Evolution? How?

A creator creates.

Demonstrate, objectively and in academically valid, forensically sound manner (specifically and particularly without resort to circular reasoning/self-referential "validation" dependent upon the Abrahamic Mythopaeia and its attendent internal claim of authority) there to have been either Creator or Creation. Do not preach, do not parrot, do not proselytize; establish, severally and inclusively, that, how, and why your proposition be superior to any other.

Oh, no, here we go again with Bible quotations.

Well timber- just for the sake of argument-

How do you explain the development of human language to the extraordinary point which your post demonstrates it has reached when nothing like it has ever been found throughout the whole range of evolution despite some large number of millions of years of existence.

And to what evolutionary principle do you ascribe the 4 million years (maybe 2) of human existence manifesting no evidence of art earlier than about 20,000 years ago and showing very little evidence, of any development which could lead you to write that post before about 6,000 years ago.

Maybe it is the notion of divine beings which led to the capacity you demonstrate in your post and you might justly be accused of biting the hand that fed you. If science could come into existence without the notion of divine beings to start the process why in all the fantastic and unimagineable history of life forms did it not appear somewhere else?

Does not your ability to write that post give you pause for thought?

No other critter than humankind encountered and dealt with the ongoing environmental changes in quite the same way nor with quite the same genetic pool from which to draw and develop as were available to the critters which produced humankind.


First, paleolithic "art" dates at least twice as far back as the 20,000 years you allow, but that's essentially of little import, given comparison with the millions of years over which humankind evolved. Archaeologic evidence reveals "modern humans" appeared some 100,000 years ago, give or take, apparently in and around what now is known as The Rift Valley of Africa. Over the next several tens of thousands of years, tool use and eventual tool design and manufacture, the mastery, as opposed to mere knowledge and use of fire, and verbal language developed symbiotically and synergistically, drawing from and feeding all each the others. A few glacial expanse and withdrawal intervals - global warming and cooling events determined now to be cyclical, natural, and of major influence on the planet's biosphere, the latest and longest lasting warming period being that in which currently we find ourselves, and which permited late neolithic humans to turn more of their energy and attention to the matter of excersizing increasingly greater relative independence from and control over their purely natural environment. As plain and simple survival became less and less challenge, niceties and refinements arose through the opportunities afforded through humankind's ingenuity and capabilities. Around 10 to 12,000 years ago, purposeful agriculture and animal husbandry began to appear, setting humankind on the path from nomadic hunter-gatherer to settled urban dweller. As community size, complexity, and resources increased, with humankind's learning and passing on ever-improving methodologies, accounting, as it had to, arose, a consequence more or less of having increasingly more to keep track of and disburse. From simple count tallies on sticks and tablets, writing arose, not surprisingly essentially coincident with the emergence of what we now term civilization - the aphorism "History begins at Sumer" is pretty well based in fact. Over the past 50,000 years or so, humankind bootstrapped itself further than it had over the preceeding millions of years leading to that jumping-off point, over the past 10,000 years, humankind has accomplished for itself more than it had managed through the previous 100,000 years or so, over the past 5,000 years the race really began, and over the past 500 years or so humankind has brought itself from a primarilly and wholly dependently agrarian society to the reaches of interstellar space. What we are, where we are, is the product of what we have been able to do for ouselves, building one step at a time, one set of inter-related accomplishments or skills at a time, more or less, each new skillset permitting, calling forth, other new skills, and so on; its what we do.



No such thing, condition, or state of being ever has been determined to pertain, while significant and ever-mounting counter-evidence abounds.


Genetics, evolution, environment, and circumstances directed that what we are today be what we are today. Had things been different, had things gone differently, then perhaps, perhaps even likely, things would be different today. Things were not different, things did not go differently, and we are what we are today whether or not any undemonstrated, undemonstrable conceptual construct (read: "Metaphysics") be introduced into the equation.


Nah ... comes naturally

Now spendius proports to be an art expert? Having had taken the art history courses twice in university, the chief exploration is the evolution of art which actually does correspond nicely with the evolution of the human mind. It started with cave painting and then Keith Haring began to create his pop cartoon art in the subways of NYC, bringing everything looping back on itself. Painting techniques, such as the oil glaze painting, were slow to come. To me, it's astounding how long it did take to develop techniques and styles that lead to modern art. But, then some like to continue to wallow in the past and have wish dreams for a time machine to take them back to the Dark Ages (now the Early Middle Ages so that they don't sound so forbidding) where they suppose they would be much happier.

Gee-

I'm definitely improving the input from my protagonists.

But I know all that give or take some definitions such as what constitutes art and a few dates which,as timber said, are neither here nor there.

I asked why us out of that vast, effectively infinite, range of life forms and I get a "Because!" Why Western man? Why Christianity? Why not the Tierra-del-Fuegans that Darwin came across or the Indian tribes your forefathers came across. Is the Creation myth the key? Our Creation myth.

Pub spendi!

If you are going to presuppose there is a "vast, effectively infinite, range of life forms" the only way you can even begin to substantiate that as a viable pretext would be to assume a wide variety of extraterrestrial life forms. Terrestrial life in and of itself certainly cannot be argued to be an "effectively infinite, range of life forms".

Do you claim knowledge of extraterrestrial life? And what of machine intelligence / machine life, do you exempt it from your presuppositions? How do you correlate your "vast, effectively infinite, range of life forms" with the Fermi Paradox?

The what?

The Fermie Paradox!!"

I'm focussed on the Furry Paradox.

I could easy talk my way out of a Fermie Paradox whatever it is.

I do think that that the history of terrestial life forms is "effectively infinite". Not infinite. So mind boggling that it might as well be infinite.Like when your total assets of $2 are not nothing but they might as well be so considered.

Machine intelligence is a verbal construct of dithering knee-knockers or cynics who like nothing better than frightening the chattering classes.

The Furry Paradox can be addressed (undressed) by the Brazilian. OK sure talk your way out of the Fermi Paradox.

How do you intend to substantiate your "effectively infinite" claim with no basis for external reference? On what do you base your dismissive viewpoint as per machine intelligence / machine life?

Wrong, In 2005 , scientists had mapped and identified the gene responsible for speech as well as a controller gene in an insertion/deletion area of an exon. Using the "genetic clock" mechanism, it was calculated that speech was developed over 100000 yBp

Chum wrote-



Piece of cake Chum.I wouldn't dream of boring you with such triteness.It isn't even a paradox IMHAHO.



That any phenomenom completely beyond our comprension is effectivily infinite if not pedantically so. The $2 skinto is not actually skint but might as well be. Make it 2 cents if you like.

Further, it would be the height of hubris to argue with any degree of certainly that the human language is the only language to have reached this so-called "extraordinary point" given man's wholly nonexistent knowledge of extraterrestrial life, let alone man's present inability to understand much of the range of communications of earth's species.

fm wrote-



That seems pretty conclusive evidence I must say.

I hope it provides reassurance for those who have a need for such blind leaps of faith.

No blind leap of faith is necessary--but it is always hilarious to see you trot out, in your soley contrarian spew, the very faults of those whose position you quixotically support.

Do try to contribute to the debate Setanta old son.

That lot is meaningless.

You display a monumental conceit to describe your palaver as debate.

Before there was ever a physical world there was only consciousness. Pure consciousness is not dependant on anything physical. The physical world is evolved consciousness or de-evolved consciousness whatever way you want to perceive it. Consciousness creates matter and energy.

I am that I am...

Pure conscious is never created but just is. Like geometry was never created but all matter is made from geometry. The act of creating is making something physical from only a thought. Geometry would still exist even if there was no matter because it exists in consciousness. The tree falls in the forest alone in pure consciousness.

There are also altered states of consciousness that are part of God's creation too.

We already know the universe was created in the big bang... So what created the event that created matter?

And what created that? Etc., ad infinitum . . . entia non sunt multiplicanda, the argument for god as first cause is not logically necessary.

Man, they can fantasize, can't they? There is no precedent for such ignorance other than the chimp and even they seem smarter.