KLOBBER wrote:Balsiefen wrote:I don't think its unreasonable to think that, as intelligence and experience increased, language could have developed over the 400,000 years since our species evolved and the 6 million years before that since our branch diverged from that of modern apes.
Whether you "think" it or not is irrelevant. There is no evidence that mankind's intelligence has increased, historically. All evidence clearly shows just the opposite -- that mankind's intelligence is on the decrease as time passes, and the degradation of all language sets, across the board, is but one example of this hard fact.
In prehistory It's always a little hard but brain to body size is a reasonable indicator and it has increased. Also good evidence is in the complexity of shaped tools (Talking flint more than powertools but the ability to make this kind of progress is also evidence of an increase in intelligence) Other indicators are such as the introduction of art (which I have seen first hand and its amazing btw) and ceremonial burial (an interesting fact is that Neanderthals also had this which is evidence that they may have had religion themselves). As for degridation in language, I and others have made several posts on the topic and your position on this is arguable at best. Besides, evolution is rarely so fast as to have noticeable effects over a mere thousand years.
There is no evidence that any species "evolved" from another. On the contrary, each member of each respective species has always, and will always, give birth to members of its own species, exclusively. There is not a single example in the history of the world of one species producing a member of another species.
This is, I feel, rather misinformed. Species is a definition, so that it can be marked where one species ends and another begins, but evolution doesn't work like this: a fish won't give birth to a shark, but it may give birth to a fish with slightly larger teeth. Evolution is far too slow a process for any species to entirely develop within recorded history (though such as dogs are coming close to being so through the speeded up process of artificial selection and breeding). But fossil record does show, rather clearly in places if incomplete in others, species developing until it is declared that they are no longer the same species (though again, with no living specimen, it is hard to define where the line should be drawn)
There is no evidence that "our branch" diverged from that of modern apes. There is no example of any common ancestor of both modern man and modern apes ("missing link") and such a thing would be necessary to prove your silly theory. It is well-known in every country in the world that no such "missing link" has ever existed, and there has certainly never been any example of any such thing giving birth to both humans and apes. Your entire post is pure nonsense.
Oh dear, and here was the science of the developed world thinking there was. Booouy were we stupid >_<. Guess that shut us up.
