Jump to content

Thou shalt no kill


Recommended Posts

Please forgive me. When I used the word “read”, I meant it in a general sense of understanding symbols, and I did not necessarily mean that the objects being read were sentences composed of words composed of letters. That is, I used read in the sense of 1a below, and not necessarily in the sense of 4 below.

 

For example, with some prehistoric American Indians, if one Indian was alone in camp and decided to go in a certain direction to hunt deer, he would make a cut in a tree or stump designated for this purpose, where the cut would show the direction he took, and then he would stuff into the cut something related to a deer, such as a bit of deer hide. When the other Indians returned to camp, they would read/understand the cut, the direction it pointed toward, and the bit of deer hide, and know that the Indian had gone in that direction to hunt deer.

 

Furthermore, I stated that reading helped humans to evolve, and I did not mean that reading helped pre-humans to evolve into humans (in the sense of macro-evolution), although this can neither be proved nor disproved, rather that reading helped humans to evolve as humans (in the sense of micro-evolution). This is why I questioned how the ability to read halted our as-human evolution. No one has given proof that humans have stopped evolving; therefore, we continue to evolve.

 

read

vt.

1. a) to get the meaning of (something written, printed, embossed, etc.) by using the eyes, or for Braille, the finger tips, to interpret its characters or signs

b) short for proofread

2. to utter aloud (printed or written matter)

3. to interpret movements of (the lips of a person speaking)

4. to know (a language) well enough to interpret its written form

5. a) to understand the nature, significance, or thinking of as if by reading [to read a person’s character in her face, to read someone’s mind]

b) to ascribe (an underlying meaning or significance) to: with into [don’t read anything into his straightforward reply]

6. a) to interpret (signals, etc.)

b) to interpret (dreams, omens, tea leaves, lines in the palm of a hand, etc.)

7. to foretell (the future)

8. to interpret or understand (a printed passage) as having a particular meaning

9. to interpret (a musical composition) in a particular way, as in conducting

10. to have or give as a reading in a certain passage

11. Brit. to study, as at a university; esp., to major in [to read law]

12. to record and show; register [the thermometer reads 80°

13. to put into a (specified) state by reading [to read a child to sleep]

14. Slang to hear and understand [i read you loud and clear]

15. Comput. to access (data or a file) from (a disk, tape, etc.)

vi.

1. to read something written, printed, etc., as words, music, books, etc.

2. to utter or repeat aloud the words of written or printed matter

3. to learn by reading: with about or of

4. to study

5. to have or give a particular meaning when read [a poem that reads several ways]

6. to contain, or be drawn up in, certain words [the sentence reads as follows]

7. to admit of being read as specified [a story that reads well]

n.

1. an act of reading [a quick read of the headlines]

2. something for reading [a novel that’s a good read]

3. Chiefly Brit. a period of time spent reading

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AFAIK the percentage of men on the front line that deliberately shot to avoid killing was up to 95%, the other 5% were known as “heroes”. In peacetime these men/women are known as sociopaths. Most peo

No, I can't agree with "all the damn time". I think it would be up to you to prove your statement. And as for Jericho, not everyone was killed. The people of Jericho knew that Israel (with God) would

That is an outlandish and unfounded statement and I resent it greatly.

So what?

We evolved before we could read so reading didn't help us evolve.

Moving the goalpost by redefining "reading" won't help here.

 

All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read.

I look forward to your post about great works of literature from blue/green algae.

 

Also, you missed the point re

"No one has given proof that humans have stopped evolving; therefore, we continue to evolve. "

Nobody has said otherwise.

Nobody suggested that humans have stopped evolving.

In fact what I said was "That we still evolve isn't the issue." which implies that they are still evolving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We evolved before we could read so reading didn't help us evolve.

I would change this, somewhat. Yes, we evolved before we could read. However, the ability to read in and of itself very likely changed the nature of human evolution from that point forward, and potentially provided a strong selective advantage to literates. I don't really see this as an either/or issue, as it's not. We just need to be more precise with our words overall. Not fully relevant in this context, but I felt compelled to offer a dose of morning pedantry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked a question earlier in this topic which was "Here is something that puzzles me about the innocence of very young people. If someone had killed an evil person such as Adolf Hitler when he/she was a child would he/she have gone to heaven?"

 

The general consensus seems to be that the Bible is silent on this question. I can't agree because of the two following quotes:-

 

English Standard Version (©2001)

But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

 

"English Standard Version (©2001)

and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"

(IMO) The first quote suggests strongly that all children are acceptable in the sight of God. The second quote suggests that should you wish to enter Heaven you must become like children in their innocence.

http://bible.cc/luke/18-16.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-3.htm

Edited by Joatmon
Link to post
Share on other sites
For most of human history and all our precursors, we couldn't read. So no, there's no way it helped us evolve.

Really? Read on.

 

All I have to do is trace our [human] origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read.

I look forward to your post about great works of literature from blue/green algae.

Some ape geneses have the ability to read (see photo below, captioned "Reading Together", showing an ape named Kanzi reading symbolic lexigrams). Kanzi has a vocabulary of several thousand words, and can both read and create sentences using lexigrams.

 

Apparently the ability to read and write is part of a section of the great ape gene pool, and thus, pretty convincing evidence that pre-humans also had the ability to read and write. So, humans evolved from a human precursor (from ~5 MYA) who had the ability to read and write.

 

Will apes suffice in lieu of blue-green algae, or are you sticking to your facetiousness?

 

teacher.jpg

source

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Read on.

 

 

Some ape geneses have the ability to read (see photo below, captioned "Reading Together", showing an ape named Kanzi reading symbolic lexigrams). Kanzi has a vocabulary of several thousand words, and can both read and create sentences using lexigrams.

 

Apparently the ability to read and write is part of a section of the great ape gene pool, and thus, pretty convincing evidence that pre-humans also had the ability to read and write. So, humans evolved from a human precursor (from ~5 MYA) who had the ability to read and write.

 

Will apes suffice in lieu of blue-green algae, or are you sticking to your facetiousness?

 

teacher.jpg

source

 

Looking at this picture, one notes immediately that the squares have different colours. Does Kanzi need different coloured squares to point at? What if the colours were removed, leaving only geometrical shapes in black and white - as used in Chinese characters.

 

If the squares contained only monochrome Chinese characters, would Kanzi cope?

 

Or - as I suspect would probably happen - be either completely flummoxed, or at least be a much poorer performer. Has this experiment been tried?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewmon,

I'm not being facetious.

OK, so chimps can read, but their distant ancestors couldn't.

Now look at what I said.

"All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read."

and at what you said that I said.

"All I have to do is trace our [human] origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read."

Do you see what you did there?

You put a word in to change the meaning and make it wrong.

Our distant ancestors (and up until very recently most of our ancestors) couldn't read (unless you choose to redefine the word "read")

So reading may have affected our evolution since we became human (particularly in the last few hundred years) but it didn't help humans evolve.

It's like saying that cars helped apes evolve into humans.

 

 

I think it's fair to say that you have not just lost the argument, but you have admitted it.

In order to make it look as if I'm mistaken you deliberately change what I say and post it as a quote.

I think that should be a banning offence, it certainly shows that you have no integrity.

 

I'd sooner continue this discussion with Kanzi: he probably wouldn't resort to the sort of thing you did.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewmon,

I'm not being facetious.

OK, so chimps can read, but their distant ancestors couldn't.

Now look at what I said.

"All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read."

and at what you said that I said.

"All I have to do is trace our [human] origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read."

Do you see what you did there?

You put a word in to change the meaning and make it wrong.

Our distant ancestors (and up until very recently most of our ancestors) couldn't read (unless you choose to redefine the word "read")

So reading may have affected our evolution since we became human (particularly in the last few hundred years) but it didn't help humans evolve.

It's like saying that cars helped apes evolve into humans.

 

I think it's fair to say that you have not just lost the argument, but you have admitted it.

In order to make it look as if I'm mistaken you deliberately change what I say and post it as a quote.

I think that should be a banning offence, it certainly shows that you have no integrity.

 

I'd sooner continue this discussion with Kanzi: he probably wouldn't resort to the sort of thing you did.

I didn't redefine the definition of the word "read", sense 1a (to understand the meaning) is the original sense and a currently valid sense. Do you read me? Can you tell me why it's the original sense and a currently valid one?

 

So, what do you mean by "read"? Use an alphabet? Then the Chinese can't read.

 

You keep saying: "All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read." So now, do it.

 

John Cuthber, everyone knows what brackets means: I further defined your meaning as I understood it. When you said "our origins" — as in the origins of "you and me" — I interpreted you as saying that "you and me" are humans. So now, please fill in the blank: You and I are ______.

 

You think I should be banned? I will call you on this. After I'm done with this post, I will try to report my own post for banning (which I don't think I can do), or failing that, I will "report" your post with the intent of interesting a moderator in your claim that I should be banned. If I'm guilty as charged, then I'll be banned. Let's see ...

 

Done. I reported myself. You can do it on this forum! Please read the entirety of the report below.

 

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you like this, but John Cuthber and I are having quite the discussion here, and he just said (if you read further in the thread) that I committed a ban-able offense in this post of mine (that I am now reporting to you) by misquoting him in that I added "[human]" to his use of the word "our".

 

Honestly, we are in disagreement on several points, and I really can't understand why. It's like he and I are speaking two different languages. I am trying to make what John and I are saying to each other converge to one final understanding. This is what I see as debating an issue.

 

If you think that I have broken the rules of this forum, please respond appropriately, even if it means punishing me in some way.

 

I appreciate your consideration to this matter. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, what do you mean by "read"? Use an alphabet? Then the Chinese can't read. "

Clearly bollocks*.

The Chinese have had an alphabet for ages. (and this puts you close to a breach of rule 1 c)

"Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited."

 

 

"You keep saying: "All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read." So now, do it. "

OK, lets, for an example start with the point where we split from lemurs.

Show me a literate lemur.

A literate dog?

A literate reptile?

and so on.

 

"So now, please fill in the blank: You and I are ______. "

OK, the blank should read " different from what our distant ancestors were because we have evolved, but we did most of that evolution without benefit of reading (by most sensible definitions)."

 

When you reported yourself did you mention that your post reached rules 3 and 4?

misrepresentation is, in most jurisdictions, unlawful.

You plainly misrepresented what I said.

 

Also your post could be viewed as an extreme case of straw manning. Which, as a logical fallacy, is banned.

 

*It's my habit to use the word "Bollocks" to describe the sort of nonsense that's built on a tightly held belief that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The word literally means "priests" and its use has been tested in law and found not to be obscene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think I should be banned? I will call you on this. After I'm done with this post, I will try to report my own post for banning (which I don't think I can do), or failing that, I will "report" your post with the intent of interesting a moderator in your claim that I should be banned. If I'm guilty as charged, then I'll be banned.

That seems quite silly to me. Nobody could be banned over something so trivial. In fact you shouldn't even bother the moderators with something so silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, John Cuthber, what do you mean by "read"? I gave you 25 bona fide choices, or you can use your own words.

 

I use sense 1a, which is the original meaning and a currently valid one. For example, the blind who use Braille can "read", the prehistoric American Indians who could interpret the meaning of the deer hide wedged into a cut in a tree stump pointing in a particular compass direction could "read", deaf people can "read" lips, and Helen Keller could "read" through touching people's lips, face and voice box (she put her thumb on their voice box to distinguish voiced/unvoiced phonemes).

 

This photo shows Helen Keller reading what President Eisenhower is saying.

 

Helen-Keller_1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take your pick. Then show me an example of a bacterium reading.

 

However when you talked about "Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve," I think most people will have thought you meant words on paper etc.

 

The fact remains that, since humans first emerged the only real evidence of evolution are a couple of odd traits like skin colour, and maintaining the ability to digest lactose into adulthood.

Almost all of our evolution from blue green algae to the present day has had nothing to do with any ability to read that some of us may have had.

 

Incidentally, since there has never been any question that people can read, what purpose did you think that picture served?

 

Was the idea to distract attention from the fact that you lied about what I said earlier?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take your pick. Then show me an example of a bacterium reading.

 

However when you talked about "Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve," I think most people will have thought you meant words on paper etc.

 

The fact remains that, since humans first emerged the only real evidence of evolution are a couple of odd traits like skin colour, and maintaining the ability to digest lactose into adulthood.

Almost all of our evolution from blue green algae to the present day has had nothing to do with any ability to read that some of us may have had.

 

Incidentally, since there has never been any question that people can read, what purpose did you think that picture served?

 

Was the idea to distract attention from the fact that you lied about what I said earlier?

Take your pick. Okay, I pick sense 1a, and then some (keep reading).

 

... a bacterium reading ... blue green algae. You're still taking it to the extreme where I only went as far back as pre-humans. The essence of reading and talking involves consciously dealing with the abstract, which is one of the major characteristics of being human, or nearly human ... that we can "read" meaning into something that is not obvious. We would actually need the ability to create those abstract symbols — to write — in order to read words on paper.

 

... show me an example of a bacterium reading. Because bacterium contain ribosomes, "Ribosomes read the nucleotide sequence" technically qualifies as bacteria reading ;); however, I do admit that bacteria do not do so consciously.

 

Almost all of ... evolution ... has had nothing to do with any ability to read .... Au contraire, mon frere. The chimp, who learned to prank the others with his leopard alarm call, has learned to "write" a leopard into the situation, knowing how others would "read" it, to distract them from the food they just discovered — consciously manipulating the abstract. This cheating, like murder, has it's evolutionary advantages.

 

did you think that picture served ... to distract attention from the fact that you lied about what I said earlier. You're "reading" too much into the situation. The Helen Keller photo was just another visual example, as with Kanzi the ape reading, of "reading" without necessarily using words on paper.

 

You and I are suffering from the ambiguity of language. Your words "our origins" could refer to our evolution: 1) within the human species, 2) from pre-humans onward (that is, since we split from other simians, including extinct species such as the Neanderthals), or 3) the evolutionary path from abiogenesis onward unique to the ultimate production of the human species. I now realize that you meant "our origins" in the third sense (from abiogenesis onward), whereas I had understood it to be in the first sense because you have consistently claimed that the human ability to read occurred only very recently within the human species (for example, you had previously said, "For most of human history [...], we couldn't read").

Link to post
Share on other sites

When people talk about the origin of life they don't mean 99.9% of the way through evolution. They mean the origin.

 

And, to me, you seem to be back tracking furiously from your original assertion that "Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve,"

As I pointed out before (unless you take a version of the word read that means that all living things can read- which makes it pointless)

Estimates for the date vary, but humans evolved about 300 million years ago.

They did that without the help of any books.

 

 

and re. "Au contraire, mon frere. The chimp, who learned to prank the others with his leopard alarm call, has learned to "write" a leopard into the situation, knowing how others would "read" it"

Come on, even you accepted that it's not the real use of the words and that's what the quote marks are for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Estimates for the date vary, but humans evolved about 300 million years ago.

 

Um, not to put to fine a point on it, but that's a load of crap. Try more like 6 to 7 million years ago, if you date by the fossil evidence of the first hominids.

 

300 million would be the edge of the Carbiniferous/Permian eras, and we barely had reptiles, much less mammals. Primates don't appear in the fossil record until the Paleogene era, roughly 55 million years ago. Maybe you had an extra 0 in your number?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, not to put to fine a point on it, but that's a load of crap. Try more like 6 to 7 million years ago, if you date by the fossil evidence of the first hominids.

 

300 million would be the edge of the Carbiniferous/Permian eras, and we barely had reptiles, much less mammals. Primates don't appear in the fossil record until the Paleogene era, roughly 55 million years ago. Maybe you had an extra 0 in your number?

 

Oops!

Quit right. I can't type.

I was aiming for the start of the palaeolithic so it's 2 zeros too many.

3 million years.

Still a long time before there were any books to read while you waited for modern civilisation to turn up.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops!

Quit right. I can't type.

I was aiming for the start of the palaeolithic so it's 2 zeros too many.

3 million years.

Still a long time before there were any books to read while you waited for modern civilisation to turn up.

 

It happens. And I apologize for the brusqueness of my post - I just realized it was rather rude sounding. That was not the intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... to me, you seem to be back tracking furiously from your original assertion that "Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve,"

Back tracking? Furiously? Au contraire, mon frere. In fact, I'll repeat myself with even more emphasis and elucidation for your own benefit —

 

Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve.

Let me make it simple for you.

 

I said, "Humans can read and talk". I didn't say primordial slime, or single-celled animals, or multi-cellular lifeforms, or complex animals, or fish, or amphibians, or even mammals. I said "humans".

 

Then I said, "which has helped us to evolve." Evolution based on this human ability to read and talk obviously refers to the continuing/ongoing evolution of humans, and not the evolution toward/into humans.

 

Estimates for the date vary, but humans evolved about 300 [sic] million years ago.

They did that without the help of any books.

I asked you for your definition of "read" and you deferred to my definition, but now it seems you have regressed back to books. So, understanding mission markings on military aircraft (shown below) is not reading? Understanding the meaning of an object jammed into a cut in a tree stump is not reading? Understanding cuneiform pressed into clay tablets is not reading? Understanding clay accounting tokens enclosed in hollow clay bullae is not reading? Understanding the notches cut into paleolithic tally sticks is not reading?

 

DSC_6615%20NB-52B%20final%20mission%20marks%20poster%20l.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you stop wittering on about different types of reading?

While I think most people would have interpreted your comment as referring to words on paper, my point still stands.

For whatever definition of reading you choose, human evolution predates it because humans evolved a long while back and their ancestors ever further back.

Humans can indeed read.

Their distant ancestors couldn't.

And so, the humans evolved from ancestors that couldn't read.

Human evolution was from creatures that couldn't read

Human evolution did not depend on reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Cuthber, did you read this part of my last post?

 

Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve.

Let me make it simple for you.

 

I said, "Humans can read and talk". I didn't say primordial slime, or single-celled animals, or multi-cellular lifeforms, or complex animals, or fish, or amphibians, or even mammals. I said "humans".

 

Then I said, "which has helped us to evolve." Evolution based on this human ability to read and talk obviously refers to the continuing/ongoing evolution of humans, and not the evolution toward/into humans.

  • You unnecessarily harp about evolving toward/into humans, when I stated evolving as humans.
  • You unnecessarily harp about evolution toward/into humans not depending on reading, when I stated that reading merely helped humans to evolve as humans.
  • You unnecessarily harp about "books", which obviously did not exist 3 MYA, even though you as much as admit that "to read" simply means to understand symbols/symbolism, whether they are words in a books, cuneiform in clay, tokens in a bulla, notches on a tally stick, symbols in an electronic schematic, etc.

From Themes in the history of bookkeeping by Oldroyd and Dobie, Wikipedia states:

 

The invention of a form of bookkeeping using clay tokens represented a huge cognitive leap for mankind.

This is the understanding of abstract symbols/symbolism employed in all sorts of "reading", and it happened before books, and it was "a huge cognitive leap for mankind". This is what I'm talking about.

 

I'll go one further and use a modern situation day example that I think almost everyone has encountered from one side of or the other. Someone needs to know how to drive somewhere, and someone else pulls out a street map, or draws one, etc. The person who wanted the directions then says that s/he has a hard time understanding maps. They apparently have difficulty understanding the situation from a bird's eye view, which is abstract/symbolic, yet they seem to do well with following directions that involve landmarks (traffic lights, gas stations, bridges, etc), which are not abstract.

 

People who can "read" a street map, can find their way to any part of the city by themselves, even if they become lost, but people who need directions everywhere they go, must be spoon-fed the directions, especially if they become lost. Clearly, the advantage is with the map "readers". This is what I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note


To everybody:
I notice that this thread has developed into a heated debate. That's fine.
I also notice that multiple people have started to get frustrated with each other. This has resulted in some impolite behavior. Most people participating in this discussion are respected members, and therefore I am certain that I can expect an improvement.

Also, it seems that some of you are in the discussion to win it, not to learn. Winning should never be the ultimate goal of any scientific discussion, for obvious reasons.

To ewmon and John Cuthber specifically,
There is no reason to say that ewmon would be banned. Straight brackets always indicate that the text has been edited. Such an alteration of a text can result in a disagreement, but that should be resolved by an additional explanation, and not by a threat of a ban.

Also, if anyone breaks the rules, step 1 is a warning (not a ban). If multiple violations occur, a suspension can be the next step. A ban is the very last resort, and it's not used frequently. Certainly not for a single violation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather doubt anyone is still reading this thread in search of information on anything to do with the title.

If the best resolution of a deliberate change of someone's text- while claiming that it's the original- is an explanation, then I'm still waiting, even for that.

We ban spammers immediately even though they are just a nuisance. I'm puzzled why we let people make deliberately misleading statements when that it the very antithesis of science.

 

There seem to be two issues of contention.

Ewmon's assertion

"Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve, but we don't read and talk constantly and indiscriminately. "

 

If the point was about the word reading in it's most general meaning then, since all animals and many plants do it, there's nothing special about humans.

If we mean the common use of the word- letters on paper etc. then it can't have influenced much of human evolutions, simply because most humans never learned to read.

To the extent that it did have an influence, that must be small because, since humans (in the sense of modern humans who have the brains needed to read) first walked the earth we really haven't evolved much: not least because we haven't had much time.

Of course, if you take the word "read" in a very general sense which Ewmon has subsequently done, then the assertion is untrue.

We do "read" our environment constantly and indiscriminately. The same goes for "talk" if you interpret it as meaning to impart information.

 

The second issue was that he changed what I said from

"All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read."

to

"All I have to do is trace our [human] origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read."

Well, the second one simply isn't what I said: it's impossible and because of that, it's insulting to pretend that I would say it.

 

And I don't see it so much as trying to "win": just trying to ensure that the information on this site is accurate.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

John Cuthber, I think you're well-aware that any discussions about the rules, and what the mods are supposed to do, belong in the "Suggestions, Comments and Support" section.

So, please, if you feel you must reply to a moderator note, do it there, or use the report button. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Take your pick. Okay, I pick sense 1a, and then some (keep reading).

 

... a bacterium reading ... blue green algae. You're still taking it to the extreme where I only went as far back as pre-humans. The essence of reading and talking involves consciously dealing with the abstract, which is one of the major characteristics of being human, or nearly human ... that we can "read" meaning into something that is not obvious. We would actually need the ability to create those abstract symbols — to write — in order to read words on paper.

 

... show me an example of a bacterium reading. Because bacterium contain ribosomes, "Ribosomes read the nucleotide sequence" technically qualifies as bacteria reading ;); however, I do admit that bacteria do not do so consciously.

 

Almost all of ... evolution ... has had nothing to do with any ability to read .... Au contraire, mon frere. The chimp, who learned to prank the others with his leopard alarm call, has learned to "write" a leopard into the situation, knowing how others would "read" it, to distract them from the food they just discovered — consciously manipulating the abstract. This cheating, like murder, has it's evolutionary advantages.

 

did you think that picture served ... to distract attention from the fact that you lied about what I said earlier. You're "reading" too much into the situation. The Helen Keller photo was just another visual example, as with Kanzi the ape reading, of "reading" without necessarily using words on paper.

 

You and I are suffering from the ambiguity of language. Your words "our origins" could refer to our evolution: 1) within the human species, 2) from pre-humans onward (that is, since we split from other simians, including extinct species such as the Neanderthals), or 3) the evolutionary path from abiogenesis onward unique to the ultimate production of the human species. I now realize that you meant "our origins" in the third sense (from abiogenesis onward), whereas I had understood it to be in the first sense because you have consistently claimed that the human ability to read occurred only very recently within the human species (for example, you had previously said, "For most of human history [...], we couldn't read").

how about a definition of evolve? while reading was an evolved trait (unless you think it was just pattern recognition and a taught behavior that was passed to children by parents not through genetics but through experiance) I don't see how it could have in its self have assisted the process of evolution like you seem to claim...

[edit] I mean it was a trait that made us what we are today but didn't help us evolve (in the verb sense)

Edited by dragonstar57
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.