no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

[Guest]

If only we had an evolutionary biologist on the board who would reply to these threads instead of rolling his eyes and getting back to work because this nonsense is ludicrous.

Why anyone would engage in this nonsense with a knowingly disingenuous member is beyond me. One who dismisses logic, reason, evidence and employs such semantic games in order to hold on to desired beliefs must suffer from significant cognitive dissonance.

[betsy]

Why anyone would engage in this nonsense with a knowingly disingenuous member is beyond me. One who dismisses logic, reason, evidence and employs such semantic games in order to hold on to desired beliefs must suffer from significant cognitive dissonance.

You ask others why they would engage in what you consider is, "nonsense?" Obviously they've got their own reason for engaging in this thread. You may not like it, but for some reason, they do.

What about you?

Why you would stick around to a thread created by a member whom you believe to be disingenous and illogical, and who "suffers from cognitive dissonance," is beyond me. You're in all my threads!

Something tells me you know you've taken a beating. My, aren't you the rational one.

You're not trying to shut down the discussion, are you? You're not trying to manipulate other members from engaging?

Edited July 1, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

What about you?

Why you would stick around to a thread created by a member whom you believe to be disingenous and illogical, and who "suffers from cognitive dissonance," is beyond me. You're in all my threads!

Something tells me you know you've taken a beating. My, aren't you the rational one.

The subject matter interests me, but only rational discussion of it. If you found yourself engaging with Jim Jones, would it be worth your time to continue?

[betsy]

The subject matter interests me, but only rational discussion of it. If you found yourself engaging with Jim Jones, would it be worth your time to continue?

If the subject interests you, then you ought to address the OP!

Address the subject!

Why anyone would engage in this nonsense with a knowingly disingenuous member is beyond me. One who dismisses logic, reason, evidence and employs such semantic games in order to hold on to desired beliefs must suffer from significant cognitive dissonance.

Your total dismissal of the arguments, and personal attacks, contradict your claim that you're interested with the subject matter.

You're a troll!

Edited July 9, 2016 by Charles Anthony
removed large font

[Guest]

If the subject interests you, then you ought to address the OP!

See post #128 Reason, evidence and the pursuit of truth are unimportant to you; hence, there is no point in engaging with you on this subject.

[betsy]

See post #128 Reason, evidence and the pursuit of truth are unimportant to you; hence, there is no point in engaging with you on this subject.

Well, you didn't read my rebuttals!

So far, there's been no evidence given to support macroevolution. Someone even brought up stuffs that's been debunked decades ago - one was even fraudulent!

They're all suppositions or extrapolations - the very thing that James Tour has been talking about!

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make you right!

Edited July 6, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

How would you go about debating Jim Jones or Joseph Smith?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Guest

[GostHacked]

How would you go about debating Jim Jones or Joseph Smith?

Dum de dum dum dum .... (South Park)

[?Impact]

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make you right!

Well said, you should post that on your computer screen.

[Guest]

Dum de dum dum dum .... (South Park)

Ha ha...great song.

[betsy]

This came up at the thread in Religion:

What events transpired that have allowed humans to speak, while animals remain silent?

If we are to believe the evolutionary teaching currently taking place in colleges and universities around the world, speech evolved as a natural process over time. Yet no one is quite sure how, and there are no known animals that are in a transition phase from non-speaking to speaking.

In fact, in the Atlas of Languages, this remarkable admission can be found: ‘No languageless community has ever been found’.^[5] This represents no small problem for evolution.

In fact, the origin of speech and language (along with the development of sex and reproduction) remains one of the most significant hurdles in evolutionary theory, even in the twenty-first century.

https://www.trueorigin.org/language01.php

How come animals don't talk. How come they didn't evolve that they may be able to communicate with humans?

Imagine that. If animals can communicate - so many problems animals face today would've been avoided!

They would've been able to negotiate with humans, and perhaps even make treatise with them!

Look how many species are said to be going extinct - because of humans!

Well?

[Guest]

How come animals don't talk. How come they didn't evolve that they may be able to communicate with humans?

They did. That's how come we're able to post on here.

[DogOnPorch]

Animals clearly communicate with each other.

If your question is: Why doesn't the cat speak English?

...well...that's another issue.

[dialamah]

Animals clearly communicate with each other.

If your question is: Why doesn't the cat speak English?

...well...that's another issue.

They also communicate with us, although it's a little like talking to a person with a very strong accent and very poor English. Mostly have to rely on facial expression and hand gestures. Animals tend to be better at understanding us than we are at understanding them - they rely less on our verbiage and more on our body language.

[segnosaur]

If your question is: Why doesn't the cat speak English?

...well...that's another issue.

They don't?

I guess I gotta lay off the late night Taco Bell and whiskey snacks.

Edited September 6, 2016 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

How come animals don't talk. How come they didn't evolve that they may be able to communicate with humans?

As others have pointed out, animals can communicate with humans in limited ways.

Now, as for why animals don't have a complete use of language (complete with syntax, etc.), well that's easy to explain as well.

The ability to use language requires the development of a significant amount of brain power. That sort of development is not "free"... for example, it increases energy usage, which means any creature would have to consume more calories.

There is no specific 'goal' in evolution... no requirement that a species must evolve a certain way. Species evolve within a particular environmental niche, and anything extranious will get eliminated. Cats, horses, goats, and fundamentalist christians did not develop advanced language skills because it would not provide a benefit towards reproductive success, and in fact it may actually harm reproductive success if bigger-brain individuals have to consume more calories in order to support their language abilities.

Humans developed language because, somewhere during the series of random evolutionary events that lead to our species, the ability to communicate provided a benefit that exceeded the costs of the extra food that needed to be consumed.

[?Impact]

God created the honey bee in his own image so they tell each other where the food was to be found.

[betsy]

Animals clearly communicate with each other.

If your question is: Why doesn't the cat speak English?

...well...that's another issue.

No. Not in the way humans had evolved.

Animal communication, process by which one animal provides information that other animals can incorporate into their decision making. The vehicle for the provision of this information is called a signal. The signal may be a sound, colour pattern, posture, movement, electrical discharge, touch, release of an odorant, or some combination of these mediums.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/animal-communication

Animals hadn't gotten past beyond those ways of communicating.

[betsy]

As others have pointed out, animals can communicate with humans in limited ways.

Exactly.

VERY limited ways.

Would've been much easier for animals if they can explain the "why" to one another,

including to humans.

Edited September 8, 2016 by betsy

[segnosaur]

Would've been much easier for animals if they can explain the "why" to one another,

including to humans.

As I have explained already... it is not necessarily easier for the animals if the costs that would be needed to provide language skills (e.g. higher food requirements due to higher caloric demands of the larger brain) outweigh whatever benefit is provided by improved communication.

Its really amazing how little that creationist/fundamentalist spam-bots actually understand. Over and over again, they keep claiming that there is some huge unsolvable mystery that science can't answer (such as why animals don't use language) and that god must be the solution, but they are ignoring the fact that pretty much all those mysteries have been solved. By real scientists. And creationists are either not smart enough, or too dishonest, to actually understand that.

I seem to remember that the bible had some sort of rule about lying. Too bad creationists seemed to have skipped over that part.

[betsy]

As I have explained already... it is not necessarily easier for the animals if the costs that would be needed to provide language skills (e.g. higher food requirements due to higher caloric demands of the larger brain) outweigh whatever benefit is provided by improved communication.

Evolution should've seen to all that......

[?Impact]

Humans developed language because they needed to negotiate with each other. God on the other hand has no language because he is alone (You shall have no other gods before me). Therefore language is a human development.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Therefore language is a human development.

No, human language is a human development. Species of the infraorder Cetacea (i.e. whales) have used language long before humans ever existed.

[segnosaur]

Humans developed language because they needed to negotiate with each other. God on the other hand has no language because he is alone (You shall have no other gods before me). Therefore language is a human development.

Well, if you want to nitpick...

If the bible said "you shall have no other gods before me", it doesn't necessarily mean god is alone... it just means that he gets priority in being worshiped. The bible is actually contradictory on whether there is a single god or many... some passages suggest there is only one god ("There is no god else beside me") while other passages suggest a multitude of gods ("the lord is greater than all gods")

Of course, the correct answer is that god doesn't exist... so I guess its a philosophical question about whether a non-existent being can ever be alone.

[?Impact]

No, human language is a human development. Species of the infraorder Cetacea (i.e. whales) have used language long before humans ever existed.

Good point. Yes, whales certainly have a most advanced auditory communication (I can't say vocalization because they don't have vocal cords). Other marine animals (Dolphins, porpoises, etc.) are similar, but nowhere near as complex. Similar to birds, it is believed this auditory communication (song) is a mating ritual. The marine environment is well suited to sound transmission, and comparatively poor for visual and smell. While the whaling ships of a hundred or more years ago had a disastrous impact on the species, it is believed that todays commercial shipping is having an even more serious impact due to the noise pollution from the many loud propellers.