Sorry Walter... (and Fred... and John Paul..)

What makes you think that animals other than humans don't
have a capacity for language just because they can't use
human languages ?

The assumption appears to be that without the ability to
form 'human' words there is no language.That's all I was calling into question. The emergence of
a gene that enabled human speech is not necessarily the origin
point for language.Mere cats uses different noises to shout 'Snake!' and 'Bird of Prey!'
which indicates a verbal 'language' ... not necessarily a sophisticated one, but then we just might not understand the
full syntax etc.The origins of communication strategies can be encompassed fairly
easily within a natural selection framework, where co-operation
enhances the chance of survival. Human speech is just one, and
is not really unique.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Like I said you have to take things in context. The context here is human language.

​

Speech & language are not the same.

​

And yes I am sure that communcation strategies can be explained within the natural selection framework. You just can't provide any substantiating evidence for that premise.

---

Likewise design, n'est pas?[Added by edit]Speech and language not being the same is the point I was making.Does human language require speech? I think not. Language is
the issue, and that is a communication strategy, and communication,
like pretty much any social behaviour, can impact survival
chances.I don't see why it presents a problem in evolutionary terms ...
but I agree there is no proof ... equally one cannot proove
design.[This message has been edited by Peter, 08-21-2002]