"Scientists measured lip-smacking by macaques and concluded that’s where human language came from. Is that logical? Only if an arbitrary requirement is imposed on scientific explanations.
The materialism rule in science is a de facto requirement that no intelligent causes are allowed in explanation. Also known as methodological naturalism, the rule requires that everything be reducible to physics and chemistry. This is what powers Darwinism, a materialist account for the origin of everything biological and everything human. Scientists enslaved to this rule never seem to catch on that it leads to absurdity.
An example can be found in a new paper in PNAS that alleges lip-smacking behavior in macaques led to human language. Because there appears to be a similarity in the frequency of lip smacks and the tempo of human vocalization, the evolutionists imagine a causal link between them, ignoring all other possible explanations (such as the physical constraints on lip muscles). The authors stated this in the abstract:
As for these silly evolutionists.....
Behold, they belch out with their mouth:
swords are in their lips:
for who, say they, doth hear?
Psalm 59:7
The materialism rule in science is a de facto requirement that no intelligent causes are allowed in explanation. Also known as methodological naturalism, the rule requires that everything be reducible to physics and chemistry. This is what powers Darwinism, a materialist account for the origin of everything biological and everything human. Scientists enslaved to this rule never seem to catch on that it leads to absurdity.
An example can be found in a new paper in PNAS that alleges lip-smacking behavior in macaques led to human language. Because there appears to be a similarity in the frequency of lip smacks and the tempo of human vocalization, the evolutionists imagine a causal link between them, ignoring all other possible explanations (such as the physical constraints on lip muscles). The authors stated this in the abstract:
…we tested rhesus monkeys in a preferential-looking procedure, measuring the time spent looking at
each of two side-by-side computer-generated monkey avatars lip-smacking at natural versus sped-up or slowed-down rhythms. Monkeys showed an overall preference for the natural rhythm compared with the perturbed rhythms. This lends behavioral support for the hypothesis that perceptual processes in monkeys are similarly tuned to the natural frequencies of communication signals as they are in humans. Our data provide perceptual evidence for the theory that speech may have evolved from ancestral primate rhythmic facial expressions.
But surely the scientists are overlooking the most important element of language: meaning The focus on mechanical lip action is misdirected. It’s also self-refuting, because it would imply that the scientists’ own language has no more meaning that lip-smacking.. Besides, macaques still exist side-by-side with humans and have not developed symbolic language of their own—complete with syntax, semantics, and understanding—in the same time humans allegedly came out of the trees and developed tensor calculus." CEHAs for these silly evolutionists.....
Behold, they belch out with their mouth:
swords are in their lips:
for who, say they, doth hear?
Psalm 59:7