ther is a proven conection between written script and numbers is it posible that numerical observation and understanding would be a likly primary candidate for early use of abstract comunication. i think birds know how many young they have.
If you take a chimp mother and teach her sign language, then take her and her child back to the jungle and set them free, maybe they could teach all the other chimps, and it might help prevent them going extinct. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I was just looking for some videos on Kanzi and Koko when your video popped up.
I'm currently studying for my exam of Evolutionary Linguistics, and we worked with the book 'Origins of Language: Constraints on hypotheses' by Sverker Johansson.He offers several arguments for both early and late development of language, settling on early as the most (you could even say only) probable option. Apart from the huge amount of references (80 pages worth) which is very intimidating, I really recommend it.
FYI, I raised 1000's of exotic birds, had them talking in 30 days from birth, I had a dog, she baby sat the birds, she listened to my endless loop tapes, she picked up my words, PLUS she learned the meaning NOT MIMICRY and could hold minor communication in English, and very well. She understood far more than she could speak, and could communicate as well as any 4 year old child.
It is documented. So I guess according to you she had evolved to have a HUMANS MINDS.
I've had it with you, because you repeat yourself, you never listen, and you LIE outright.
The LIE: You said two days ago in the comments on my video "Re: Questions for Atheists" that you would unblock me. You never did. So, you are now blocked. If you unblock me, I'll unblock you. Until then, good riddance.
Peronally, I think you don't know what to think. I think you are exceedingly unaware of the science behind your beloved 200 yr olf evolution concept and the science which refutes it. But this is common of evolutionists because they typically refuse to study anything written by creationist scientists and thus hear only the evo horns playing in their heads. Good luck finding someone with the patience to help you break out of the box.
Personally, I think you don't know HOW to think. I think you are exceedingly selective in your facts. Human chromosome 2. Endogenous retroviruses. Tiktaalik. Ambulocetus. Molecular clocks. Various radiometric methods. All point to an ancient age of earth and to descent with modification.
All you do is quote websites with arguments even AiG says are invalid and make ad hominem attacks. I look for new information. You struggle to make new information fit your paradigm. Who's in the box??
"Subjective evaluation. I challenge you to describe nuclear physics in ancient Aramaic"
It is your statement that is subjective, not mine. You're setting up a strawman: ancient language did not contain modern scientific terms. As for conveyance, ancient languages typically convey more things with fewer words. Modern language is more precise, ancient is more efficient.
If by "efficient" you mean "subject to several contradictory interpretations" (like the Bible), I would have to agree with you. Otherwise, you fail to make your point.
"Just as every species can be proven to be decended from a single ancestral species."
Way outside the Scientific method here. Way way out. NOTHING about supposed transition, lineage, nodes, crests, branching, any such thing has ever been proven, and the fossil record of life does not support it either. Every major evo scientist acjknowledges that the fossil record does not show transition. Every one, including Richard Dawkins.
"Deaf children in Peru, never exposed to traditional sign language, have spontaneously developed their own gestural language, complete with grammar and syntax"
The deaf watch people's mouths when they speak. This is not the creation of language, it is mimicry.
"True, but they are able to create a new writing system, often superior to its predecessor." This is a self-contradiction. You just agrees with what I stated (which came from language experts), then said they could do it anyway.
Nice try at distorting my words (just like you do with facts). You claimed that no group of people has been able to recreate THE SAME writing system once they've forgotten it. To that I agreed (a bit too hastily. I might have argue: How is it then that we can translate Egyptian, then?).
But, I stated that they can and DO create NEW writing systems. See the difference? SAME vs NEW. Look up the words.
"How is it then that we can translate Egyptian, then?" -
The fabled Rosetta Stone gave us a bit of a leg up on that research - luckily.
The Mayan glyph writing was a bit trickier but has now been mostly deciphered and even rendered phonetically via cross reference with current 'Mayan' (decendant) dialects.
They have absolutely no bearing on evolution at all.
If you want to have this conversation with me, please do so via PM, or via video response, as it is not at all germane to the question asked in my video.
1. no group of people, once they lose the memory of their writing system, has ever been able to regain it again without outside help.
2. no group of people, once they lose the memory of their spoken language, has ever been able to regain it again without outside help. That is, if you were to isolate newborn persons and never speak to them, they would never of themselves create anything like a spoken language.
Point 1: True, but they are able to create a new writing system, often superior to its predecessor.
Point 2: False about groups. Deaf children in Peru, never exposed to traditional sign language, have spontaneously developed their own gestural language, complete with grammar and syntax. And twins have developed their own spoken languages, a very well-known phenomena.
Pet argument? Who's stoopid enough to argue with their pets?
Well, mine are pretty reasonable, but I raised them well. That might make all the difference.
Billkwando 3 years ago
ther is a proven conection between written script and numbers is it posible that numerical observation and understanding would be a likly primary candidate for early use of abstract comunication. i think birds know how many young they have.
ooglebydoogleby 4 years ago
If you take a chimp mother and teach her sign language, then take her and her child back to the jungle and set them free, maybe they could teach all the other chimps, and it might help prevent them going extinct. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
dawkinsfan41 4 years ago
I was just looking for some videos on Kanzi and Koko when your video popped up.
I'm currently studying for my exam of Evolutionary Linguistics, and we worked with the book 'Origins of Language: Constraints on hypotheses' by Sverker Johansson.He offers several arguments for both early and late development of language, settling on early as the most (you could even say only) probable option. Apart from the huge amount of references (80 pages worth) which is very intimidating, I really recommend it.
jorinde85 4 years ago
Thank you for the reference, and for being the first to actually reply to the content of my video! I'll be sure to look for it.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
FYI, I raised 1000's of exotic birds, had them talking in 30 days from birth, I had a dog, she baby sat the birds, she listened to my endless loop tapes, she picked up my words, PLUS she learned the meaning NOT MIMICRY and could hold minor communication in English, and very well. She understood far more than she could speak, and could communicate as well as any 4 year old child.
It is documented. So I guess according to you she had evolved to have a HUMANS MINDS.
theeProphet 4 years ago
You guess wrong.
And your birds do not form novel sentences with grammar and syntax. They don't talk about their feelings. Four-year-olds do.
If you produced even ONE bird who could do these things, you'd be in the scientific literature for certain. So please, show me this "documentation."
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
I can not imagine language to evolve, therefor a creator must have done it! :p
j/k im not a bible thumper. Good vids man, im interested in this too, but not knowledgable so i'll just listen to whats being said.
YumeNoEien 4 years ago
The development language is an interesting subject, one I hope to learn more about.
kurisu313 4 years ago
Goodbye.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
I've had it with you, because you repeat yourself, you never listen, and you LIE outright.
The LIE: You said two days ago in the comments on my video "Re: Questions for Atheists" that you would unblock me. You never did. So, you are now blocked. If you unblock me, I'll unblock you. Until then, good riddance.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
I've changed my mind. You are unblocked. See, unlike the religious right, I'm not a fascist Nazi who censors opposing viewpoints.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Peronally, I think you don't know what to think. I think you are exceedingly unaware of the science behind your beloved 200 yr olf evolution concept and the science which refutes it. But this is common of evolutionists because they typically refuse to study anything written by creationist scientists and thus hear only the evo horns playing in their heads. Good luck finding someone with the patience to help you break out of the box.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Personally, I think you don't know HOW to think. I think you are exceedingly selective in your facts. Human chromosome 2. Endogenous retroviruses. Tiktaalik. Ambulocetus. Molecular clocks. Various radiometric methods. All point to an ancient age of earth and to descent with modification.
All you do is quote websites with arguments even AiG says are invalid and make ad hominem attacks. I look for new information. You struggle to make new information fit your paradigm. Who's in the box??
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Subjective evaluation. I challenge you to describe nuclear physics in ancient Aramaic"
It is your statement that is subjective, not mine. You're setting up a strawman: ancient language did not contain modern scientific terms. As for conveyance, ancient languages typically convey more things with fewer words. Modern language is more precise, ancient is more efficient.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
If by "efficient" you mean "subject to several contradictory interpretations" (like the Bible), I would have to agree with you. Otherwise, you fail to make your point.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Just as every species can be proven to be decended from a single ancestral species."
Way outside the Scientific method here. Way way out. NOTHING about supposed transition, lineage, nodes, crests, branching, any such thing has ever been proven, and the fossil record of life does not support it either. Every major evo scientist acjknowledges that the fossil record does not show transition. Every one, including Richard Dawkins.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
WRONG.
Archeopterix: Show me a modern bird with a long bony tail and permanently rooted teeth.
Tiktaalik: Show me a fish with a longitudinal flat skull and well-articulated limb bones.
Sahelanthropus: Show me a chimpanzee with a fully upright posture and a flat face.
... to name just three.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Deaf children in Peru, never exposed to traditional sign language, have spontaneously developed their own gestural language, complete with grammar and syntax"
The deaf watch people's mouths when they speak. This is not the creation of language, it is mimicry.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Grammar and syntax are not mimicry. They use a gestural language. Has not a damn thing to do with watching mouths.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Nephilim - "the deaf watch people's mouths when they speak."
Not true. I am the mother of a Deaf son. He does NOT "watch my mouth when I speak" unless I MAKE HIM for some good reason(like during speech therapy).
Ridiculous "argument."
RationalByChoice 4 years ago
"True, but they are able to create a new writing system, often superior to its predecessor." This is a self-contradiction. You just agrees with what I stated (which came from language experts), then said they could do it anyway.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Nice try at distorting my words (just like you do with facts). You claimed that no group of people has been able to recreate THE SAME writing system once they've forgotten it. To that I agreed (a bit too hastily. I might have argue: How is it then that we can translate Egyptian, then?).
But, I stated that they can and DO create NEW writing systems. See the difference? SAME vs NEW. Look up the words.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"How is it then that we can translate Egyptian, then?" -
The fabled Rosetta Stone gave us a bit of a leg up on that research - luckily.
The Mayan glyph writing was a bit trickier but has now been mostly deciphered and even rendered phonetically via cross reference with current 'Mayan' (decendant) dialects.
luerwulf 3 years ago
These facts shatter the religion of Darwinian evolution.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
They have absolutely no bearing on evolution at all.
If you want to have this conversation with me, please do so via PM, or via video response, as it is not at all germane to the question asked in my video.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
facts, what facts thats a creation site it has about as much authority as the bible does - nill. here spam his account
Stewart, David David Stewart (dgstewart@yahoo com) +1.4097508268
agentorange20 4 years ago
These facts shatter the religion of Darwinian evolution.
Source: One of the world's most prominent professional translators
w w w . 72languages . com / originallanguage . p h p
NephilimFree 4 years ago
3. every literate language (and practically every illiterate one) can be proven to be descended from one and the same parent language.
4. every parent language is superior in every way to each and every one of its descendent languages.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Point 3: Just as every species can be proven to be decended from a single ancestral species.
Point 4: Subjective evaluation. I challenge you to describe nuclear physics in ancient Aramaic.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
1. no group of people, once they lose the memory of their writing system, has ever been able to regain it again without outside help.
2. no group of people, once they lose the memory of their spoken language, has ever been able to regain it again without outside help. That is, if you were to isolate newborn persons and never speak to them, they would never of themselves create anything like a spoken language.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Your four points are off-topic. But...
Point 1: True, but they are able to create a new writing system, often superior to its predecessor.
Point 2: False about groups. Deaf children in Peru, never exposed to traditional sign language, have spontaneously developed their own gestural language, complete with grammar and syntax. And twins have developed their own spoken languages, a very well-known phenomena.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
cool, very cool!
Whitewolf2x4 4 years ago