Slim, which may be why it didn't happen. The invention of writing happened probably three different places independently (China, Sumeria, Mesoamerica), thousands of years apart. Once invented, it tended to spread rapidly and widely.dave said:but how the hell did the written word pop up globally around the same time? What are the chances of that?
Reading the description, we find that the documentary reviewer describes a Bronze Age burial artifact as indicating astronomical knowledge and therefore "civilization" emerging in Europe long before it had emerged in Greece or Egypt.dave said:EDIT: A fascinating documentary about the sort of stuff i think about, it relates to this debate also: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secrets-of-the-star-disc/
Uh, probably not. As with most other apparently irreducible complexities, it falls to applied attention: the first wheels were probably not used for transportation, but for things like pottery turning and milling and (as with the Incas in Peru) children's toys - and of course for military gear. Not all of these need axles, and it's possible (even likely) the axle came first in some of these applications. One of their earliest applications in transport was probably the chariot - a vehicle that needs no road.The wheel did not evolve, it was invented.
The wheel was useless without the axle, and without good flat roads.
Someone had to imagine them all working together, and then figure out how to make them.
Suicide by cop. It happens.FFS leopold.
There is a certain irony here, since I am female, and it is you who is arcing up at any constructive criticism providing by a woman. In otherwords, I'd say that this is a classic case of projection.
Your repeated cajoling of Leopold, combined with your haste to flex your authoritative muscles, reminds me of a self-proclaimed alpha male who has some deep seated insecurities. Instead of engaging in self-improvement, you seek to drag others down to your level. The question is, why? Was your mother too quick with the back of her hand? Did you have an absentee father? Are your genitalia smaller than average? I guess we'll never know, since narcissists are usually incapable of honest introspection. It's also telling that despite Leopold having willingly left the discussion and removed from the forum, you still feel the need to take a lengthy parting shot. You just can't stand not to have the last word, hey? I guess your male ego has suffered greatly from having women levy any sort of constructive criticism, that you just can't let anything go.
Kidding right? Guess not... the amount of flaming i've had to deal with by at least 2 individuals, who just flame anybody elses posts too?both are now ignored so i cannot remember their names, that's exactly what the recipients of her posts could do perfectly well without robots. why do we have an ignore button? democracy and all...Mod Note
Tali89, you were advised to take your issues with the staff to the appropriate forum. You refused to. And you kept trying to flame this thread and insult others. I issued you with an infraction for your attempts to flame this thread, and here you are again, insulting people and flaming the thread. To the point where you are demeaning yourself with infantile and insulting comments about another person's genitalia.
Looking back at your posting history on this site, it seems this is all you do. Flame and insult the moderators. In just about every thread you post in.
You have now been banned you for one day because you have accrued enough infraction points and that means the system automatically bans you, which means you have entered the ban cycle on this site. Please take the next 24 hours to review the role you wish to play on this site. Because the one you have currently employed is unacceptable.
If you click on your name in the top right hand corner of the screen, then click on the people you are ignoring tab on the right hand side of your "page", you can see the names of the people you are ignoring, so it is easy to track down.Kidding right? Guess not... the amount of flaming i've had to deal with by at least 2 individuals, who just flame anybody elses posts too?both are now ignored so i cannot remember their names, that's exactly what the recipients of her posts could do perfectly well without robots. why do we have an ignore button? democracy and all...
There is certainly such a thing. A watch is an example of irreducible complexity; take out a few pieces and it doesn't work, at all. We can build such things because they do not have the requirement that they work without those pieces. Biology does have that requirement, which is why we don't see it in evolved biological systems.If irreducible complexity can not be shown in biological systems, then I have doubts that there even is such a thing at all in the entire universe.
And some proof showing the theory in action helps, too.In other words, the universe is capable of any configuration. All you need is a convincing story to theorize how it got that way.
In science, experimental results, validation from the historical record and verifiable predictions win over a good reading of Genesis any day.Apparently, in science, a good story will trump probability every time.
A watch is an example of irreducible complexity; take out a few pieces and it doesn't work, at all.
To the person using it as a paperweight - yes, it is indeed serving as a paperweight. However, unless almost all the parts are there, it cannot function as a watch.This "broken" watch is actually being used as a paperweight. Hence, it's 100% functioning!
To the person using it as a paperweight - yes, it is indeed serving as a paperweight. However, unless almost all the parts are there, it cannot function as a watch.
Sorry Dave, but you have not defined what you mean by language. You have told me, I think, that you believe there are two kinds of language - spoken and written, but that does not provide a definition. I think it will be difficult to advance the discussion further until we have that definition in place. I am happy to use many different definitions, depending upon context: however I sense you feel quite strongly there is only one appropriate one. I would like to know what that is.True. Written language and spoken language.
<snip>
You could say it like that, but language in our context(what I specified above) is so important, in fact essential to the rise of civilization.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Would you clarify please?I have found a decent source, which seems unbiased to discuss from, if you want to change the source be my guest./
I don't see why you would even consider evolution as a potential explanation. It is fairly obviously isn't. By two thousand years ago trade was extensive throughout the Old World. What would be difficult to explain would have been the failure of writing to spread between cultures and civilisations. Of course we can readily explain it, also, as a similar response to a similar set of problems by similar people in similar circumstances. Two fully plausible explanations, the truth probably a combination: neither evolution, nor divine intervention need to be invoked. Wouldn't you agree?The first written words came about 5/6k years ago, it spread or "popped up" quite slowly to begin with, then when we get into A.D written accounts were popping up all over the place.
Divine intervention cannot be proven, evolution doesn't explain it and that is why it interests me.
Well, OK. It is not functioning, though, and to extend this to the biological perspective, it needs to be functioning to reproduce.I agree. However, this watch obviously found it's ecological niche. It doesn't matter that it seems to be missing some parts from our bias perspective.... it's surviving as a paperweight.
Well, OK. It is not functioning, though, and to extend this to the biological perspective, it needs to be functioning to reproduce.
Sorry (I think)You're not thinking like an evolutionist
This paperweight is simply part of a larger system, such as a strand of DNA is part of an animal(or a bacterial flagellum is part of bacteria). Perhaps this "broken clock" is laying dormant as a recessive office accessory. Or better yet, this paperweight is actually serving a vital office function... specifically, it's keeping some important business documents from blowing out the open window. This will allow the business to continue normal operations, and potentially expand(reproduce).
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
If irreducible complexity can not be shown in biological systems, then I have doubts that there even is such a thing at all in the entire universe. In other words, the universe is capable of any configuration. All you need is a convincing story to theorize how it got that way. Note to other-than-evolutionists: don't waste your time arguing irreducible complexity. Apparently, in science, a good story will trump probability every time.
As mentioned above, I disagree. Stating cases where you see irreducible complexity is insufficient to claim that therefore there is no such thing in the entire universe. I gave one example, which is sufficient to disprove the above.Excellent point Matthew. It appears as though you are right.
You're not thinking like an evolutionist.
This paperweight is simply part of a larger system, such as a strand of DNA is part of an animal(or a bacterial flagellum is part of bacteria). Perhaps this "broken clock" is laying dormant as a recessive office accessory. Or better yet, this paperweight is actually serving a vital office function... specifically, it's keeping some important business documents from blowing out the open window. This will allow the business to continue normal operations, and potentially expand(reproduce).
Stating cases where you see irreducible complexity is insufficient to claim that therefore there is no such thing in the entire universe.
I just read this sentence about 20 times and can't make heads or tails of it(which is weird because the sentence structure and grammar seem to be ok).
Allow me to reassure you, as your fears are ungrounded: Irreducible complexity can be shown most easily in cases in which a given structure has a pre-defined purpose, as would be bestowed by a creator or designer. Obviously some things in the universe have such purposes assigned to them by their creators (human built machinery, say). These things can be shown to be irreducibly complex quite easily - a hammer, for example, requires both a handle and a striking head and that the two be joined in one of only a few configurations. A hammer is irreducibly complex.mathew said:If irreducible complexity can not be shown in biological systems, then I have doubts that there even is such a thing at all in the entire universe.