What exactly is it that you still don’t understand? By “disprove” are you still talking about Jiahu?
LOL! Still trying to equivocate over the definition of civilization. So weak.
What I want to know is
-
Why did large organized and complex populations like those in China need an injection of “free will” before they could be a “civilization”? What prevented the culture from evolving on its own?
-
How did the “free will” get passed from Noah’s descendants to others? Was it genetic so Noah’s kin had to breed with the local population? Was it like an airborne pathogen so all Noah’s kin had to do was breath on the locals?
I don’t understand why religious True Believers think ignoring large amounts of evidence which directly refutes their loopy claims magically makes the evidence go away. 
Does the Discourse software have a badge for posting the first comment consisting entirely of Middle English? 
In any case, this is another first for the Peaceful Science forum. (It may also be the first reference to a traditional song which was often sung as a rota, aka a round. Modern “rounds” include songs like “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” and “Frere Jacques”.)
I remember the song as part of the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich:
Because without free will you don’t have differing classes. You don’t have a ruling and working class. Without free will a “large organized and complex population” remains egalitarian.
If it were genetic it would have been diluted into nothing before long. It would seem it was through influence alone, like in the same way the serpent influenced Eve.
Plus, the characteristics of free will makes that population of people much more aggressive. They quickly overpower the egalitarian population that was there before. Much in the same way European people arriving to the Americas overpowered the indigenous people who were here.
America transformed into a European colony and the native American population quickly became marginalized. Same thing.
So what “large amounts of evidence” is it I’m ignoring? Or is it you ignoring my explanation that what you think is relevant evidence actually isn’t?
Why?
Ah, you’re a believer in blending inheritance. Jeremy Christian, meet Gregor Mendel.
This is your personal definition of free will, which I don’t think anyone else subscribes to.
Whether or not you subscribe to it is irrelevant. The evidence dictates what happened regardless of your or my beliefs.
The fact is human cultures all across the planet remained egalitarian for hundreds of thousands of years. Then the first signs of non-egalitarian culture showed up Sumer. Then in Egypt. Then in the Indus Valley. Then in Europe. Then before long all across the planet. That’s fact.
Hypothesis unsupported by even one shred of evidence and directly refuted by reality. Hypothesis rejected.
So it was learned behavior that millions of people in China for thousands of years were just too dumb to think up themselves?
Your story gets loopier with every iteration. 
No, it’s not a fact as you’ve been repeatedly shown. Why don’t you think of a new loopy claim, that one’s past its DISCARD BY date.
You mean that all the historical evidence you’ve been shown which refutes your claims is magically invisible to you?
You haven’t shown anything that refutes anything I’ve said. Why should I even bother to try to explain again? I’m just repeating myself over and over again only for you to ignore it completely. I’m done. Unless you can manage a halfway coherent and relevant statement or question, I’m not going to bother.
You talk about free will. Yet you seem to emphasize authoritarianism, which is a kind of denial of free will.
Was that because the arriving Europeans had free will but the native Americans didn’t? Or was it because the arriving Europeans had guns, but the native Americans didn’t?
1 Like
Both. The arriving Europeans had guns BECAUSE they had free will. The native Americans didn’t because they didn’t have free will.
Without free will there is no authority.
LOL! So Native Americans (including the Incas and Mayans) didn’t have any kings, chiefs, high priests, or any sort of ruling class before the Europeans arrived. Or cities. Or any civilization at all. Can’t have all those Inca and Mayan cities without Noah’s kin passing on free will. Hmmmm…
Mayan King Pakal
Maya kings were the centers of power for the Maya civilization. Each Maya city-state was controlled by a dynasty of kings.Also the position of king was usually inherited by the oldest son.
You’re making up this woo as you go along, aren’t you?
1 Like
Again, please see 7 year old articles to verify I am not changing my story or making anything up as I go…
Jeremy Christian on HubPages
So you do understand. This is the most relevant contribution you’ve made to this discussion yet. I’m proud of you.
Yes, you’re right. The Incas, the Mayans, and all people who descended from the Olmecs had free will as well. Which is why their cultures and patterns were so different from the majority of native American people. Most likely due to the arrival of people from China before the Europeans.
There is a definite pattern in the Americas that mirrors what happened across the ocean. A pattern specific to this line, the Olmecs, and then the Incas and Mayans. That pattern suggests contact at some point.
“Evidence for this includes cultural similarities between Indians of the Pacific north-west and dynastic Chinese culture (such as artwork, clothing, drums, and diet) and linguistic similarities. At the same time, there are cultural and linguistic similarities between the three “patrist” areas of the Americas, suggesting that the peoples are related” - Steve Taylor, The Fall
LOL! You ARE making up this woo as you go! Amazing.
How about the native Americans in what is now the U.S. and Canada? Did they all have societies with no chiefs or leaders? No contact at all with the “free will” natives of Central America?
They too were egalitarian.