use as correction, is just a myth? It matters.

Question: How many people were on the arc?
Answer per Genesis:
Genesis 7:13

“In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.”​

Answer per the NT (Peter affirms the Genesis "story" as historical truth):
Peter 3:20-22

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
​

The flood is analogous. It happened as a shadow. Shadows are real. There is no doubt about their actual existence. The flood does represent full immersion, judgment, and salvation. It is historical fact. This is a foundation. The base upon which our faith, like the faith of Abraham who left his own to seek a city whose builder and maker is God, is also a Foundation. It is one of the crucial and critical foundation doctrines and teachings. This is not debatable. It is part of the elementary teachings of Christ and is used to lay a foundation for repentance for dead works, for instruction, for reproof - an understanding of reality that links directly to baptism.

There is need for knowledge of Christ that surpasses the need (so-called) for knowledge apart from Christ.

It was that self-same Peter who said, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales..." who also affirms the fact of the flood and the other workings of His Father in heaven. He saw greater things than the flood happen in his life time and actually, personally, walked above water. How great is that evidence, huh? Eyewitness and also purified by the Holy Spirit, sealed in his Heart by divine action. Called and sent, lifted to Apostle, an example of faith and trust that one will do well to emulate.

 

[Barbarian]

A skeptic may say, "Genesis is, of course, allegorical. You don't have mornings and evenings with no Sun in existence."
My reply is simple: You would not expect it, right? But with God all things, even inexplicable things, are possible. I have no reason, none whatsoever, to not trust Him utterly. That will never happen.

The usual practice of Christians is to accept things as they are written, unless there is a reason to see otherwise. In this case, the fact that a logical absurdity is required to make Genesis into a literal history would make most Christians accept the latter.

Although I do not enjoy heated debate in regard to this issue, the mention of "history" and New Testament seems to form a disconnect in me where we are now allowed to think that one section of the Word of Truth, the one that describes our New Covenant may render the other, which describes the first, false. It does not.

There may be allegory in the NT, and there certainly is history in the OT. It doesn't mean that it is always historical.

Jesus mentioned Adam as if he was a real person because Adam is a real person.

There is nothing in science to deny a common ancestor.

The account of the creation of man is not just a story. It is a historical even relayed by the Holy Spirit who is utterly apart from all sin and remains apart from even the appearance of evil. Adam happened. That's what we're talking about.

Real events can be discribed in allegorical terms, after all.

What does it matter when one comes to day, "There was no flood"?

It doesn't matter at all whether there was a real flood, although evidence certainly would be consistent with a real flood, albeit a very large regional one, not worldwide.

What does it matter when one comes and declares that the story of the creation of man, spoken by God, recorded for our benefit, for our reproof and for our use as correction, is just a myth? It matters.

If God chooses to tell us things in parables, I can only conclude that it's the best way to do it.

Question: How many people were on the arc?

Answer: None of them. They were in the ark.

Answer per Genesis:
Genesis 7:13

“In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.”

Assuming no allegory. But as you know, the evidence for a huge flood in the Middle East, at about the right time, is very convincing.

Answer per the NT (Peter affirms the Genesis "story" as historical truth):
Peter 3:20-22
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

I'm unconvinced that a NT person, repeating an OT allegory, can transform it into literal history, unless he actually says it is.

The flood is analogous. It happened as a shadow. Shadows are real. There is no doubt about their actual existence. The flood does represent full immersion, judgment, and salvation. It is historical fact. This is a foundation. The base upon which our faith, like the faith of Abraham who left his own to seek a city whose builder and maker is God, is also a Foundation. It is one of the crucial and critical foundation doctrines and teachings. This is not debatable. It is part of the elementary teachings of Christ and is used to lay a foundation for repentance for dead works, for instruction, for reproof - an understanding of reality that links directly to baptism.

Whether it was historically true, or an allegory matters not at all. Nor does it matter if the follower of Yahweh was not Abraham, but someone else who had the same name.

There is need for knowledge of Christ that surpasses the need (so-called) for knowledge apart from Christ.

Be still, and listen. He's there, and there isn't a quiz about floods:
“We need to find God, and he cannot be found in noise and restlessness. God is the friend of silence. See how nature - trees, flowers, grass- grows in silence; see the stars, the moon and the sun, how they move in silence... We need silence to be able to touch souls.”
Mother Theresa

It was that self-same Peter who said, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales..."

Like the elaborate stories and "mighta, couldda" assumptions that formed YE creationism in the early years of the 20th century.

who also affirms the fact of the flood and the other workings of His Father in heaven.

As I said, since he didn't identify it as history, we're back to square one. And the evidence trumps anyone's interpretation.

He saw greater things than the flood happen in his life time and actually, personally, walked above water. How great is that evidence, huh?

The fact that God does miracles doesn't mean He does everything by miracles. He doesn't have to do that at all. When He does a miracle, it's to teach us something, not because He can't do it with nature.

 

[Sparkey]

You've stated that you remain unconvinced. Okay. That pretty much ends it.

"I'm unconvinced that a NT person, repeating an OT allegory, can transform it into literal history, unless he actually says it is."​

By the same token, I would insist that nobody may turn the literal truth into an allegory either. We may exist side by side, examine the same evidence and conclude differently. The trick is to continue to love each other and let that grow all the while and I know you already know this and have no need for me to teach you in that.

~Sparrow

"Let there be light, and there was Light."
. o O (That's some powerful word we are talking about in our little words here)​

 

[Barbarian]

Yep. We're at an impasse on that issue. But it's not something that divides the Body of Christ. There has never been a unity of opinion on that subject among His people, and likely never will be. Doesn't matter.

It matters to science, but fortunately, only geologists and physicists have to concern themselves about it. And most of those who are believers, don't see a conflict.