Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

HAWKING VISITS THE HOLY LAND - AND I SEE A Scientific 'OOPS'!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------'GD REALLY DOES PLAY DICE''BLACK HOLES ARE OUT OF SIGHT''THE JOY OF A SCIENTIST'S EUREKA CANNOT BE COMPARED TO SEX - BUT IT LASTS LONGER'World-renown astrophysicist Stephen Hawking concluded a weeklong tour of Israel on Friday. The high point of the visit was not his meeting with dignitaries or academics, but rather his lecture and meeting with young scientists, who were deeply inspired by his writings and struggle with Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS).Video: INFOLIVE.TV - La tlvision en direct de Jrusalem 24h/24 - Htels Moscou# This would-be atheist Icon came to fame with his mathematical proof of time being finite [BHT]. But he seems to have missed the first opening verse of Genesis, the document he is most famous for countering, and which first declared the same conclusion of the universe itself being finite - along with all its components - 3,500 years before Hawkings emerged:'IN THE BEGINNING'That, Meastro Hawkings, says there was a beginning - namely its ALL finite. Was that an OOPS or what? - how can something not be infinite when its whole is finite - do the maths!

quote:

---

Let us not forget that dolphins have names for themselves and each other.

---

Better, let's not forget that dolphins who have names - do NOT have speech. It makes the point more pointed that speech is not a result of the mind or any body organs, and by subsequence, it is not a result of ADAPTATION.

quote:

---

The idea that only humans have speech simply isn't true.

---

Single cell amoebas also recognise their offspring - as do lions from a particular growl from their offsrping. Its simply true that Darwin was in error - Genesis was correct here. A sceintific view is derived when one must see the disdained truth and drop the paranoia - by dropping the denial. I too once tried, but found Genesis has a difinitive, challenging case unlike anything else - scientifically too. It is one reason no scientist or forum debaters negate it conclusively today.

Does your PC have speech - seeing it can muster mimmickry better than parots?

Q: Is It Science?A: Yes. Science has not disproven Genesis' vindicated science speech is a unique factor with humans. This is of course a scientific issue for discussion, and dumping it anywhere else is a form of admission.

quote:

---

According to the definition of speech the various communications used by Alex qualify. You need to show how you can include humans and exclude Alex in your assessment.

---

No - it does not. Recognising an offspring by sound is NOT speech, but instinctive, basic interaction of recognition and identification. All life forms have this ability - none have speech.Speech is recordable, memorable and enfusable for all who have this attribute, to recognise, transfer to an unknown third party/s, and able to form 'new' paradigms unrelated to immediate environmental impacts such as recognising an offspring, signalling danger or food approaching. Speech begets science, maths and all philosopies: even new ones, and is the sole attribute which renders humans able to have dominion of all other life forms.Speech could not have emerged from evolution, adaptation or by accident. In fact, all evidences show it evolved at a particular and recent time, and in an already advanced state: proof of this is the first written alphabetical books - which has no evidences of a gradual thread of evolution: no such books appear - not for a 1000 years before or after! And writings is an effect, not a cause of speech.The premise speech prevailed for 100s of 1000s of years, but which cannot be proved due to no writings - is a defunct scientific premise. Speech imprints are not subject to writings only as its proof.

quote:

---

I am curious about your use of the term 'speech' to connote uniquely 'human.' Personally, since one of the colleges I work for is for the deaf, and since my interaction with the deaf indicates that not only are they every bit equal to the hearing in all human tasks not involving sound, but are also equal to all humans in intelligence on average, shouldn't you broaden your assertions and vocabulary enough to include them?

---

Its an interesting point, and should give deeper cadence of this issue. In a sense, a mute showing speech like qualities is firstly, a human action, and unrelated to the communication skills of any other life form, such as a parrot. It says that speech is an intrinsic quality in humans, and backed up by being 'intrinsic' - as opposed the result of any organ in the gullet.This is further backed by a parent not teaching a child to speak, but rather clicking on a switch - and the speech becomes automatic and involuntary - similar to a new offsrping acquiring breathing. This means, again, speech is an inherent and unique attribute in humans. That it is intrinsic, and not an unculcated skill, is the reason we see even a deaf or dumb person able to recognise and interact with speech - in a manner different than the same mute human would interact with a life form which does not possess this attribute. It is evident that a mute person can equally produce new, innovative and transcendent thoughts and actions [Stevie wonder, who writes sublime songs without sight].We find that a mute animal cannot emulate what a mute human can. Having no speech due to a birth defect, is more akin to one being born without an arm or leg. The exception does not negate the paradign here, but only highlights it's significance as a unique human attribute. This uniqueness is not contrivable as a commonplace syndrome akin to basic communication seen in all life forms.The 'SABU' analogy is likewise a poor contriving of this issue, and more an outsome of wanton denial. Lets face it - if Genesis is right, it blows a fatal blow to many currently held theories, assumptions and derivitive factors. There is a motive to deny here!Edited by IamJoseph, : spelling

This analogy is the same as enabling a rat in an imprisoned maze, learning how to get a piece of cheese. Speech is different even from intelligence, recognising colors, sounds and gestures. It comes in a ratio of one and all other life forms.

quote:

---

Koko the gorilla knows sign language. If it's "speech" when a human does it, why is it not "speech" when a gorilla does it?

---

Thanks. But its not speech. Not even gorilla speech, or a different mode of speech. Its called teaching a dog new tricks.

quote:

---

What is your definition of "speech" such that it only applies to humans?

---

Trick questions can beget only trick answers, but I'm not going there. Definition of Speech is what humans do, which is not a difference in degree: at what point do degrees cease and a new, different, never before kind develops: how about 1: all others - even for 4.5 Billion years of evolution? The notion of presenting Koko the gorilla is saying, without admitting it, tomorrow apes will talk, zebras will sing and parrots will write books. Fact is, we bring up parrots mimicking speech - only because we know they are not 'speeching'; else we would'nt point to parrots mimicking speech: its a HAHA only.The only true debate left after the contrivings have exhausted themselves in their own cyclical wonderings - is to examine the issue as if Genesis is correct: that speech is unique to humans. What does it mean - anything - nothing - something - everything - or back to the drawing board?

quote:

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. You have to teach a child to speak. In fact, if you don't teach a child to speak, they will eventually become incapable of ever learning how.

---

Maybe. As with any muscle in the body. But the operative factor here is - that we can click on a switch in humans and not in any other life form - and speech comes out. Education is mandatory and an onus - but the tool for speech is an inherent one in humans.

quote:

---

So why is it so many other non-human animals are capable of it? Why is what Alex and Koko do not "speech"? What is your definition of "speech" such that only humans are capable of it?

---

The reason one does and all do not, means its not an evolutionary impact - obviously. The definition of what causes speech is more than what can be listed as denoting this action can be performed by all life forms in different modes: science does NOT know what causes this difference - else they would prove it long ago in a museum or lab. We know that animals and birds can perform voice phonations better and greater than humans, and that they can communicate, have brains, recognise their environment and kin - but still not possess speech. This factor inclines toward my premise and against yours in its intensity and pointedness. There has even been some scientists and linguists pointing to a soft bone - which is unique to humans and not evidenced in animals today or in fossils: but I doubt this is THE reason.

quote:

---

Then explain Koko. Why is it she can talk about how she felt when Ball died?

---

Animals can express hunger and grief, and be made to allign their actions to win a certain benefit. There's a bear in a russian circus which says 'PLEASE, PLEASE!' - an emulation of a phonetic human speech - which begets the bear a prize: sugar.

quote:

---

On the contrary. That's a motive to accept. If you can overturn the dominant paradigm in science, they hand you the Nobel Prize and every university and laboratory starts beating down your door to beg you to join their research team. You can write your own ticket for the rest of your life.

​

With all that wealth and fame right there for the taking, why on earth would anybody deny it?

---

I don't think so. Not with proving speech as a unique human quality. Its like winning a prize for saying the sun is hot or water is wet. The best definition of human speech is the absence of a single life form to do so.

For any honest biologist, a host of enigmas present themselves if speech is an exclusive human attribute not resultant from evolution.WHY IS THE LAST KNOWN, MOST RECENT LIFE FORM SPEECH ENDOWED?WHY DID OTHERS NOT ADAPT LIKEWISE?DOES IT MEAN, OTHER LIFE FORMS WILL DO SO IN THE FUTURE - AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF NOT?IF A LIFE FORM CAN ADAPT TO STAND UPRIGHT [GORILLAS] - WHEN WILL GORILLAS LEARN SPEECH - AND ACQUIRE ITS DERIVITIVE VALUES: AND WHAT IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN - IS ADAPTATION STILL VIABLE?IS ADAPTATION A SELECTIVE PROCESS - VIABLE ONLY IF IT ALLIGNS WITH TOE - AND NOT ACKNOWEDGED WHEN IT DOES NOT?ARE ANY ATTRIBUTES IN ANY LIFE FORMS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ADAPTATION AS PER TOE? HOW SIGNIFICANT IS TIME IN ADAPTATION? DO HUMANS HAVE SPEECH BECAUSE OF ACCUMULATED BENEFIT OF TIME - BUT WHICH FACTOR IS NOT SEEN VINDICATED ELSEWHERE IN ANY OTHER LIFE FORMS?IS ADAPTATION TRUE SCIENCE - AND HOW DOES IT RATIFY SPEECH?IS TOE AND ITS DEPENDENT FACTORS VIABLE IF SPEECH IS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT?IS SPEECH AN ANOMOLY?

What is correct and vindicated today is that humans have speech as no other - this factor alone and of itself makes genesis a particularly powerful document. Arthur Custance - Who Taught Adam To Speak? 'Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language and all have failed." Maybe language did not evolve at all!''The more that is known about (communication systems in monkeys and apes) the less these systems seem to help in the understanding of human language. ''The difference could no longer be measured in terms of "higher" and "lower" but as a different way of conceiving reality, indeed from one point of view, a more complex way of viewing it. (4) G. G. Simpson rightly remarked: (5)''Do animals "speak" to one another at all? If so, are the two forms of communication related or comparable? If they are not, we cannot easily derive the one from the other. Since, as we shall see, a negative conclusion was reached by a number of investigators, the origin of human speech remained a profound mystery. 'Speech is the best show man puts on. It is his own "act" on the stage of evolution, in which he comes before the cosmic backdrop and "does his stuff."Benjamin Lee Whorf - Language, Thought and RealityMANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition of speech. (1) But he added with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human. The problem of accounting for the origin of speech appeared to him therefore to be insoluble. Apart from revelation, it still is.Because of the influence of Darwin's theories, it seemed at one time unnecessary to question the derivation of human speech from animal cries. Essentially the two were the same; it was merely a question of the degree of complexity. Following in the steps of earlier social anthropologists, who were arranging the various primitive cultures in a sequence from the simple to more complex, thereby illustrating man's supposed climb to Parnassus, those who philosophized about language assumed that the strange grunts, clicks, and grimaces of the lowliest "savages" were evidence that speech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)ORIGIN OF SPEECH: TWO ACCOUNTS1. The Evolutionary AccountBut little by little it appeared that the problem was more difficult. To begin with, more careful studies of the most primitive societies made by men in the field who spent enough time to learn to use the native languages they were studying, began to reveal that far from being simple, they were often exceedingly complex. (3) Indeed so rich in terms did they eventually prove to be in many cases, that such an authority as Levy-Bruhl came to doubt (perhaps unjustifiably) whether they even thought as we do. The difference could no longer be measured in terms of "higher" and "lower" but as a different way of conceiving reality, indeed from one point of view, a more complex way of viewing it. (4) G. G. Simpson rightly remarked: (5)
At the present time no languages are primitive in the sense of being significantly close to the origins of language. Even the people with least complex culture have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar, and large vocabularies capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers.Eric Lenneberg has said that primitive languages actually require more intelligence to learn than our so-called sophisticated languages do. (6) That language of a highly abstract nature must have been with man in very, very early times seems to have been recently confirmed by the finding, reported by Alexander Marshack, (7) of what appear to be clearly mathematical notations on a number of bone fragments dated (expansively) at 15,000 to 13,000 B.C.In fact, the simpler the culture, the more complex in this sense was its language likely to prove. Evidently therefore, the whole concept of arranging these cultures in an evolutionary scale was quite wrong. (8) Abandoning this principle cleared the way for a more careful investigation of the origin of human speech, and attention was turned to the problem from several different directions. To begin with, an answer was sought to the questions, What is the nature of human speech, and Do animals "speak" to one another at all? If so, are the two forms of communication related or comparable? If they are not, we cannot easily derive the one from the other. Since, as we shall see, a negative conclusion was reached by a number of investigators, the origin of human speech remained a profound mystery.Further investigation soon revealed other complications. Speech was always assumed to be instinctive. But the discovery from time to time of "wild" or feral children without speech, showed clearly that it results only where there has been social contact. Moreover such contact must be with speaking individuals, for it was further discovered that someone else has to start the process off for each one of us. Company alone does not create communication by speech. Without the spark from one party already the possessor of the faculty, there is no conversation.Having arrived at this point, it was felt that human beings should be able to encourage animals to speak, unless the organs of speech were different in the latter. In the course of time it was concluded from investigation of the anatomy of the higher apes that the organs of certain animals are not basically different, and that they therefore ought to be able to speak as we do. (9) And indeed, there are some creatures such as parrots, which, though not in the supposed evolutionary base line from amoeba to man, can be taught toreproduce all the sounds of common speech successfully. Yet apes and monkeys cannot speak. . . . Indeed, as J. B. Lancaster rightly observed: (10)
The more that is known about (communication systems in monkeys and apes) the less these systems seem to help in the understanding of human language.And G. G. Simpson, commenting on this, wrote, (11) Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language and all have failed." Maybe language did not evolve at all!On the other hand, history soon provided instances of human beings who lacked all the normal faculties of speech, i.e., sight, hearing, and voice, and yet who learned to speak (with their fingers of course) and to communicate ideas at a very high level of abstraction. This once more seemed to indicate that the real secret lay in the structure of the brain, or in some other quality of human nature, and not in the organs of the voice.It was therefore concluded that some genetic strain must suddenly have appeared to alter the structure of the human brain in some way at present unknown, thus paving the way for the appearance of this peculiarly human faculty. (12) Yet this does not answer the main problem, even if such a mutation could be shown to have occurred. For we have on record the case of two feral children, brought up entirely in the wilds, without any human companionship except that they were themselves companions in isolation, who never between them spoke a single word of any form whatever. Thus we find that even the presence of another human being, and the possession of a truly human brain (for subsequently they were taught to speak, though always with limitations) do not in themselves constitute the necessary framework within which speech must inevitably appear.We are still left, therefore, with the problem as to who started the process, for the process must be started by someone. While it is true that a few authorities believe that the human race may be an amalgam of several distinct and independently originated stocks, springing from lower forms of life, there are many others equally committed to an evolutionary origin for man, who hold that he must be derived from a single stock. (13) In this single stock we must have a first man and a first woman. It matters little what we call them, whether Adam (which simply means "man") and Eve (which really means "child bearer," i.e., mother), or some more technical name, we are still dealing with the same two individuals. What is to account for the fact that they began to talk to one another and this has continued wherever their descendants are found, and without exception, for no people on earth are known without a fully developed language. People are known in one part of the world or another without almost every faculty which we hold to be essentially human, even without mother-love, but not one people has ever been found without the faculty of speech.It may be stated simply then, that scientifically the question is beyond our reach. About all that scientific investigations can do is to demonstrate what cannot be the origin.2. The Biblical AccountIn Genesis, however, the story of the first conversation on earth is revealed. And since it is the only story that shows insight into the nature of man's first steps at conversation, it is of peculiar interest no matter whether we view it as fancy or as fact, for all about us every day are children learning to speak for the first time and showing us consistently a certain pattern of learning which by its very persistence leads us to suppose that it is the only pattern by which man ever learned to speak. Not merely the subject of conversation of the first pair, but the consequences of it, and the circumstances in which it came to pass, are of real significance for all those who today are concerned with the problem of human nature and conduct. For it is man's power of speech which has enabled him to do what he has done and to be what he is, whether for good or for ill. The power of speech involves the power of abstraction and of self-consciousness, and of delayed reaction and decision. It has in short made man in part a free-willed agent. But it has also enabled him to learn in a unique way and to pass on the substance of his learning so that culture has become cumulative.

This is an article which makes clear that the writings in Genesis is far from simplistic, able to transcend any writings in geo-history in its exacting, scientific, mathematical and grammatical status. It is therefore a mystery considering its ancient datings, and easily misunderstood and misrepresented by later conclusions to fault it - more on the grounds of neo science preferences than by contextual veracity.SO WHO DID SPEAK FIRST? So Who Did Speak First? The question still remains for us, as we consider this extraordinary and long overlooked or minimized trait of human nature, Where and how did it all begin? We have the case of two Indian children, Amala and Kamala, neither of whom had spoken one word between them, although they shared each other's company. Reverting back to the very first pair, whom we may most reasonably refer to as Adam and Eve for purposes of identification, who or what first induced them to talk to one another?Names stand for processes, and knowing the name seems to deceive us into thinking we understand the process. Those committed to the evolutionary origin of man must fall back upon the use of a magic word for the appearance of the special kind of brain man has which makes speech possible for him. They tell us it was a "mutation" of some sort! And there we have the whole "explanation." But even if a name were an explanation, they still have not told us who spoke first to start the process off, nor are we told what kind of a conversation would be most probable -- though we might have guessed by now that the one who began the process must be one who was other than Adam and Eve, and prior to them and must already have been a speaking person. And we might have guessed too that the first words would have to be a list of the names of things.In the first chapter of Genesis we are constantly told that "God said . . ." and not merely that God did. (43) Moreover in the creation of man a peculiar change takes place in the narrative, for having noted the recurrent phrase "Let the sea bring forth" or "Let the earth bring forth," as though directions were given to that which is inanimate to obey the word thus spoken, when the creation of man is in view, we are immediately presented with a conversation in heaven. (44) That God was not speaking to the heavenly host of angels when He said, "Let us make man . . ." is clear from the fact that man was to be made in His image, and after His likeness. This surely means that man was made in the likeness of God, and not in the likeness of the angels. When God therefore said, "Let us make man in our image . . ." He was not addressing Himself to the angels at all. This conversation was therefore originated and carried on within the Godhead. He who first spoke to Adam was God, who had already been conversing about him.What follows in the story is of real importance. Any thoughtful reader must surely be struck by the frequency with which the idea of "naming" things occurs in this early record. In some books one finds the glossary of terms at the end. Although they are needed at the beginning, it is discouraging to find oneself faced with such a list before some interest has been aroused in the subject matter. But in this instance, and for reasons which are obvious in the light of what we now know of the faculty of speech which man was given, the meaning of the first words and the names of the ordinary phenomena about which God wished to inform Adam, were given to him in some detail. Thus a name is given to the heavens, and to the earth, making more specific the general reference to them in Genesis 1:1. It is as though God had said, "Now I wish to tell you about these phenomena, and henceforth therefore we will refer to the sky as heaven, and to the soil upon which you stand as earth, to the light as day and the darkness as night, to the waters as sea, the atmosphere as the firmament, and we will name the rivers, and the sun and the moon, and even the stars." Then two trees are singled out and given compound names, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Then Adam received his own name. But there is a break in the narrative at this point. Having established a frame of reference, Adam was now invited to speak for himself. (45) Most of us like to name our own pets. Part of the commission given to Adam was that he should govern the animals, and it was natural therefore that he should be invited to name them for himself. None of them had any name up till then, and thus with artless simplicity the record says that whatever Adam called any creature, that was thenceforth its name.Now we are not told how he named them. We do not know whether he was guided by their colour, size, shape, or the cries they made. But what followed this naming ceremony seems to imply that there was a more significant reason for giving him the task. There are some who believe that Adam was merely one of many such representatives of man-like creatures, perhaps a special Homo sapiens singled out by the Creator who had then given him the benefit of a unique spirit. But the record seems in a remarkable manner to go out of its way to make it clear that Adam was the only man alive at that time. In Genesis 2:5, we are told that "there was not a man to till the ground." In Genesis 2:18, we are told that God had remarked "It was not good that man should be alone." In Genesis 2:20, we are told that "there was not found a companion for him." And finally in Genesis 3:20, it is stated that Eve became the mother of all living. It seems clear from the wording of Genesis 2:18-23, that God wanted Adam to discover for himself that he could never find among the lower forms of life a suitable companion in his loneliness. It seems manifest too, that if Adam had been a slouching half-ape creature God might well have brought to him other creatures little different from himself of the primate stock, which might have sufficed for his half-intelligent mind as an appropriate mate. However, with proper insight, Adam gave to each animal brought to him a name by which he signified in some way his reaction and his evaluation of its relative position with respect to himself.That this is so seems clear when one reads what followed this naming process, for, removed into a state of unconsciousness, perhaps tired by the exercise of judgment in such a critical matter, Adam is "divided" and from himself is taken a true help-meet. Awakening from this sleep, and quite probably still supposing that the process of naming must continue, he is presented with this creature in whom he instantly recognizes a true help-meet, and a very part of himself.The whole story is so simply written and so profound in its insight into the nature of speech and the forms which it first takes in childhood, and the true significance of the use of names for things, that it is almost as though God had cast the record in such a form deliberately that it might shed its own light on one of the profoundest of all mysteries. At any rate it is the only light we have. There is no other from any other source.Susanne Langer made a significant admission therefore when she wrote: (46)
Language though normally learned in infancy without compulsion or formal training, is nonetheless a product of sheer learning, an art handed down from generation to generation, and where there is no teacher there is no learning. . . This throws us back upon an old and mystifying problem. If we find no prototype of speech in the highest animals, and man will not say even the first word by instinct, then how did all his tribes acquire their various languages? Who began the art which now we have to learn? And why is it not restricted to the cultured races, but possessed by every primitive family from darkest Africa to the loneliness of the polar ice? Even the simplest of practical arts, such as clothing, cooking, or pottery, is found wanting in one human group or another, or at least found to be very rudimentary. Language is neither absent nor archaic in any of them. The problem is so baffling that it is no longer considered respectable.At the risk of over-loading a Paper already more than a little weighted down with quotations, valuable as they are, I cannot refrain from one last one by Roger Brown in his Words and Things who sums the situation up very effectively by writing: (47)
Neither feral nor isolated man creates his own language these days, but must not such a man have done so once in some prehistoric time and so got language started? Actually the circumstances in which language must have begun represent a combination for which we can provide no instances. We have animals among animals, animals in linguistic communities, and humans among animals; but in none of these cases does language develop. We have humans raised in linguistic communities and in these circumstances language does develop. What about a human born into a human society that has no language? We don't know of any such societies, and so we don't know of any such individuals. But these must have been the circumstances of language origination.Revelation is all that remains to us, and that revelation has been set forth in clear simple terms. God spoke to Adam first. And in due time Adam learned to speak with God. This is the unique relationship which man has with God, the capacity for conscious fellowship and communication, and all that these imply.For this fellowship he was created, and without it he is like a feral child, an orphan and terribly alone. To communicate with others is necessary for the generation of a soul in the personal sense of the term. To communicate with God it is necessary for that soul to be truly alive, and this kind of communication involves a fellowship based upon a true reconciliation between God and man.43. Genesis 1:3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 22 and 24.
44. Genesis 1:26.
45. Genesis 2:19.
46. Langer, Susanne, ref.27, pp.87, 88.
47. Brown, Roger, Words and Things, Free Press, Collier-Macmillan, London, 1968, p.192.

quote:

---

Ah, but Koko is capable of creating new signs and original sentences.

---

You can be more convincing by convincing yourself: would you be convinced it is a human speaking when koko is creating new signs and original sentences? You should, if it is speech or even a kind of.I rest my case.

quote:

---

We don't know. Speech is transitory, a function of the present moment. It doesn't exist beyond the moment in time in which it is uttered. It is what separates it from "writing."

---

We do know the last life with speech. Its not negotiable, but it does confirm the extent one will go to deny a fact with blatant illogic. When such displacement is evident, it is degenerated to slight of hand casino science.

quote:

---

DOES IT MEAN, OTHER LIFE FORMS WILL DO SO IN THE FUTURE - AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF NOT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Who knows? Why does it have to "mean" anything?

---

If you hold that speech was an accumulated evolutionary asset from the past - why should it not represent the future path also - specially so if parrots, gorrilas and dolphins are etching ever closer to speech? Its selective science, is it not? Or is there a taboo of ever being wrong - humpty dumpty will fall?

quote:

---

Who knows? What makes you think gorillas are becoming upright?

​

Are we back to the seeming claim that speech is necessarily vocal? That sign langauge isn't speech despite what all linguists say?

---

I was referring to ToE. Sign language = the absence of speech; but I grant you it is communication.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARE ANY ATTRIBUTES IN ANY LIFE FORMS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ADAPTATION AS PER TOE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

What do you mean by "attribute"?

---

Can speech emerge outside of the evolutionary equation - seeing only one life form acquired it, and without the benefit of the time factor?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW SIGNIFICANT IS TIME IN ADAPTATION?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Depends. We have seen reproductive isolation in as few as 13 generations.

---

Does it mean speciation occured by isolation of reproduction? If not, than the time factor is pivotal - else we could take snap-shots and video of ToE in action. I see a selective deflection from your own held position by your question. The point was - that humans had LESS time benefit than any other life forms - but adapted to the most potent attribute - even before far older gorrilas. Of course, the ToE has an improvised answer for this problem, and sites accumulative adaptation, via inter-dependent and independent curves and crosses along the way. But even given such - the time factor still reigns pivotal for adaptation - it just did not work with any life other than humans: an anomoly.

quote:

---

As for speech, we have seen how changes in morphology have an effect upon speech. Now, there are multiple factors involved in adaptive change. The ability to communiate more effectively certainly is an evolutionary pressure.

---

That applies to a ratio of 1: all others. Its not convincing.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS SPEECH AN ANOMOLY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No.

---

Its just one in a billion.

quote:

---

Now, would you please give us your definition of "speech"?

---

Line them all up, and see which one sounds like speech - when you ask a random question. Then phrase it in scientific terms. I really see this has been an engagement in casino science. I see great apprehension to even hypothetically consider that if speech is a unique human attribute - varied from communications of all life forms - where does a biologist place ToE's adaptation premise? I must have asked a scary question.

quote:

---

It's not a scary question and adaptation stays where it is. Whether or not it is speech - we could ask the same of any unique attribute that Homo sapiens possess. However, many species have unique traits - not just humans.

---

Ok, so finally at least, let's move away from one notorious logic, to anther notorious logic. I call it progress - relatively. If I read this correctly, everything has a unique trait - therefore nothing have unique traits? Every human has a unique finger print - therefore no human has a unique finger print? This is becoming very catch 22, but my mind says there is such a thing as an exclusive trait, and that adaptation becomes effected here. I note you have not denied speech is an exclusive human attribute, rather you reject the basis of anything being exclusive - intentionally or by default is irrelevant. I see it as notorious logic - and that I cannot win such a premise or you cannot lose. It’s sad that so-called science oriented folk, in a science thread, have no qualms thinking this way: you are not necessarilly negating humans have an exclusive trait, but that there is no such thing as a unique trait.

quote:

---

Speech cannot emerge outside of the evolutionary equation - or at least not to our knowledge. If we assume for the moment that humans are the one life form to have acquired speech let us make to points:

​

1. Other unique traits are possessed by other animals.
2. We have had the same amount of time as every other life form on earth to evolve the way we have.

​

Further to point 2, it should be noted that intelligence/brain size (allowing very complex thoughts which could then be communicated (which is what I think you are really driving towards rather than 'speech')), did evolve rather rapidly. This is an anomaly of sorts, but not one that the ToE is incapable of explaining. There is research into the matter going on to discover more about the evolution of large brain size in humans.

---

Firstly, I am not confusing or relating brain with speech - the former is, imho, unquestionably a common trait with all life forms, as is communication. I am singling out speech as a unique attribute of one singular life form in the known universe.With [1], that other life forms have their own unique traits - no contest, but this does not negate a particular trait elsewhere from being unique. IOW, I cannot deny you are good at golf because mountain goats are also good at climbing mountains. And this is what you are saying here. You have not said, notoriously, that speech is not unique to humans, but sited a reason why nothing can be unique only.With [2], all life forms have had the same amount of time to evolve, is, with respect, an equally notorious deflection, and one which renders time irrelevant - equally as with anything being unique. That time is relevant to adaptation is not effected by your argument all life had the same time - presumably based on a premise all life evolved from one point. I understand where your coming from here, and this is exactly the kind of runaway and deflective pseudo-science most evolutionists use. There is no way to turn such a mindset with any counter logic, which will only go into a one-way cyclical path - it is a new species of a fanatical religious science, more bent on vehemence than logic. Your argument falls - based on a unique trait being possible, and that time is a pivotal factor in adaptation, and actually fully relies on it.I agree that humans do not share the unique trait of squids that can live in water all their lives. I also hold that speech is a unique trait which squids and all other life forms have not developed - making it a unique human attribute. I see the development of a trait [adaptation] as time effected - and this is not based on a notorious premise everything is time related, but that adaptation is not an instant phenomenon, and in fact one of the reasons sited why adaptation cannot be witnessed in real time: it takes a long time. For millions of years, no other life form has acquired speech - even factoring the accumulated, graduated time impacts, and that all life could have stemmed from one point/particle/wave/force/etc.The arguements posited, variously in this thread, are that speech is not unique to one life form because it is a part of general communication modes seen in all life forms; it is a variance in degree only; that there is no such thing as a unqiue trait; and that time has no impact on adaptation. The resorting to such premises must mean that a weak bridge has been effected: definitely it assures a collapsing effect if the premises put forth are based on desperation and are illogical.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Its different only in context.

---

Its different. Period.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
would you be convinced it is a human speaking when koko is creating new signs and original sentences?

​

In how he phrased his question I would say its a different form of speech. Would I think a Gorilla doing sign language will trick me to think its a human reciting poetry? No.

​

In the fact that Koko has created new signs and original sentences - no difference besides the fact that one is a human and one is a gorilla. IamJoseph has designed an experiment to fail - does Koko do humanspeech such as humans think Koko is human?

---

Try this quick quiz. Which of these possess speech:HUMANS
SQUIDS
APES
PARROTS
AMOEBA
ZEBRAS
ANTS
QUARKS
ELEPHANTS
PINEAPPLES
COMPUTERS
COMPUTER VIRUS
BILL GATES
WATER
THE POPE
THEISTS
ATHEISTS
AGNOSTICS
EVOLUTIONISTS
ET