If we stopped eating eggs with hard shells would chickens evolve to provide us with eggs with soft shells?
Well we are ready have shell less eggs:
This is not true. its silly to say sounds/language were affected by jaw/teerth development.
instead genesis gives a better idea. Before the flood man did not eat critters/meant but after the flood he did.
So his original teeth organization would be interfered with by a more pointy bite. Thus we sometimes have problems withy teeth on the sides called wisdom teeth.
Even the way that Patrick talks was altered!
So, are you saying that humans jaws/teeth changed after the flood—and human speech with those changes?
You don’t think our jaws and teeth influence what sounds we can make? Huh?
Yes. after the flood ONLY THEN did we eat meat. This changed our teeth/jaw etc.
I don’t see this would affect human speech.
Wisdom teeth problems are evidence of a biblical assertion and prediction of problems.
Not my subject but the minor changes being referred to here would not change sound production.
Its silly guessing from these folks.
You didn’t read the paper, did you? I’m constantly astonished by your blind arrogance and dismissivness. You somehow feel confident enough to call their conclusions “silly guessing” without even bothering to look at the work they actually did and the data they gathered to arrive at their conclusion. Why are you on a forum like this? You clearly have no interest in learning.
Silly guessing should be accused when ones judgement tells on that. it does in this case.
Your accusing me! i don’t care but you are.
Are you here to learn? Then everybody must make their case. I did. you just said i had to agree.
i’m not astonished but you must of noted there is loads of disagreement here.
Why do you agree with what they said? I will respond and , hopefully, learnimng towards accuacy will go forward…
If i fail then you can accuse me as , your list.
I absolutely did not say that. I said that you dismissed their conclusions out of hand without bothering to so much as read the paper that contains their data and reasoning. If you read it, understand it, and still disagree, then you should explain why you disagree - offering a plausible alternative interpretation of their data, for example.
Maybe just let it go? He’s already said he doesn’t believe he has a brain in another thread. Just sayin’… :o)