Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The orgin of civilization has to do with the divine , or the selective pressures in human evolution to bring about so mighty a result ; I would say these are the two viable possibilitys. The fact or the speculative holds the key to the orgin of civilization. Either is a social control which allowed mankind to move from small hunter-gatherer groups to large agricultural communities. There are many stages which led to civilization , but the " Grouping of humans" certainly was one of the stages.
Mammals in general show a wide variety of social groupings, all the way from the solitariness of certain predatory animals to the very close cohesiveness of others. The latter animals are the more preyed upon, and a social group is itself a genetic adaptation against predators. Now either this was divine design, or anatomical and behavioral signals that evolved for group protection. In animals it is the group that was designed to herd, or evolved to herd.
And so it was with humans, the dawn of civilization began with humans grouping. An undeniable fact in humans grouping is that social structure depends on communication between individuals. They had to embrace a complex variety of signals , or simply had been given divine language.
If language evolved on its own , that tactile communication would have ranged from mounting and grooming to various kinds of embracing , nuzzling, fingering; sounds ranging from assorted grunts, barks, screeching and yaking, all grading into each other; nonvocal signals such as grinding teeth or beating branches. With the divine given language the outcome would have been relatively simple; men were given the ability to communicate by the divine.
The huge redundant complexity of language evolving from grunts is essentially devoted into patterns of dominance and subordination, the maintenance of peace, reproduction and care for the young. And that theory always bears an erie simularity to animal behavior. Whereas the theory of the divine, needs no simulance to animals.
With evolution there is no reason to think that early man from the beginning of genus homo two million years ago lived any differently than animals. With the divine reasoning , mans progress had absolutely nothing to do with animals. But with civilization, grouping must be considered, along with language; either evolving on its own, or directed by the divine.
So the orgin of civilization began with grouping and language.
Nope. The development of agriculture and domestic animals is the catalyst of civilization.
Well they certainly were within the development of civilization, and I had planned to go into those later.
It is commonly thought that language is such an inherent part of the human constitution that it must go back somehow through the tribal ancestry of man to the very origin of the genus homo, that is, for almost two million years. This is a view I disagree with. If early man, through these two million years, had even a primordal speech, why is there so little evidence of even simple culture or technology? There is precious little archaeological evidence up to 40,000 B.C., other than the crudest of stone tools.
The common reaction to a denial that early man had speech, is " How then did they function or communicate?" The answer is very simple; just like all other primates, with an abundance of visual and vocal signals which were very far removed from the syntactical language of the gods that we practice today. It seems impossible to discribe chipping flints into choppers of language.
Language must have made dramatic changes in mans attention to things and persons, because it allows a transfer of information of enormous scope that led to civilization; but if it developed on its own over a period, it must show archaeology that maps those changes , and it does not; which is a definte score for the divine given approach.
Ahh! Another of Mickiel's 'This is proof of God and I ain't gonna take no for an answer. I'm just going to keep posting, posting, posting.'
Well thank you, I do my best.
The grouping of humanity should be accepted in either the evolution or divine view. It is nuetral and thus I think a bi-accepted fact. The late Pleistocene period, roughly from 70,000 B.C. to 8,000 B.C. was characterized climactically by wide variations in temperature, corresponding to the advance and retreat of glacial conditions , and biologically by huge migrations of animals and humans caused by these changes in weather. The hominid population exploded out of the African heartland into the Eurasian subartic and then into the Americas and Australia. The population around the Mediterranean reached a new high and took the lead in cultural innovation, transferring man's cultural and biological focus from the tropics to the middle latitudes. His fires, caves and furs created for man a kind of transportable microclimate that allowed these group migrations to take place.
The evolution approach feels these people were Neanderthalers , the divine approach places them as supplanted Cro-magnons, around 35,000 B.C. With either view, grouping and language were important roots in the orgin of civilization.
In the theory of evolution the postural or visual signals such as threat postures, were intentional. Their evolution into auditory signals was made necessary by the migration of man into northern climates, where there was less light both in the environment and in the dark caves where man made his abode, where visual signals couldnot be seen as readily as on the bright African Savannahs. This evolution may have begun as early as the Third Glaciation Period , or possibly before. With the divine theory, again, weather conditions would have had nothing to do with the divine transfer of communication. Language was literally created within man to coinside first with his consciousness, not first his environment.
With evolution there is no reason to think that early man from the beginning of genus homo two million years ago lived any differently than animals.
So the orgin of civilization began with grouping and language.
I think I understand what you mean by grouping and language but what is your definition of civilisation?
I have no doubt the homo genus lived and behaved like animals. But how do we homo sapien live differently to animals in terms of congregation and communication?
Regardless of whether or not our language is divine, how does any this prove "grouping and language" gave birth to civilisation?
Well they certainly were within the development of civilization, and I had planned to go into those later.
It is commonly thought that language is such an inherent part of the human constitution that it must go back somehow through the tribal ancestry of man to the very origin of the genus homo, that is, for almost two million years. This is a view I disagree with. If early man, through these two million years, had even a primordal speech, why is there so little evidence of even simple culture or technology? There is precious little archaeological evidence up to 40,000 B.C., other than the crudest of stone tools.
Not true...The earliest art was created by man between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago. Sophisticated stone tools have recently been discovered in Kenya, and have been dated at 1.76 million years ago. Regarding language that is debatable, but it is most likely that homo erectus developed a form of communication midway between them and the other primates more that 2.5 million years ago.
Quote:
The common reaction to a denial that early man had speech, is " How then did they function or communicate?" The answer is very simple; just like all other primates, with an abundance of visual and vocal signals which were very far removed from the syntactical language of the gods that we practice today. It seems impossible to discribe chipping flints into choppers of language.
The development of more sophisticated tools of a larger variety, of material and purpose some 70,000 years ago is thought to have required language in order to teach others how to make them.
Quote:
Language must have made dramatic changes in mans attention to things and persons, because it allows a transfer of information of enormous scope that led to civilization; but if it developed on its own over a period, it must show archaeology that maps those changes , and it does not; which is a definte score for the divine given approach.
How do you expect archeology to map the evolution of language, other than in the physical changes in physiology that made speech possible? These changes began when humans became bipedal. Spoken language is attributed to a modification of the larynx that is unique to humans...The search for the divine is your opinion and not shared by any others that I can find.
We continue to be extremely uncivilized and still believe in myths and magic. Furthermore, we are still at war with each other and continue to be greedy.
We are just a bit more civilized, but we have a long ways to go.
Men continue to enslave other men as in biblical times. Things are moving at a slow pace, but hopefully we will be in better shape in another 5-10 thousand years (assuming no holocaust by external forces or our own destruction).
I think I understand what you mean by grouping and language but what is your definition of civilisation?
I have no doubt the homo genus lived and behaved like animals. But how do we homo sapien live differently to animals in terms of congregation and communication?
Regardless of whether or not our language is divine, how does any this prove "grouping and language" gave birth to civilisation?
Civilization is simply the state of human society marked by high levels of intellectual, technological, cultral, and social development. They come out of a savage state and introduce order; refined enlightenment. Some feel this state was an evolved reaction of man, others an enlightened state given by the gods.
I will later go into the difference between the grouping and communication of animals, as compared to humans; even though I think that should be obvious.
Grouping and Language had to preceed civilization , it is impossible for them not to have. And I will get into that more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
