Bonobos prefigure language? Agenda so obvious it stinks

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 17, 2015

Animal minds, Intelligent Design, language}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to National Geographic: Bonobo peeps point to human language origin ( No one even thinks of asking why, if baby bonobo peeping tells us about the roots of human language, it never did anything for the bonobos).

and

Apes close to speaking? No. (In the middle ages, it was implausible miracle stories that attracted attention, but today, it is implausible ape achievement stories. )

The agenda is so obvious, it stinks like the garbage on a hot summer night before the pickup.

For example, this just rolled out of the files: Neanderthals could talk? Warning: Concept now used to claim that language was no big leap after all.

Note that if bonobos “peep,” that shows they are on the verge of speaking. But Neanderthals did speak (of course they did), that shows it isn’t a big achievement.

Much of what is called evolutionary biology, in connection with humans, is actually glorified pop science seeking confirmation of claims that disconfirm themselves.

Is Monday garbage day in your neighbourhood too?

See also:

Can we talk? Language as the business end of consciousness

and

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

Comments

How much more, DaveS? Back to the beginning. Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam used an early human language. No bonobo-like peeping. Please, stop the peeping schtick. Not another peep out of you.ppolish_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Much of what is called evolutionary biology, in connection with humans, is actually glorified pop science seeking confirmation of claims that disconfirm themselves.
Well, of course it looks like this if you only read the popular press.Bob O'H_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Man was created 6000 years ago and fully talky. His wife too. Even the serrpent (who was satan). Nothing unique about human speech. its just that we are so smart and memorize so well that we can organize sounds into combinations that we all agree with as to meaning. Then mix it up. no big deal. In fact the only difference between us and barking/whimpering dogs is smartness and the use of our memory. Simple. Human intelligence never couldn't talk with the tongue. Also there was never a time we made sounds like a language but were too dumb to have something to say. Apes have nothing to say. Thats the only problem. Otherwise they would talk pretty quick in a recognizable language way. They don't even sing. So no way smart enough to use sentences.Robert Byers_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

It would seem reasonable that if atheistic materialists were going to hypothesize about when humans gained their unique ability to create and understand complex functional information that they should at least first try to establish that it was even possible for unguided material processes of chance and necessity to produce such complex functional information in the first place. But alas, apparently 'reasonableness' has never been a strong suit for atheistic materialists. But if one actually looks for evidence to see if it is even possible that chance and necessity can produce complex functional information, one will be looking for a VERY long time. There simply is no evidence that chance and necessity can produce complex functional information.
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - David L Abel and Jack T Trevors Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC). FSC alone provides algorithmic instruction.,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC). http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
Moreover, just one example of unguided material processes producing non-trivial functional information would falsify Intelligent Design.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - 2011 Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/11759341/Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_-_Scirus_Sci-Topic_Page
In fact, even given the entire probabilistic resources of the universe, the probability that unguided material processes could have produced only 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search is so remote that 'adjectives fail':
Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. per fourmilab
To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for 'structured, functional information':
Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur. 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. How many bits would that be: Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits Call it 500 bits
This following short sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity - Winston Ewert - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU
Certainly "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" does not seem like that hard of a limit to surpass. But alas, besides unguided material processes failing to surpass that threshold, monkeys, nor any other animal, has ever come close to writing out a short structured sentence like that:
A scientist looks again at Project Nim - Trying to teach Chimps to talk fails Excerpt: "The language didn't materialize. A human baby starts out mostly imitating, then begins to string words together. Nim didn't learn. His three-sign combinations - such as 'eat me eat' or 'play me Nim' - were redundant. He imitated signs to get rewards. I published the negative results in 1979 in the journal Science, which had a chilling effect on the field." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-truth-about-%E2%80%9Cchimp-language-capabilities Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. per evolution news and views
Seeing the sheer poverty of any substantiating evidence whatsoever for the grandiose claims of atheistic materialists, i.e. that unguided material processes easily produce the encyclopedias worth of information we find inside each genome, it is also interesting to note that the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is now found to be foundational to life:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU John Lennox - Semiotic Information - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw
As well, as if that was not 'spooky enough', information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: per metanexus.net/ Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, per physorg
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made 'in the image of God', than finding that both the universe and life itself are 'information theoretic' in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information. I guess a more convincing evidence could be that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Turin Shroud Quantum Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=J21MECNU Solid Oval Object Under The Beard http://shroud3d.com/findings/solid-oval-object-under-the-beard
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc
bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

ppolish, By how much more? Heh. I originally wrote "tens of thousands" because Ms O'Leary has stated elsewhere that she believes Neanderthals also had human language, and AFAIK, Neanderthals merged with us/became extinct/something or other on the order of some tens of thousands of years ago. Therefore, I concluded that I would not provoke disagreement by claiming that human language was at least that old.daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Yes I noticed your "more". But a couple orders of magnitude is more than a "more". Yes I'm an OEC:)ppolish_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

ppolish, Which is consistent with what I said. I also believe it has been longer than tens of thousands of years, but I gave that range because everyone here agrees that's a lower bound. Also notice "or more" at the end of the sentence.daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. — Henry Gee, Nature, October 5, 2011bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

DaveS, I was "mocking" your "human language has been around for 10's of thousands of years". No, it has been there since the start. Without peep sounds.ppolish_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Here is some more commentary on bonobo peeps: http://crev.info/2015/08/evolutionists-struggle-to-explain-language/tjguy_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic,
The fact that an animal can make different sounds – as birds and insects do, is not much to build an evolutionary story upon.
Are we talking about the same thing? Functional flexibility? It's not simply animals making different sounds. This sentence from the abstract of the 2013 paper which I quoted above, indicates its importance:
Such flexible affect expression of vocalizations has not yet been reported for any nonhuman primate but if found to occur would suggest deep roots for functional flexibility of vocalization in our primate heritage.
And now it has been reported, which is the significant thing.daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

ppolish,
What the heck? You think Homo Erectus were peeping at each other a million years ago? I would think their vocabulary of grunts and groans numbered in the thousands. The more articulate grunters were probably the early lawyers and politicians. Proto lawyers lol. And spoken language needs to form way before written. Complex vocal discussions before written. Homo Erectus as peepers lol. Use your brian DaveS.
Huh? I can't tell if there's a serious question in there.daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

ppolish at 11 , nice find dude! OT: Biomimicry Could Solve Green Energy Problems and Lead to Environmentally Friendly Tech - Casey Luskin - August 17, 2015 Excerpt: The humble butterfly could hold the key to unlocking new techniques to make solar energy cheaper and more efficient, pioneering new research has shown. A team of experts from the University of Exeter has examined new techniques for generating photovoltaic (PV) energy -- or ways in which to convert light into power. They showed that by mimicking the v-shaped posture adopted by the Cabbage White butterfly (pictured above) to heat up their flight muscles before takeoff, the amount of power produced by solar panels can increase by almost 50 per cent. Crucially, by replicating this 'wing-like' structure, the power-to-weight ratio of the overall solar energy structure is increased 17-fold, making it vastly more efficient.,,, butterfly wings are both highly reflective and much lighter than any current reflective material. Mimicking these reflective structures with similar power to weight properties will be extremely useful in the design of new reflective materials for use in applications where weight is a limiting issue http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/biomimicry_coul098551.htmlbornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

"human language has been around for tens of thousands of years or more?" What the heck? You think Homo Erectus were peeping at each other a million years ago? I would think their vocabulary of grunts and groans numbered in the thousands. The more articulate grunters were probably the early lawyers and politicians. Proto lawyers lol. And spoken language needs to form way before written. Complex vocal discussions before written. Homo Erectus as peepers lol. Use your brian DaveS. Brian & Brain sound very different btw. But it took a million years to get it right. Erectus as peepers lol again:)ppolish_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Vocal cords of pig and dog similar to human. Monkey not so much. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10807360/ Oink Woofppolish_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Pigs prefigure human language too? Peeps & Oinks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQLNS3HWfCMppolish_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

daveS
They are our closest relatives, so if any other animals have this “functional flexibility”, why wouldn’t it be bonobos?
If the function is irrelevant to the development of language, then the closeness of the ancestral-relation is also irrelevant. The fact that an animal can make different sounds - as birds and insects do, is not much to build an evolutionary story upon. That language can be reduced to functional sounds, absent a conscious, rational self for intentional selection, comparison and learning from language-concepts -- is a major problem in itself. None of this is touched upon in the study. It is assumed that there can be a gradual transition from animal to human cognition.Silver Asiatic_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

daveS, just as well that you ignore me since you have no real time empirical evidence to back up your grandiose claims for common ancestry! Moreover, I'd rather show you to be the uncompromising dogmatic atheist that you are with no blowback from you when I do it. Moreover, since common ancestry has no real time empirical evidence to support the plausibility of changing one creature into another creature, then it must be, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, and no matter who signs off on it, a materialistic assumption. Empirical science could care less for personal opinions and only cares for what you can prove by experiment. History is littered with discarded scientific theories that were received consensus at the time that they were accepted, and then only later overturned by advances in empirical evidence. If anything the history of science shows the danger of relying on 'consensus thinking'.
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26 Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
as to consensus, when somebody invokes consensus instead of actual evidence, reach for your wallet because you are being had:
Evidence against Global warming: Excerpt: “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” (From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology)
bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Actually common ancestry is not a “given”, it is an empirically unsupported materialistic assumption that Darwinists take for granted as if it were a empirically supported “given”.
Behe, Denton, several ID advocates here, and virtually all mainstream scientists accept common ancestry, so it's not just a "materialistic assumption". I don't want to be rude, but I won't be responding to the rest of your posts in this thread.daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

"They are our closest relatives, so if any other animals have this “functional flexibility”, why wouldn’t it be bonobos?" Save for the fact that they are not our closest relatives, you may have had a point. In fact, anatomically speaking, pigs are our 'closest relatives': In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than orthodox neo-Darwinists had first supposed it would be:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic,
Outrage because it's agenda driven.
Maybe this depends on one's perspective. That's not how I see it.
Implausible because the unique origin of human language is unknown.
I do see how one could doubt the relevance of this paper to development of human language, but I don't see how one could conclude that it's implausible that bonobos would have this ability. They are our closest relatives, so if any other animals have this "functional flexibility", why wouldn't it be bonobos?daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

as to:
""given" that they and humans share a common ancestor roughly 5 (correction: 5–10) million years ago"
Actually common ancestry is not a "given", it is an empirically unsupported materialistic assumption that Darwinists take for granted as if it were a empirically supported "given".
What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Icons Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Icon - Jonathan Wells – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzTFeWL19Bs Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/ More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes,, in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/ Science & Human Origins: Interview With Dr. Douglas Axe (podcast on the strict limits found for changing proteins to other very similar proteins) - July 2012 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-24T21_33_53-07_00 Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (greater than 100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Pt 2. – Richard Sternberg PhD. Evolutionary Biology Excerpt: “Here’s the interesting thing, when you look at the protein coding sequences that you have in your cell what you find is that they are nearly identical to the protein coding sequences of a dog, of a carp, of a fruit fly, of a nematode. They are virtually the same and they are interchangeable. You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct (from one another). So when you get to the folder and the super-folder and the higher order level, that’s when you find these striking differences. And here is another example. They are now sequencing the nuclear DNA of the Atlantic bottle-nose dolphin. And when they started initially sequencing the DNA, the first thing they realized is that basically the Dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome. That is, there are a few chromosome rearrangements here and there, you line the sequences up and they fit very well. Yet no one would argue, based on a statement like that, that bottle-nose dolphins are closely related to us. Our sister species if you will. No one would presume to do that. So you would have to layer in some other presumption. But here is the point. You will see these statements throughout the literature of how common things are.,,, (Parts lists are very similar, but how the parts are used is where you will find tremendous differences) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve? SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-and-science-in-conflict/ etc.. etc..
bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Outrage because it's agenda driven. Implausible because the unique origin of human language is unknown.Silver Asiatic_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

I'm not sure why this paper is drawing so much outrage. I found this in the abstract of another paper from 2013, on human infant vocalization:
Functional flexibility is a sine qua non in spoken language, because all words or sentences can be produced as expressions of varying emotional states and because learning conventional “meanings” requires the ability to produce sounds that are free of any predetermined function. Functional flexibility is a defining characteristic of language, and empirically it appears before syntax, word learning, and even earlier-developing features presumed to be critical to language (e.g., joint attention, syllable imitation, and canonical babbling).
Is it that implausible that chimps/bonobos have this capacity as well, given that they and humans share a common ancestor roughly 5 (correction: 5--10) million years ago, and human language has been around for tens of thousands of years or more?daveS_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

"Is Monday garbage day in your neighbourhood too?" Its amazing what some people, (in this case atheists), end up throwing away without realizing the true value of it: Better Off Dead. Throwing away a perfectly good white boy - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6srI0EVwTUE Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? supplemental note: Dr. Garbage By Ben McGrath http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/13/dr-garbagebornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply