And stone tools, jewellery, ritual burial and cave paintings are also very good indicators of human artistry, human speech and human self awareness, agreed?
Note that this timespan extends over several genetically distinct species. Your divine act occurred between two of these developments. Why didn’t those people then start doing the things in later entries as well?
So you wouldn’t deny that an anonymous Homo Sapiens was artistic and self-aware. Are you not basing this refusal to deny such characteristics solely on the size of the skull?
I agree - it does seem like you’re being intentionally obtuse to prove a point of some kind. Those qualities arose at vastly different times in humans’ evolution. If you’re going to posit that they all are a result of a single instance of divine ensoulment, that’s not consistent with the evidence that the things that are supposed to be the result of a single moment’s event actually appeared over a very long time period.
But there’s a significant difference - firearms, rocket motors, and silicon (not silicone!) chips came about after the invention of writing, where complex knowledge can survive over many generations.
I think you’re getting mixed up about who is arguing for what. It’s you who claims that there was a “spiritual” (whatever that means) change that’s responsible for self-awareness and artistic ability.
And people didn’t develop new technologies over hundreds of millennia without genetic changes. We’ve developed new technology over a few millennia without significant genetic change, but over hundreds of millennia, there were significant changes.
Man, I’m really confused. I thought that you were the one arguing that God’s ensoulment of man was responsible for all of those things, suddenly and at once, and SentientMeat was pointing out that they developed over a long period of time. Did I misunderstand?
But it was you who said you believe that “there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals.” Now it sounds like you’re demanding he supply evidence for your claims.
I don’t think he is. It appears that his refusal to deny it is because you haven’t provided a “smoking gun” to prove that the anonymous Homo Sapiens was self-aware.
It’s like watching a Birther continue to insist that Obama’s birth certificate hasn’t been presented for examination.
You mean the way that stone tools and silicone chips don’t appeared in the fossil record at the same time, despite the fact that the same act of evolution enabled them them ? Oh hang on.
Sigh. :rolleyes:
If we’re going to be forced to play these silly semantic games I’ll rephrase:
The fact is that the oldest stone tools are older than the oldest firearms, which are older than the oldest rocket motors, which are older than the oldest silicone chips. A single, specific genetic advance can only account for any one of these developments. Ergo those developments must all be due to different evolutionary developments in the human race.
Utter nonsense, and you know it’s utter nonesense. *Homo sapiens *populations learn and they advance their technology through learning. Despite comprehensive searching we know that there is no genetic difference between *Homo sapiens * who only developed stone tools and *Homo sapiens *who developed silcone chips.
If you believe that there was no genetic change between the *Homo sapiens *who developed the first stone tools and the *Homo sapiens *who later developed silicone chips, why do you believe that there must have been a spiritual change? If *Homo sapiens * can develop new technologies over hundreds of millenia despite remaining genetically unchanged, why do you believe they are unable to do so despite remaining spiritually unchanged?
Like I said,your position is a total non sequitur. We’ll worry about the corrollary of why you believe a single, specific divine act needs to account for all of these developments when you’ve satisfactorily explained why it can only account for one of them
Back to the same question that you have refused to answer four times:
You tell me, which`characteristics of those items allow you to judge the poetry composition skills and the introspection ability of the maker. When you do that you can set about explaining how you tested the correlation between those characteristics and the maker’s poetry composition skills and the introspection ability.
Of course if you can’t explain those points then you’ve really got nothing, just another “surely”. IOW if you can’t do that then those artefacts do indeed say precisely nothing about the cognitive abilities under discussion of the individuals who made them. You might believe they to say all sorts of things, but if you can’t tell me what the correlation is and how it was tested then it is, in fact, wishful thinking.
Did it? How did you determine when it occurred?
Why didn’t the H. sapiens who created stone axes start creating silicone chips as as well? After all we know that there is no genetic difference between the H. sapiens who created stone tools and the H. sapiens who created silicone chips, so there was no evolutionary change involved. Therefore by your “logic” the people who created stone axes should have simultaneously started creating silicone chips as as well. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:Watch the heat form that strawman when it goes up.
I’m not refusing anything, nor am I denying anything. I am asking you for the mountain of evidence that you claim exists.
Ah, but in that case he would deny the corpse’s former self-awareness because I couldn’t provide the literally impossible evidence that a dead body used to be self-aware. He said he wouldn’t deny it - I was asking him why not.
This assertion keeps getting repeated in every post, and I keep asking for the evidence in every other post. Yet no evidence is forthcoming.
SIimply repeataing something doesn’t make it true you know.
And…?What exactly is your position here?
That writing has a genetic basis, and that those people’s who didn’t invent writing are genetically less advanced? That people without writing didn;t develop new technologies such as writing itself? Are you disputing that H. sapiens developed new technologies over the past 40, 00 years? Or`are you disputing that H. sapiens now are genetically unchanged from H. sapiens 40, 000 years ago.
Because if you aren’t disputing any of those points then you are conceding my point, which is that people make technological advancements over tens of millenia despite remaining genetically unchanged.
And why do you think that?
Cite. Give me this evidence that there have been significant genetic changes between an Aborigine or a San bushman today and his ancestor 40, 000 or even 200 years ago who was using palaeolithic technology.
I would dearly love to see that evidence
Not as far as I can see.
Where have I ever demanded that he provide evidence that he provide evidence that “there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals.” Please quote where I demanded anyhting remotely like that?
I couldn’t be bothered watching the video, but if you intend to participate in this debate you might want to note that nobody but you is arguing this position.
When you said “I have always been asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. I still am asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity.”
What evidence have you for this fact? I assure that such evidence would win you a Nobel prize, because the individual which used the first stone tool was a genetically distinct species to the one whcih used the first chip.
But they didn’t develop stone tools - that was a different species.
Jewellery, ritual burial and cave painting say nothing about those people’s self-awareness and artistry? You wouldn’t say that people who buried their dead were self-aware, and people who painted pictures were artistic?
Your very own words stated that it was a single, specific act. How could that act be extended over a long timescale?
I’m not positing such a single enabling act - you are. I’m trying to explore how a divine act which, say, allowed Homo Habilis to start making stone tools causesHomo Heidelbergensis to start using fire. Or, how a fire-enabling act causes Neanderthalis to start burying their dead. Or, how a ritual-burial-enabling act causes another different species to make silicon chips.
I’m accurate in saying you wouldn’t deny it, then. So I’ll ask you straight up: I present to you a naked, anonymous skeleton with a skull which looks exactly like you own and ask, in your opinion, was this person self-aware? Why do you reply in the manner you do?
Since you seem determined to repeat all the smae assertions that I’ve already discredited for him, Ill ask you the the same question that he has refused to answer four times:
Since you assert that the progression of those technologies is evidence of a progression of human defining speech, artistry and self awareness then you tell me, which`characteristics of those items allow you to judge the poetry composition skills and the introspection ability of the maker. When you do that you can set about explaining how you tested the correlation between those characteristics and the maker’s poetry composition skills and the introspection ability.
Of course if you can’t explain those points then you’ve really got nothing, just another “surely”. IOW if you can’t do that then those artefacts do indeed say precisely nothing about the cognitive abilities under discussion of the individuals who made them. You might believe they to say all sorts of things, but if you can’t tell me what the correlation is and how it was tested then it is, in fact, wishful thinking.
I will ask again: please quote where I asked for evidence that there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. That was your strawman claim. Now please suport it.
Don’t quote where I asked for evidence of the existence of those traits. Quote where I asked for evidence that there is a specific, defining human form of those traits. Or alternatively apologise for that blatant strawman and retract the comment.
Quite frankly this whole position is ridiculous since only one drive by bothered to dispute the existence of a form of those triats that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. Why would I bother to ask somebody for evidence of something that we both accept exists?
You are constructing a blatant and rather stupid strawman and I would thank you to retratct and apologise.
I also await with bated breath your evidence that that there have been significant genetic changes between an Aborigine or a San bushman today and his ancestor 40, 000 or even 200 years ago who was using palaeolithic technology.
WTF? Who ever said *first *stone tool? Strawman much. Or`are you denying perhaps that *H sapiens *used stone tools?:rolleyes:
Now are you going to answer the question or not? You can try to play these sematic games all you want, but the question is going to keep coming back to bite you one the arse because your position is so ridiculous.
Stone tools and silicone chips don’t appeared in the fossil record at the same time, despite the fact that the same act of evolution enabled them them. Why is that, since your “logic” says that technological advancements are only possible if there is a change of some sort in the species involved.
Or perhaps you are now willing to concede that technological changes can occur without any change in the species involved, but rater simply form learning?
WTF? You can not be this ignorant? You aren’t seriously arguing that *H sapiens *never develoed any stone tools?
Who the fuck do you think developed the flint scythe? Jackals? Do you really think tha neolithic farmers used the same toolkit as* H erectus?*
Your ignorance of this topic is truly staggering when you start denying that H sapiens developed stone tools.
Is that right?
Wouldn’t I?
See I too can play the “question” game so as to avoid making any statement that might require evidence.
Unfortunately for you you’ve already claimed to have amountain of evidence that I am still wiating for you to produce.
I don’t know, how could it?
It’s your idea so you must know. Because I certainly never said it was extended over a long timescale, and you wouldn’t indulge in such a blatant strawman as to insinuate that I ever did. Because then when I asked you to quote where I made such a claim you would be unable to do so.
Right?
Dude you’ve only got two options here.
Either the H. sapiens who only used stone tools are genetically the same as the people who used silicone chips, or they are genetically inferior.
If they are genetically the same then there has only been one single enabling act for both stone tools and silicon chips. A single genetic change that has enabled H sapiens to use stone tools or to use silicon chips.
Since you are not positing such a single enabling act you are claiming that there is a genetic difference that allows some people to make only stone tools and there has been a genetic change that allowed other people to make stone tools and silicon chips.
Cite please. I really want to see this evidence that the reasons why Aborigines used stone tools is because they missed out on the act that enabled them to use silicone chips.
For the sake of argument, let’s posit that it works *exactly * the same way as the evolutionary act which allowed paeaeolithic H sapiens to use stone tools, then causes neolithic Homo sapiens to start using ceramics. Or exactly the same way that a how a writing enabling mutation causes Chinese to start using gunpowder. Or, how a boomerang-making–enabling mutation causes another different continent to make silicon chips.
Let’s assume that it works precisely the same way, except it’s caused by a spiritual rather than a genetic change.
What is exactly is giving you trouble here? It’s such a simple concept, I cna;t see why it’s confusing you. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that a single enabling evolutionary act leads to a long, slow steady progress in technology wth no need for any further acts. You don’t deny that do you? You don’t deny that the genotype that enabled the Chinese to invent the wheelbarrow is the same one that enabled them to invent the printing press 4, 000 years later? You don’t believe that the Chinese developed a wheelbarrow gene in 3, 000 BC and then developed printing press gene in 1000 AD?
So you accept that the evolutionary act that allowed the Chinese to develop the wheelbarrow was the same act that allowed them to develop the printing press 4, 00 years later?
So why the fuck do you insist on repeatedly claiming that single act can’t produce technological developlments over millenia? Why do you insist on repeatedly claiming that if a group of people have the makeup (spiritual or genetic) to do something they would do so immediately rather than taking millenia to do so?
I really can’t see why you are struggling with the simple and rather uncontroversial fact that human technological potential is not expressed to its fullest immediately I can’t see why you insist that every technological advanacenmnt has to be evidence of either a genetic or spiritual change.
No, you aren’t. Once again this is a strawman and I never said any such thing
But hey, if we’re playing silly buggers with complex quetsions: do you deny that you still beat your wife?
Because that is what evidence available tells me.
Now I ask again: You said that you had a mountain of evidence concerning a gradual development of human language. Can weplease see this evidence and the manner in which you correlated the (presumably) physical changes with the mental changes?
Is there any chance you will actually answer this request for the evidence which you *volunteered *that you had?
Can you possibly cram any more strawmen into this debate? Where the fuck did I ever say that I discredited the timeline? You actually quoted where I said said that I discredited your fucking assertion that this is evidnceof a slow progression of language and self awareness. Which I have, comprehensibly. And very easily by simply asking you to tell us which physical evidence you correlated with the mental workings of the creators,and how you checked that correlation.
Dude this is such a blatant strawman that I can no longer put it down to incompetence. You have to be doing it deliberately whenyou quote me saying that I discredited your assertion and then claim that I said I discredited the data.
If you don’t tidy your act up then I’m outta here. I will not engage with the disingenuous or the willfully ignorant, and deliberate strawmen and claims that H sapiens never developed any stone tools meet both criteria in my book.
The “and so forth” part appears to have been allowed to fall by the wayside.
Also, while it is certainly true that poetry and introspection are very good indicators of human artistry, human speech, and human introspection, they are not the ONLY such indicators. Are they the minimum that you’re willing to accept as being indicators? Progressively sophisticated human artifacts, such as have been brought up also indicate human artistry (at least). As for human speech and human introspection, I’ll confess that I don’t have the paleoanthropological chops to make that case that they are indicated by forensic examination of the same artifacts. But I expect that someone does.
What? I don’t understand this assertion of yours. What act of evolution could possibly enable stone tools 1 million years ago and silicon chips several decades ago? And if we’re talking about early Homo Sapiens stone tools, why do you say that an act of evolution ‘enabled’ them when they had already been in use for a million years?
What? Where did I say this?
Of course I accept that.
Ah, you mean improved upon, not developed from scratch. Gotcha. No, I’m not arguing that. So let’s explore a divine act that enabled them to make slightly better stone tools than those already around.
I am asking you if you agree that ritual burial and cave painting say precisely nothing about those people’s self-awareness and artistry. Grow up.
Your single specific divine act couldn’t be extended over a long timescale by definition.
So it did occur at a specific instant, such that it *couldn’t have extended over two or more of those developmental landmarks in the list. That’s how I know that the divine event must have occurred between two such landmarks.
False dichotomy (now who’s employing ‘surelys’?) I am positing that a single divine act that enables very slightly better stone tools (and somehow, for argument’s sake, is also responsible for silicon chips tens of thousands of years later) amongst a species who are already living in huts, wearing clothes, cooking spear-hunted game on fires, wearing jewellery and burying their dead in elaborate rituals, is not much of a frigging miracle.
Because that is nothing remotely like “all the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech and so forth” in a single act. It is precisely like “an arbitrarily small, insignificant act which only the tragicomically credulous would consider responsible for innovations made thousands of years afterwards”.
You said that you “wouldn’t bother denying it”.
But the available evidence doesn’t tell you much at all, only the size of his skull. You infer his self-awareness and artistry based solely on that.
Listen, calm down. I am trying to explore this divine act of RC orthodoxy because I’m interested in it. Your meltdowns aren’t helping matters.
In fact, Blake, since you’re constantly complaining of my arguments not being clear, the central point of my last post was this:
I am positing that a single divine act that enables very slightly better stone tools (and somehow, for argument’s sake, is also responsible for silicon chips tens of thousands of years later) amongst a species who are already living in huts, wearing clothes, cooking spear-hunted game on fires, wearing jewellery and burying their dead in elaborate rituals, is not much of a frigging miracle.
When you said “I have always been asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. I still am asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity.”
Your words above sound to me like you’re asking for evidence that there’s a defining form of those traits specific to humans. Is that not what you were asking? If not, then what the hell were you asking for?
Then this:
That’s what I wanted to know - you asserted that there is a qualitative difference in the human form of those traits, then you asked for evidence of the human-only form of those traits for some reason (since it was your own claim), now you’re asserting it again and saying that we both accept it. Well I don’t know about SentientMeat, but I sure don’t accept a qualitative difference in the human form as compared to the other animals, only a quantitative difference.
I’m afraid I may have to limit my participation in this thread to keep from violating board rules.
I think the claim was that there are significant genetic changes between the first people to develop stone tools and modern man. And there were significant genetic changes in the first to create jewelry, bury their dead ritualistically, wear clothes, etc.
There’s no need to be insulting - he and I are just trying to understand WTF you’re saying and have a discussion. It needn’t be this difficult.
It sounds like you’re the one playing word-games when you say that H sapiens developed stone tools, when what matters is who developed them first, and that was not H sapiens. Stone tools were not developed by the same species of critter that created silicon (not silicone!) chips. Mmmmmm… silicone.
Again - what the hell are you saying? We know that the first ones to develop stone tools were a different species from us. Are you actually asking for evidence for this? It’s been shown to you repeatedly right here in this fuckin’ thread, addressed specifically to you, three times!
