Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 6:27 AM
14 online now:
(14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,006 Year: 5,043/19,786 Month: 1,165/873 Week: 61/460 Day: 3/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Sorry Walter... (and Fred... and John Paul..)
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 19 (15829)
08-21-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
08-21-2002 8:53 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2002 8:53 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2002 9:51 AM Peter has responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 19 (15832)
08-21-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peter
08-21-2002 9:41 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 08-21-2002 9:41 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 08-21-2002 11:21 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 19 (15837)
08-21-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
08-21-2002 9:51 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2002 9:51 AM John Paul has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 19 (15839)
08-21-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by John Paul
08-20-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
The fact that you misrepresented and almost always do, is obvious. Once again the links I provided were NOT about mutations.

I know that, have EXPLAINED that, and have indicated why I wrote what I did. That you have adopted the ReMine shuffle (cry 'Misrepresentation!' at every chance) does not surproise me.

quote:

They are about the fact that the alleged ancestor from 10 million years ago did NOT have those adaptations.

Maybe, maybe not. So where in those largely irrelevant links is it explained that some huge number of mutations is required to generate those traits - that is, afterall, why ReMine mentiones them. THAT is the crux of the issue.

quote:

The article did not indicate that some huge number was probably not required. It stated that there are more than that one gene that are responsible.

Oh, so it did not say that some huge number is not required, therefore, some huge number must BE required! Brilliant cretin logic!

quote:

The only waste of anything on this DB is you.

toodles scotty


Wow. That was a major zinger. You really got me with that one!

I notice that you still have not provided any actual evidence that ReMine's bastardization of Haldane applies to ancestral primate populations.

I notice that you have yet to provide any objective tests for any of your claims - implicit or explicit.

I know why, of course.

I also know why you abandoned the 'questions' thread...

It must be tough to handle actually having your hat handed to you in such a public way.

Or was it feeding you your lunch?

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 08-20-2002 12:36 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019