Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feral children.

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:59:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
God doesnt have to do anything. This is simply the consequence of terrible neglect in a childs life or abandoment. What it does is show the impossibility for any species to just up and develop speech, or complex thoughts without an already intelligent influence
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 5:48:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Bigotry,
There's nothing magical about evolution. At its base there's random genetic mutation - resulting in physiological differences that are either an advantage or disadvantage in the struggle to survive and breed. Thus, if the change is an advantage it will be passed on to subsequent generations - and if its a disadvantage, it will die out. Thus the overall trend is toward greater suitability to the environment - but it's important to remember that there's no aim or plan, no destination in mind.

With regard to your question; genetics is only one element of development. Another is nurture, or environment. This is what is meant by the nature/nurture dichotomy - when seeking to explain things about development and behaviour, it sometimes difficult to separate genetic factors from developmental factors. Feral children give us an insight into how much of us is down to our genetics, and how much is due to environmental factors. Feral children are genetically human, but their environment is not nurturing - so they do not develop in the same way.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:01:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 5:48:16 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Bigotry,
There's nothing magical about evolution. At its base there's random genetic mutation - resulting in physiological differences that are either an advantage or disadvantage in the struggle to survive and breed. Thus, if the change is an advantage it will be passed on to subsequent generations - and if its a disadvantage, it will die out. Thus the overall trend is toward greater suitability to the environment - but it's important to remember that there's no aim or plan, no destination in mind.
I would only disagree with the percieving of random generic mutations to being a positive hoever I would agree with everything else here in that it only applies to a species within a species (hope Im using species correctly in that I mean monkey or man or whale as species) so in other words these variances do in fact occur but they never will get you to a totally different animal because mutations are generally a bad thing. We know alot of things that mutates cells and we get things like cancer...

With regard to your question; genetics is only one element of development. Another is nurture, or environment. This is what is meant by the nature/nurture dichotomy - when seeking to explain things about development and behaviour, it sometimes difficult to separate genetic factors from developmental factors. Feral children give us an insight into how much of us is down to our genetics, and how much is due to environmental factors. Feral children are genetically human, but their environment is not nurturing - so they do not develop in the same way.
Your 100% correct about all of this, I suppose the point is at place will it be possible to violate the nurture and just have some kind of epiphany that we can speak a language or think abstractly. Construct things, design things all on our own. If a baby doesnt have the influences to teach and nurture it properly it wont develop the skills. Someone else recently posted a thread about humanity getting more dumb. Its things like that I dont see reconcilable with an evolutionary thought.
Your thoughts?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:33:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?

It seems like you're suggesting feral children lacking the ability to speak human languages (that they haven't been taught) challenges evolution. You might as well say regular children not being able to speak ALL languages challenges evolution. It's not a legitimate objection since language is not inherited.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:54:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:33:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?

It seems like you're suggesting feral children lacking the ability to speak human languages (that they haven't been taught) challenges evolution. You might as well say regular children not being able to speak ALL languages challenges evolution. It's not a legitimate objection since language is not inherited.
No no no no no, feral children might as be the closest observable example to a "wild" child so to speak living amongst non humans. Since speech is something that is developed only at a young age its been a huge uphill battle historically to teach them language and other human attributes. So if anyone ever wanted to know what the first humanoid that popped out of non humaniod would turn out like, it seems compelling their brain would suffer immensley and never make that crucial step into being a modern human outside of the obvious genetical match. In other words also as I have stressed in other threads that gentical matching has absolutely nothing to do with postulating the ability to develope something like speech or reasoning. These areas of the brain CANNOT get the stimulation required to make that step unless its already there from another being to teach it and nurture it. That is the point.
All that Im curious about is how does one reconcile this idea that inevitably supposedly through evolution at one point some "superior" humans would show up and start becomming advanced out of nowhere developing certain skill sets out of nowhere.
What is the idea behind this from an evolutionary perspective.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:10:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:01:28 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 5:48:16 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Bigotry,
There's nothing magical about evolution. At its base there's random genetic mutation - resulting in physiological differences that are either an advantage or disadvantage in the struggle to survive and breed. Thus, if the change is an advantage it will be passed on to subsequent generations - and if its a disadvantage, it will die out. Thus the overall trend is toward greater suitability to the environment - but it's important to remember that there's no aim or plan, no destination in mind.

I would only disagree with the percieving of random generic mutations to being a positive hoever I would agree with everything else here in that it only applies to a species within a species (hope Im using species correctly in that I mean monkey or man or whale as species) so in other words these variances do in fact occur but they never will get you to a totally different animal because mutations are generally a bad thing. We know alot of things that mutates cells and we get things like cancer...

It's difficult to comprehend the depth of time involved - and how what we see in the natural world is like a still photograph; a screenshot captured from the world's longest movie. To illustrate; if the age of the earth were the length of your outstretched arm, the whole of human history could be removed with a single stroke of a nail file. Now, you'll admit people were shorter in the olden days, right? I mean, there's houses still standing with doorways so much lower than modern doorways. So change can be fairly rapid. Over deep time, mountains rise and fall - separating a group of animals, subjecting one group to desert conditions and the other to a forested environment, and adapting to their respective environment, species diverge.

It's true that most genetic mutations will be detrimental, but the thing about evolution is that it doesn't care. It carves a marble from a mountain and discards the rest. It should come with a warning like in the movies - viewer discretion is advised, because when you understand the enormity of it - it raises disturbing questions about our place in the grand scheme of things. But remember the still photograph. That's us; that's who we really are. We shouldn't try and draw lessons from the worlds longest movie - to apply to our screenshot existence.

With regard to your question; genetics is only one element of development. Another is nurture, or environment. This is what is meant by the nature/nurture dichotomy - when seeking to explain things about development and behaviour, it sometimes difficult to separate genetic factors from developmental factors. Feral children give us an insight into how much of us is down to our genetics, and how much is due to environmental factors. Feral children are genetically human, but their environment is not nurturing - so they do not develop in the same way.

Your 100% correct about all of this, I suppose the point is at place will it be possible to violate the nurture and just have some kind of epiphany that we can speak a language or think abstractly. Construct things, design things all on our own. If a baby doesnt have the influences to teach and nurture it properly it wont develop the skills. Someone else recently posted a thread about humanity getting more dumb. Its things like that I dont see reconcilable with an evolutionary thought.
Your thoughts?

In the evolutionary history of humankind, development of tool use was painfully slow. I mean, the first primitive stone hand axes were used for over a million years, and show remarkable regularity of design. It's interesting when you get into it - and you find yourself asking if they can do x, and they can do y, why don't they do z? But z doesn't come along for another 10,000 years. I think a lot of our knowledge is out there, and ours only by virtue of culture - and that's a danger.

I don't know if humankind is getting more dumb, or what that really means. It's such an ill-defined assertion that it uses the word for unable to speak to mean stupid - which isn't very nice for people unable to speak. There's the argument from the film Idiocracy - (which, if you haven't seen it, watch it. It's very funny.) ...that the intelligent people, waiting to have children until they pay off the mortgage, or until they get promoted at work, will be outbred by idiots living in trailer parks, until the world has less smarts than a sack of rocks. If only that were so. Instead, we've such an excess of intelligence, we have geniuses driving busses and making coffee for a living.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:57:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

I think others have covered most of the bases on this, but it should be noted that evolution is not necessarily attempting to animals smarter, or make them anything. It is only describing how species best survive, and if intelligence is advantageous that will be carried along.

Your case has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with evolution OR intelligence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:10:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:54:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:33:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?

It seems like you're suggesting feral children lacking the ability to speak human languages (that they haven't been taught) challenges evolution. You might as well say regular children not being able to speak ALL languages challenges evolution. It's not a legitimate objection since language is not inherited.
No no no no no, feral children might as be the closest observable example to a "wild" child so to speak living amongst non humans. Since speech is something that is developed only at a young age its been a huge uphill battle historically to teach them language and other human attributes. So if anyone ever wanted to know what the first humanoid that popped out of non humaniod would turn out like

Woah. Stop right there. A non-humanoid giving birth to a humanoid doesn't make any sense.

, it seems compelling their brain would suffer immensley and never make that crucial step into being a modern human outside of the obvious genetical match. In other words also as I have stressed in other threads that gentical matching has absolutely nothing to do with postulating the ability to develope something like speech or reasoning. These areas of the brain CANNOT get the stimulation required to make that step unless its already there from another being to teach it and nurture it. That is the point.
All that Im curious about is how does one reconcile this idea that inevitably supposedly through evolution at one point some "superior" humans would show up and start becomming advanced out of nowhere developing certain skill sets out of nowhere.
What is the idea behind this from an evolutionary perspective.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:03:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:10:15 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:01:28 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 5:48:16 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced

I would only disagree with the percieving of random generic mutations to being a positive hoever I would agree with everything else here in that it only applies to a species within a species (hope Im using species correctly in that I mean monkey or man or whale as species) so in other words these variances do in fact occur but they never will get you to a totally different animal because mutations are generally a bad thing. We know alot of things that mutates cells and we get things like cancer...

It's difficult to comprehend the depth of time involved - and how what we see in the natural world is like a still photograph; a screenshot captured from the world's longest movie. To illustrate; if the age of the earth were the length of your outstretched arm, the whole of human history could be removed with a single stroke of a nail file. Now, you'll admit people were shorter in the olden days, right? I mean, there's houses still standing with doorways so much lower than modern doorways. So change can be fairly rapid. Over deep time, mountains rise and fall - separating a group of animals, subjecting one group to desert conditions and the other to a forested environment, and adapting to their respective environment, species diverge.
Absolutely but I would contend that when it comes to homes with smaller doorways and this sort of thing its only a sign of malnutrition. Its why we have what one would rightfully call giants in the NBA and various other populations that are taller because of better access to food and medical care. If youv ever done any work with plants its quite the same thing. You can make 2 clones of a plant, subject them to different environments and the plant itself will slightly change itself to adapt to poorer conditions but none of these changes are positive and arguably you will always have the best plant with the better conditions.

It's true that most genetic mutations will be detrimental, but the thing about evolution is that it doesn't care. It carves a marble from a mountain and discards the rest. It should come with a warning like in the movies - viewer discretion is advised, because when you understand the enormity of it - it raises disturbing questions about our place in the grand scheme of things. But remember the still photograph. That's us; that's who we really are. We shouldn't try and draw lessons from the worlds longest movie - to apply to our screenshot existence.
Well certainly and its a genius mechanism life has to be able to discard things and adapt to various environments it is quite spectacular!

With regard to your question; genetics is only one element of development. Another is nurture, or environment. This is what is meant by the nature/nurture dichotomy - when seeking to explain things about development and behaviour, it sometimes difficult to separate genetic factors from developmental factors. Feral children give us an insight into how much of us is down to our genetics, and how much is due to environmental factors. Feral children are genetically human, but their environment is not nurturing - so they do not develop in the same way.

Your 100% correct about all of this, I suppose the point is at place will it be possible to violate the nurture and just have some kind of epiphany that we can speak a language or think abstractly. Construct things, design things all on our own. If a baby doesnt have the influences to teach and nurture it properly it wont develop the skills. Someone else recently posted a thread about humanity getting more dumb. Its things like that I dont see reconcilable with an evolutionary thought.
Your thoughts?

In the evolutionary history of humankind, development of tool use was painfully slow. I mean, the first primitive stone hand axes were used for over a million years, and show remarkable regularity of design. It's interesting when you get into it - and you find yourself asking if they can do x, and they can do y, why don't they do z? But z doesn't come along for another 10,000 years. I think a lot of our knowledge is out there, and ours only by virtue of culture - and that's a danger.
I can only really say this much about the idea of our anscestors being cave men with primitive tools. They found a way to build stonehenge, they found a way to build pyramids (all over the world not just egypt). The only reason we know anything about these structures is because they were made with stone and built to last. The sphinx for example, something dictated to a man (cant remember his name) to dig all this sand out of the way because there was some powerful thing in that spot, we can verify this ancient egyptian story with the fact the structure has been shown to be below the rest of the ground level and various erosian marks. Not to run on and on about it but we also know the head is not origional but the body is and even back then they had no idea who built it or why but it had such an effect on the egyptians they started putting cat figures in their heiroglyphs and felt it important to use that theme. Point here is we dont know at all just how advanced our earliest anscestors were. They could have had advanced structures made out of anything besides stone that got wiped out by a cataclysmic event we just dont know. If we endured nuclear war and everything was wipped out the wild would reclaim everything we have built and you simply wouldnt find evidence of the sears tower, or computers ect. Im sure you see what Im saying. We dont even have our own version of a modern pyramid, and if civilization started over, thousands of years down the line our lineage would probably get our history ALL wrong.

I don't know if humankind is getting more dumb, or what that really means. It's such an ill-defined assertion that it uses the word for unable to speak to mean stupid - which isn't very nice for people unable to speak. There's the argument from the film Idiocracy - (which, if you haven't seen it, watch it. It's very funny.) ...that the intelligent people, waiting to have children until they pay off the mortgage, or until they get promoted at work, will be outbred by idiots living in trailer parks, until the world has less smarts than a sack of rocks. If only that were so. Instead, we've such an excess of intelligence, we have geniuses driving busses and making coffee for a living.
Very true I was just using it as an example to show it could be the oposite in which go back 50,000 years and we might find more brilliant minds than we do today. I think we find an overall regression in general health and genetical problems as time goes along. I just dont see this reconcilable to a view that the genetic makeup gets stronger over time.

But this deal about feral children is an obstacle that isnt rationally explainable as to how a whole race of what would have been feral children could possibly be expected to nurture themselves into things like language or anything else we would define as human supremacy and dominance
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:05:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:57:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

I think others have covered most of the bases on this, but it should be noted that evolution is not necessarily attempting to animals smarter, or make them anything. It is only describing how species best survive, and if intelligence is advantageous that will be carried along.

Your case has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with evolution OR intelligence.

Look we have modern humans here right now correct? How did they get here if not through at some point a race of feral people? How can you reconcile this impossible advancement with the reality we actually know?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:10:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:10:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:54:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:33:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?

It seems like you're suggesting feral children lacking the ability to speak human languages (that they haven't been taught) challenges evolution. You might as well say regular children not being able to speak ALL languages challenges evolution. It's not a legitimate objection since language is not inherited.
No no no no no, feral children might as be the closest observable example to a "wild" child so to speak living amongst non humans. Since speech is something that is developed only at a young age its been a huge uphill battle historically to teach them language and other human attributes. So if anyone ever wanted to know what the first humanoid that popped out of non humaniod would turn out like

Woah. Stop right there. A non-humanoid giving birth to a humanoid doesn't make any sense.
I agree, but how else do you go from monkey to man? I know from the evolutionary perspective we are not talking about a chimp pushing out a baby but at what point do you go to homonid and how?

, it seems compelling their brain would suffer immensley and never make that crucial step into being a modern human outside of the obvious genetical match. In other words also as I have stressed in other threads that gentical matching has absolutely nothing to do with postulating the ability to develope something like speech or reasoning. These areas of the brain CANNOT get the stimulation required to make that step unless its already there from another being to teach it and nurture it. That is the point.
All that Im curious about is how does one reconcile this idea that inevitably supposedly through evolution at one point some "superior" humans would show up and start becomming advanced out of nowhere developing certain skill sets out of nowhere.
What is the idea behind this from an evolutionary perspective.
Well?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:21:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function.

Malnutrition is a thing
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:25:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:05:21 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:57:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

I think others have covered most of the bases on this, but it should be noted that evolution is not necessarily attempting to animals smarter, or make them anything. It is only describing how species best survive, and if intelligence is advantageous that will be carried along.

Your case has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with evolution OR intelligence.

Look we have modern humans here right now correct? How did they get here if not through at some point a race of feral people? How can you reconcile this impossible advancement with the reality we actually know?

I honestly don't get the new question. Hominids before homo-sapien had less social structure. What is it that confuses you about this? How can I explain the growth of social structures? Is that the question?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:33:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:21:29 PM, someloser wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function.

Malnutrition is a thing

Thats not what any scientist has attributed the problem to. Thats a silly suggestion
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:45:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:25:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 9:05:21 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:57:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

I think others have covered most of the bases on this, but it should be noted that evolution is not necessarily attempting to animals smarter, or make them anything. It is only describing how species best survive, and if intelligence is advantageous that will be carried along.

Your case has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with evolution OR intelligence.

Look we have modern humans here right now correct? How did they get here if not through at some point a race of feral people? How can you reconcile this impossible advancement with the reality we actually know?

I honestly don't get the new question. Hominids before homo-sapien had less social structure. What is it that confuses you about this? How can I explain the growth of social structures? Is that the question?
Nothing social. Physical capability nurtured into potential exploit. It is well known non of the missing links (that I and others find to be nothing more than various extinct monkeys) or supposeded intermediaries had speech capability. No one is saying they cant yelp and make noise but even with a voice box that IS capable of speech, these feral children cant even use it to its fullest ability because they were never taught how and so their brains never bothered to develop it. For most feral children its too late to teach them speech in their teens or even when they are 10. The only speech progress they ever made was when someone vigerously attempted to teach it. If we live in a world where we evolve and the neccessary tools for anything are there, why are they only used when an outside force literally teaches them how to do it. When you of anyone else grew up you were in the presence of people speaking. This stimulated your brain and it developed the capacity around age 2-4. If there was never anyone around with language you or anyone else would never develop speech. This is the core of the argument.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:51:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:59:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
God doesnt have to do anything. This is simply the consequence of terrible neglect in a childs life or abandoment. What it does is show the impossibility for any species to just up and develop speech, or complex thoughts without an already intelligent influence

I still don't understand. How does stunted brain development in a child disprove evolution?
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:58:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Absolutely but I would contend that when it comes to homes with smaller doorways and this sort of thing its only a sign of malnutrition. Its why we have what one would rightfully call giants in the NBA and various other populations that are taller because of better access to food and medical care. If youv ever done any work with plants its quite the same thing. You can make 2 clones of a plant, subject them to different environments and the plant itself will slightly change itself to adapt to poorer conditions but none of these changes are positive and arguably you will always have the best plant with the better conditions.

Access to food is a huge factor in evolution. Greater access to food may seem beneficial in the first generation or two, but can be highly detrimental in the long term - because it allows for the weaker animals to survive to breed. (This is one of the lessons from evolution we don't want to apply to our human, screenshot existence.) Competition for food, on the other hand - may have horribly cruel effects in the immediate, but long term strengthens the species - because only the stronger animals survived to breed.

It's true that most genetic mutations will be detrimental, but the thing about evolution is that it doesn't care. It carves a marble from a mountain and discards the rest. It should come with a warning like in the movies - viewer discretion is advised, because when you understand the enormity of it - it raises disturbing questions about our place in the grand scheme of things. But remember the still photograph. That's us; that's who we really are. We shouldn't try and draw lessons from the worlds longest movie - to apply to our screenshot existence.

Well certainly and its a genius mechanism life has to be able to discard things and adapt to various environments it is quite spectacular!

Agreed. Darwin wrote 'there is grandeur in this view of life...' and it is indeed amazing. I recommend reading Dennett. He's very accessible writer on evolution, and some of the explanations he gives will leave you stunned.

With regard to your question; genetics is only one element of development. Another is nurture, or environment. This is what is meant by the nature/nurture dichotomy - when seeking to explain things about development and behaviour, it sometimes difficult to separate genetic factors from developmental factors. Feral children give us an insight into how much of us is down to our genetics, and how much is due to environmental factors. Feral children are genetically human, but their environment is not nurturing - so they do not develop in the same way.

Your 100% correct about all of this, I suppose the point is at place will it be possible to violate the nurture and just have some kind of epiphany that we can speak a language or think abstractly. Construct things, design things all on our own. If a baby doesnt have the influences to teach and nurture it properly it wont develop the skills. Someone else recently posted a thread about humanity getting more dumb. Its things like that I dont see reconcilable with an evolutionary thought.
Your thoughts?

In the evolutionary history of humankind, development of tool use was painfully slow. I mean, the first primitive stone hand axes were used for over a million years, and show remarkable regularity of design. It's interesting when you get into it - and you find yourself asking if they can do x, and they can do y, why don't they do z? But z doesn't come along for another 10,000 years. I think a lot of our knowledge is out there, and ours only by virtue of culture - and that's a danger.

I can only really say this much about the idea of our anscestors being cave men with primitive tools. They found a way to build stonehenge, they found a way to build pyramids (all over the world not just egypt). The only reason we know anything about these structures is because they were made with stone and built to last. The sphinx for example, something dictated to a man (cant remember his name) to dig all this sand out of the way because there was some powerful thing in that spot, we can verify this ancient egyptian story with the fact the structure has been shown to be below the rest of the ground level and various erosian marks. Not to run on and on about it but we also know the head is not origional but the body is and even back then they had no idea who built it or why but it had such an effect on the egyptians they started putting cat figures in their heiroglyphs and felt it important to use that theme. Point here is we dont know at all just how advanced our earliest anscestors were. They could have had advanced structures made out of anything besides stone that got wiped out by a cataclysmic event we just dont know. If we endured nuclear war and everything was wipped out the wild would reclaim everything we have built and you simply wouldnt find evidence of the sears tower, or computers ect. Im sure you see what Im saying. We dont even have our own version of a modern pyramid, and if civilization started over, thousands of years down the line our lineage would probably get our history ALL wrong.

Have you read Erik Von Dankien's Chariots of the Gods. Not true, but a lovely idea. We would have found archaeological evidence of some kind, had there been an advanced civilization here before us. But reason isn't going to change your mind. Instead, think of it like this. Either, aliens exist but choose to keep their existence secret, or they don't exist. Either way, it's better to proceed on the basis that they don't exist, and maybe find something you can't explain - than proceed on the basis they do, and make a lie of everything you find.

I don't know if humankind is getting more dumb, or what that really means. It's such an ill-defined assertion that it uses the word for unable to speak to mean stupid - which isn't very nice for people unable to speak. There's the argument from the film Idiocracy - (which, if you haven't seen it, watch it. It's very funny.) ...that the intelligent people, waiting to have children until they pay off the mortgage, or until they get promoted at work, will be outbred by idiots living in trailer parks, until the world has less smarts than a sack of rocks. If only that were so. Instead, we've such an excess of intelligence, we have geniuses driving busses and making coffee for a living.

Very true I was just using it as an example to show it could be the oposite in which go back 50,000 years and we might find more brilliant minds than we do today. I think we find an overall regression in general health and genetical problems as time goes along. I just dont see this reconcilable to a view that the genetic makeup gets stronger over time.

How can you say we have a regression when all you see is a snapshot? You have no idea what it was really like 50 years ago, less yet 500, or 5,000 years ago. Anything you do know will be biased in all sorts of ways - or limited in others. Genetic make-up doesn't necessarily get stronger over time. That would be an aim. Evolution is the blind watchmaker - oblivious to where it's going, or what it's doing, and yet able to build a working form of exquisite complexity - which is amazing so long as you ignore the vast mountain of discarded attempts.

But this deal about feral children is an obstacle that isnt rationally explainable as to how a whole race of what would have been feral children could possibly be expected to nurture themselves into things like language or anything else we would define as human supremacy and dominance

The thing about feral children is they are not a more natural human - as you seem to think. Their development is warped by unusual circumstances. Healthy animals at any stage in our evolutionary history are very well adapted to their environment - and from around 50,000 years ago, just as intellig
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:00:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:51:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:59:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
God doesnt have to do anything. This is simply the consequence of terrible neglect in a childs life or abandoment. What it does is show the impossibility for any species to just up and develop speech, or complex thoughts without an already intelligent influence

I still don't understand. How does stunted brain development in a child disprove evolution?

I would also add that it is a great example of natural selection. A feral human is less likely to reproduce and put off offspring. Also Look up epigenitics there is much new info on how parents can pass on cellular functions that impact gene expression beyond dna.

U have much to learn grasshopper.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:00:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:51:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:59:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
God doesnt have to do anything. This is simply the consequence of terrible neglect in a childs life or abandoment. What it does is show the impossibility for any species to just up and develop speech, or complex thoughts without an already intelligent influence

I still don't understand. How does stunted brain development in a child disprove evolution?
Simply because at some point you have to go from a whole species of homonids half breeds with stunted brain development..to brain development!
We know the only way speech is developed is by stimulation offfff speech! If theres no speech already, there will never be that development. Does this add some clairity?
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:04:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
...and from around 50,000 years ago, just as intelligent as we are. They just didn't know anything, and their development was painfully slow. But here's the thing, animals have language of sorts - the screech warnings of predators, make cooing sounds when grooming and being groomed. And human language has this underlying element of emotional communication, as evidenced in the onomatopoeic quality of language.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:12:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 10:00:31 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 9:51:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:59:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
God doesnt have to do anything. This is simply the consequence of terrible neglect in a childs life or abandoment. What it does is show the impossibility for any species to just up and develop speech, or complex thoughts without an already intelligent influence

I still don't understand. How does stunted brain development in a child disprove evolution?
Simply because at some point you have to go from a whole species of homonids half breeds with stunted brain development..to brain development!
We know the only way speech is developed is by stimulation offfff speech! If theres no speech already, there will never be that development. Does this add some clairity?

It really doesn't bring clarity. I read a headline of a bacteria discovery that eats plastic found in the wild. If a bacteria never ate plastic prior to plastic how would a modern bacteria eat plastic? Are you claiming God is still creating new life forms?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:14:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:45:11 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 9:25:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 9:05:21 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:57:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

I think others have covered most of the bases on this, but it should be noted that evolution is not necessarily attempting to animals smarter, or make them anything. It is only describing how species best survive, and if intelligence is advantageous that will be carried along.

Your case has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with evolution OR intelligence.

Look we have modern humans here right now correct? How did they get here if not through at some point a race of feral people? How can you reconcile this impossible advancement with the reality we actually know?

I honestly don't get the new question. Hominids before homo-sapien had less social structure. What is it that confuses you about this? How can I explain the growth of social structures? Is that the question?
Nothing social. Physical capability nurtured into potential exploit. It is well known non of the missing links (that I and others find to be nothing more than various extinct monkeys) or supposeded intermediaries had speech capability. No one is saying they cant yelp and make noise but even with a voice box that IS capable of speech, these feral children cant even use it to its fullest ability because they were never taught how and so their brains never bothered to develop it. For most feral children its too late to teach them speech in their teens or even when they are 10. The only speech progress they ever made was when someone vigerously attempted to teach it. If we live in a world where we evolve and the neccessary tools for anything are there, why are they only used when an outside force literally teaches them how to do it. When you of anyone else grew up you were in the presence of people speaking. This stimulated your brain and it developed the capacity around age 2-4. If there was never anyone around with language you or anyone else would never develop speech. This is the core of the argument.

OK. I think I see what you are... well were you are trying to go. In the case of children who have had no exposure to language, there is no doubt they will not know the language. Some tribe of primitive human grunting to each other agree on what the grunt means. Grrrunt = beast that is going to kill you Grunt-grunt (low soft) = mommy. Not tough, and still nothing to do with evolution. Like, 100% NOT about evolution.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:35:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:58:00 PM, autocorrect wrote:


Access to food is a huge factor in evolution. Greater access to food may seem beneficial in the first generation or two, but can be highly detrimental in the long term - because it allows for the weaker animals to survive to breed. (This is one of the lessons from evolution we don't want to apply to our human, screenshot existence.) Competition for food, on the other hand - may have horribly cruel effects in the immediate, but long term strengthens the species - because only the stronger animals survived to breed.
More than fair but we can observe these effects right now country to country. I dont think people in 3rd world countries are any less intelligent but they may develop a shorter body from the elevation they inhabit and lack of nutrition. The doorway thing you had brought up. We dont need to posit one race is superior to the other these are just the real world affects that occur. A good example of a non biological cause of this was when the europeans exploited north america for resources from a lack of it in their own lands or when Japan invaded neighbors during ww2 for the same purpose. I dont think ANY animal is ever going to use such an advanced comcept and I dont think theres any proof for it outside what we consider logical because we have the capacity to think that way. We might observe a population move from local areas but for the most part when a tiger runs out of animals to hunt in their habitat they are going to die and we see that with our stupid interventions of wildlife.


Well certainly and its a genius mechanism life has to be able to discard things and adapt to various environments it is quite spectacular!

Agreed. Darwin wrote 'there is grandeur in this view of life...' and it is indeed amazing. I recommend reading Dennett. He's very accessible writer on evolution, and some of the explanations he gives will leave you stunned.
I will check him out! Any particular work you recommend for a first time read?



I can only really say this much about the idea of our anscestors being cave men with primitive tools. They found a way to build stonehenge, they found a way to build pyramids (all over the world not just egypt). The only reason we know anything about these structures is because they were made with stone and built to last. The sphinx for example, something dictated to a man (cant remember his name) to dig all this sand out of the way because there was some powerful thing in that spot, we can verify this ancient egyptian story with the fact the structure has been shown to be below the rest of the ground level and various erosian marks. Not to run on and on about it but we also know the head is not origional but the body is and even back then they had no idea who built it or why but it had such an effect on the egyptians they started putting cat figures in their heiroglyphs and felt it important to use that theme. Point here is we dont know at all just how advanced our earliest anscestors were. They could have had advanced structures made out of anything besides stone that got wiped out by a cataclysmic event we just dont know. If we endured nuclear war and everything was wipped out the wild would reclaim everything we have built and you simply wouldnt find evidence of the sears tower, or computers ect. Im sure you see what Im saying. We dont even have our own version of a modern pyramid, and if civilization started over, thousands of years down the line our lineage would probably get our history ALL wrong.

Have you read Erik Von Dankien's Chariots of the Gods. Not true, but a lovely idea. We would have found archaeological evidence of some kind, had there been an advanced civilization here before us. But reason isn't going to change your mind. Instead, think of it like this. Either, aliens exist but choose to keep their existence secret, or they don't exist. Either way, it's better to proceed on the basis that they don't exist, and maybe find something you can't explain - than proceed on the basis they do, and make a lie of everything you find.
Yes Im aware of his work and much of it is quite dishonest. I dont see a need to posit aliens in place of human capability and intelligence. I know dawkins has even entertained the idea of "aliens" seeding the earth but to me its perposterous. To say we havent found an advanced civilization of old is somewhat ignoring archaeology and history. You have to consider as well you cant dig anywhere you want. If we had the capability to unearth everything I think personally youd find some mind boggling things. We dont know what the civilization that built the origional sphinx was like because there are no records. We dont keep records in stone today and a basic worldwide emp can ser us back right now 200 years. The only thing you could rely on is testimoney from people who will die and either be believed by generations after them or not. The point remains that based on some primitive tools we DO find means nothing in the way of how humanity actually was at the time. Look at the current imbalance of living. We are arguably 2,000 years ahead of a tribe in the amazon. If all you found were traces of amazon tribes when you dug there it tells you nothing about what washington dc or moscow was at the time. I know its speculative but so is the idea we had comparitivley dumb anscestors despite these great feats they accomplished. We do not have a modern pyramid.


Very true I was just using it as an example to show it could be the oposite in which go back 50,000 years and we might find more brilliant minds than we do today. I think we find an overall regression in general health and genetical problems as time goes along. I just dont see this reconcilable to a view that the genetic makeup gets stronger over time.

How can you say we have a regression when all you see is a snapshot? You have no idea what it was really like 50 years ago, less yet 500, or 5,000 years ago. Anything you do know will be biased in all sorts of ways - or limited in others. Genetic make-up doesn't necessarily get stronger over time. That would be an aim. Evolution is the blind watchmaker - oblivious to where it's going, or what it's doing, and yet able to build a working form of exquisite complexity - which is amazing so long as you ignore the vast mountain of discarded attempts.
We do know what it was like those many years ago because we have historical records. The only ancient historical records we have are in stone or extremely well preserved scrolls ect. We have a fossil record that incomplete because we cant dig everywhere so I just dont agree at all that we need to posit natural selection to stretch into improving species so well that they completely jump into something else entirely. There isnt any proof of this. The only proof we have of complex things being built is when a mind is behind it as explained in my other thread where scientist make synthetic bacterium in a lab by pitting the necessary genes together themselves. That is more than evidence that we dont need evolution at all to make anything.



The thing about feral children is they are not a more natural human - as you seem to think. Their development is warped by unusual circumstances. Healthy animals at any stage in our evolutionary history are very well ada
Maybe so but again as to the point of this post. We have observable humonoids with ALL the tools from birth to become human. But since life is progressed from nurture (humans and animals) unless you have a teacher, the homonid or feral child will never develop into anything that actually utilizes its capabilities unless an intelligence teaches it or nurtures it. You cannot get speech without existing speech.
We are spread thin on room here. Maybe we can start a separate thread to address these other points and keep this one more on topic.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:50:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 10:12:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:00:31 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 9:51:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:59:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:48:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

Huh?
Are u saying God reduces the brain size and functionality in feral children?
God doesnt have to do anything. This is simply the consequence of terrible neglect in a childs life or abandoment. What it does is show the impossibility for any species to just up and develop speech, or complex thoughts without an already intelligent influence

I still don't understand. How does stunted brain development in a child disprove evolution?
Simply because at some point you have to go from a whole species of homonids half breeds with stunted brain development..to brain development!
We know the only way speech is developed is by stimulation offfff speech! If theres no speech already, there will never be that development. Does this add some clairity?

It really doesn't bring clarity. I read a headline of a bacteria discovery that eats plastic found in the wild. If a bacteria never ate plastic prior to plastic how would a modern bacteria eat plastic? Are you claiming God is still creating new life forms?
Noooooo discovering a new bacteria doesnt mean it wasnt already here, I checked into it because you mentioned it in the other post its called Ideonella sakainesis. Its pretty new to us but so was cancer in its day and hiv in its day. Plastic is created from existing earthly compounds so Im not suprised when they found that it functions at over 80 degrees and eats plastic its because the samples were taken from contaminated sources from soil ect. Could be a bacteria thats thousands of years old really and is only on our radar because we are finally interacting with it and searching for a solutiom to our oceanic plastic problem.
As to the post point, I guess no ine can explain how homonids developed speech without someone to teach it to them.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 11:31:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:10:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 8:10:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:54:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:33:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?

It seems like you're suggesting feral children lacking the ability to speak human languages (that they haven't been taught) challenges evolution. You might as well say regular children not being able to speak ALL languages challenges evolution. It's not a legitimate objection since language is not inherited.
No no no no no, feral children might as be the closest observable example to a "wild" child so to speak living amongst non humans. Since speech is something that is developed only at a young age its been a huge uphill battle historically to teach them language and other human attributes. So if anyone ever wanted to know what the first humanoid that popped out of non humaniod would turn out like

Woah. Stop right there. A non-humanoid giving birth to a humanoid doesn't make any sense.
I agree, but how else do you go from monkey to man? I know from the evolutionary perspective we are not talking about a chimp pushing out a baby but at what point do you go to homonid and how?

The populations evolve together. It's not like a baby will ever be of a different species than it's parents.

, it seems compelling their brain would suffer immensley and never make that crucial step into being a modern human outside of the obvious genetical match. In other words also as I have stressed in other threads that gentical matching has absolutely nothing to do with postulating the ability to develope something like speech or reasoning. These areas of the brain CANNOT get the stimulation required to make that step unless its already there from another being to teach it and nurture it. That is the point.
All that Im curious about is how does one reconcile this idea that inevitably supposedly through evolution at one point some "superior" humans would show up and start becomming advanced out of nowhere developing certain skill sets out of nowhere.
What is the idea behind this from an evolutionary perspective.
Well?

There is no point in human evolution where we can say, "right there, THAT's the first modern human!" That's a misunderstanding on your part.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 12:05:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 11:31:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 9:10:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 8:10:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:54:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:33:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:57:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 2:58:22 PM, bigotry wrote:
I know evolutionists want to play pretend like animals and living life forms magically get smarter over time and spontaneously change their own genetic coding.
If this is true why do feral children regress so significantly, lose brain size and function. Ect? Shouldnt this magical force make the genese figure it all out since they are offspring 99.9999% identical in genetic makeup to advanced humans?

That would be a developmental issue. Inheritance requires an environment to develop.
How would the environent ever possibly exist for man to do anything that separates him from the wild if he didnt learn it from a pre existing being giving it direction. Thats what a parent is to a child afterall.
But again, why do feral children if they are the offspring of an advanced animal so to speak then why dont they develop speech for example on their own? Why do they only learn how to speak like the animals they are raised around?

It seems like you're suggesting feral children lacking the ability to speak human languages (that they haven't been taught) challenges evolution. You might as well say regular children not being able to speak ALL languages challenges evolution. It's not a legitimate objection since language is not inherited.
No no no no no, feral children might as be the closest observable example to a "wild" child so to speak living amongst non humans. Since speech is something that is developed only at a young age its been a huge uphill battle historically to teach them language and other human attributes. So if anyone ever wanted to know what the first humanoid that popped out of non humaniod would turn out like

Woah. Stop right there. A non-humanoid giving birth to a humanoid doesn't make any sense.
I agree, but how else do you go from monkey to man? I know from the evolutionary perspective we are not talking about a chimp pushing out a baby but at what point do you go to homonid and how?

The populations evolve together. It's not like a baby will ever be of a different species than it's parents.
This is exactly why anyone rejects the idea as absurd.

, it seems compelling their brain would suffer immensley and never make that crucial step into being a modern human outside of the obvious genetical match. In other words also as I have stressed in other threads that gentical matching has absolutely nothing to do with postulating the ability to develope something like speech or reasoning. These areas of the brain CANNOT get the stimulation required to make that step unless its already there from another being to teach it and nurture it. That is the point.
All that Im curious about is how does one reconcile this idea that inevitably supposedly through evolution at one point some "superior" humans would show up and start becomming advanced out of nowhere developing certain skill sets out of nowhere.
What is the idea behind this from an evolutionary perspective.
Well?

There is no point in human evolution where we can say, "right there, THAT's the first modern human!" That's a misunderstanding on your part.
Then you dont have evolution. To remedy this prominent scientist have proposed punctual equilibrium. Which is also another perposterous idea