Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 268 (423667)
09-23-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
09-23-2007 9:38 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2007 9:38 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Vacate, posted 09-23-2007 3:56 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2007 4:24 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2007 10:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 32 of 268 (423670)
09-23-2007 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by IamJoseph
09-23-2007 3:30 PM


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
Its a different form of speech.
You have a nose, its not like an elephant, but its still safe to say its a nose. You cannot rule out that what you have is a nose simply because its not as "nose endowed" as other creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2007 3:30 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2007 4:28 PM Vacate has replied
 Message 221 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 5:39 PM Vacate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 268 (423676)
09-23-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by IamJoseph
09-23-2007 3:30 PM


begging the question again.
... 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.
Why? Once again you are using human in your definition of speaking. If you are saying only humans are capable of human speaking then you are begging the question.
I rest my case.
While presenting absolutely no evidence of and kind of difference between humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, parrots, elephants and dolphins (to refer to a short list of animals that have been documented) in their ability to speak and communicate complex ideas and concepts. In other words your "case" is empty.
Once again you absolutely failed to present a definition of speech that either (1) does not beg the question (includes human speech in the definition) OR (2) distinguishes between human speech and the speech of chimps, bonobos, gorillas, parrots, elephants and dolphins (to refer again to the short list of animals that have been documented).
Is it possible that you don't understand why begging the question makes your argument invalid?
Begging the Question (petitio principii)
Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
Examples:
1. Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.
2. We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists. What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order to believe that God wrote the Bible.)
When you define speech as something that only humans do and then claim that speech is a distinguishing factor of humans you are not making a statement that has any meaning.
It is only when you provide a definition of speech that does not specifically refer to humans, one that can be evaluated for humans and other animals and actually show a difference between them, that your argument can begin to hold water. You have not begun to come close to starting to do that.
So far you make less sense than Alex. He could distinguish three green blocks on a tray full of green and blue blocks and toy cars. The definitions he used were applied to the evidence and he was then able to determine the answer.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2007 3:30 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 268 (423677)
09-23-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Vacate
09-23-2007 3:56 PM


Its a different form of speech.
?
How is it different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Vacate, posted 09-23-2007 3:56 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Vacate, posted 09-23-2007 4:47 PM RAZD has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 35 of 268 (423678)
09-23-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
09-23-2007 9:51 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2007 9:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2007 4:46 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2007 2:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 268 (423682)
09-23-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
09-23-2007 4:28 PM


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.
It's not a scary question and adaption 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.
Can speech emerge outside of the evolutionary equation - seeing only one life form acquired it, and without the benefit of the time factor?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2007 4:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 12:30 AM Modulous has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 37 of 268 (423683)
09-23-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
09-23-2007 4:28 PM


quote:
Its a different form of speech.
Razd writes:
How is it different?
Its different only in context.
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?
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2007 4:28 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 12:41 AM Vacate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 38 of 268 (423718)
09-24-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Modulous
09-23-2007 4:46 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2007 4:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 4:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 39 of 268 (423720)
09-24-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Vacate
09-23-2007 4:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Vacate, posted 09-23-2007 4:47 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Vacate, posted 09-24-2007 3:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 40 of 268 (423722)
09-24-2007 1:03 AM


Q: Are land based life forms incorrectly categorised as a 'kind' - differing them from water-based and winged based categories - because this is a difference in degree only and there is no such thing as a difference? Does this not apply to ToE perchance?

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 41 of 268 (423731)
09-24-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by IamJoseph
09-24-2007 12:41 AM


quote:
Its different only in context.
IamJoseph writes:
Its different. Period.
Should I count the "period" as all you have for a supporting arguement? I am not often a person who listens to folks who say "just trust me, I'm right".
Try this quick quiz. Which of these possess speech:
  • Humans : Yes
  • Squids : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
  • Apes : All ape species? Humans, Chimpanzees, and gorillas, possibly more
  • Parrots : All parrot species? Not that I am aware of.
  • Amoeba : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
  • Zebras : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
  • Ants : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
  • Quarks : No, but I hear they like hamburgers and french fies
  • Elephants : Yes
  • Pineapples : No, but I hear they like hamburgers and french fies
  • Computers : If true AI becomes a reality... interesting idea.
  • Computer Virus : No, see above
  • Bill Gates : Highly probable, the debate still rages if hes The Devil or human.
  • Water : No, but I hear it likes hamburgers and french fies
  • The Pope : Highly probable, the debate still rages if hes Bill Gates
  • Theists : Yes
  • Atheists : Yes, some debate if they are the devil
  • Agnostics : Yes? Maybe? Not really sure? I cant decide
  • Evolutionists : Yes, some debate if they are the devil
  • Et : Long neck, flies on a bicycle? Yes
Does this count towards my average?
Edited by Vacate, : Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 12:41 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 7:42 AM Vacate has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 268 (423733)
09-24-2007 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by IamJoseph
09-24-2007 12:30 AM


uniqueness of uniqueness, large brain mystery
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?
Well that sounds completely absurd. No - you have not read it correctly. I did not say that since everything has unique traits then nothing has unique traits. What I said was that many things have unique traits, so possessing unique traits is not unique to humans. Any questions that the unique trait of speech might bring up (assuming speech is a unique trait), are equally applicable to a unique trait in some other animal.
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.
If there is any sad state of affairs is that you managed to find the most ludicrous way of interpreting my post and instead of considering there might be other, better, ways of reading the post, you go ahead and do me the disservice of thinking I'm a complete moron.
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.
Once again you misread me. I did not say 'brain', I clearly was talking about intelligence and brain size. That's why I said "intelligence/brain size". I assume that when you say 'speech' you refer to complex communication which requires not only the ability to physically communicate but a suitable brain with suitable intelligence with which to form complex ideas to communicate.
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.
So, given that many other (or indeed all other) life forms have unique traits - why are you highlighting speech as something special? If its uniqueness is not what makes speech an evolutionary question to be answered, what is it about speech that does set it apart from the millions of other unique traits?
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.
Heh - but both evolutionists and creationists agree that life has all evolved for the same amount of time. To suggest otherwise would require evidence on your part - surely?
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.
A unique trait is possible. Time is required for a population to adapt. How does my argument now fail?
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 agree that you see speech is a unique trait. I don't think it is, but I do agree that the degree of intelligence we have is a unique trait, which I feel is probably the same thing. That is to say, verbal communication isn't what you are talking about, but verbal communication of complex ideas.
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.
I agree that most adaptions take longer than can be observed by a single human.
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.
For BILLIONS of years, no other current life form has acquired a large brain and communicative powers like ours. Likewise, for BILLIONS of years no other current life form has acquired the unique trait of being able to run 70 miles per hour. However, other beings have probably acquired complex communication of ideas in that last few tens of millions of years - they are just extinct. There may even be complex communication going on now that we do not understand.
Unless you can provide evidence that no other creature has had the ability to speak in the history of life - as you are currently defining it?
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;
Well running is not a unique trait, but running as fast as a Cheetah is. Speech is not a unique trait, but the power of our speech to communicate the levels of complex ideas we do is unique.
that there is no such thing as a unqiue trait;
Nobody has put this forward, I hope you now understand.
and that time has no impact on adaptation.
Really? Who put that forward?
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.
Let's deal with *my* argument rather than a murky group of 'others'. Let me summarize it again:
The idea that speech is a unique trait is a red herring: There are countless unique traits. So - it seems that your actual argument is that there has been such a small amount of time to develop the trait we have that it seems to undermine evolutionary explanations for the natural history of life on earth. If that is your argument then I have addressed it by conceding that certain traits have arisen comparably rapidly and that research into the issue in underway, with some promising ideas and conclusions coming out of it. If you'd like to discuss this, perhaps we can?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 12:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 7:37 AM Modulous has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 43 of 268 (423744)
09-24-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
09-24-2007 4:22 AM


Re: uniqueness of uniqueness, large brain mystery
quote:
Well that sounds completely absurd. No - you have not read it correctly. I did not say that since everything has unique traits then nothing has unique traits. What I said was that many things have unique traits, so possessing unique traits is not unique to humans. Any questions that the unique trait of speech might bring up (assuming speech is a unique trait), are equally applicable to a unique trait in some other animal.
I don't see your continued upholding is correct, although there is a determination to attain a logical stance here. I have not questioned the uniqueness of other life forms, while you have negated the uniqueness I claimed for humans: the other does not negate the one. I have not represented your response wrongly, and gave a correct analogy why I cannot deny one being a good golfer because of another deflection. Then I gave a list of items to select the unique one item in a list as its conclusion. You are denying speech as a human unique trait, and thereby negating the aspect of a unique possibility anywhere - including other life forms. By subsequence, you deny humans also have unique individual fingerprints.
quote:
Once again you misread me. I did not say 'brain', I clearly was talking about intelligence and brain size. That's why I said "intelligence/brain size". I assume that when you say 'speech' you refer to complex communication which requires not only the ability to physically communicate but a suitable brain with suitable intelligence with which to form complex ideas to communicate.
Brains and brain size, have nothing to do with speech, nor was I referring to a complex form of communication - these are forms of denial: the factor relates only to speech, and that only one life form possesses it. The why and how are unrelated to the primal factor. Everything can be broken down to show it is related to another factor, so ToE is not a concept of anything - and we can select whatever reasoning to justify it. We end up with no determinable factor in the end - including of ToE. Thus there is no sun - it is part of a continueing strain of matter.
quote:
So, given that many other (or indeed all other) life forms have unique traits - why are you highlighting speech as something special?
Precisely. There is no *other* way of determining anything is special.
quote:
If its uniqueness
Why 'if'?
quote:
is not what makes speech an evolutionary question to be answered, what is it about speech that does set it apart from the millions of other unique traits?
The same which enables id via fingerprints. And its got nothing to do with evolution for its vindication. Its a yes/no type issue.
quote:
Heh - but both evolutionists and creationists agree that life has all evolved for the same amount of time. To suggest otherwise would require evidence on your part - surely?
This is unrelated too. The time factor applies notwithstanding that statement, which is anyway not correct on its own.
quote:
A unique trait is possible.
Yet, speech is not a human trait?
quote:
Time is required for a population to adapt. How does my argument now fail?
And crocodiles have had time to adapt. Either they chose not to adapt to speech - or speech cros are around the corner - or speech is unrelated to the given requirements of adaptation as per ToE.
quote:
I agree that you see speech is a unique trait. I don't think it is,
Is anything unique?
quote:
but I do agree that the degree of intelligence we have is a unique trait, which I feel is probably the same thing. That is to say, verbal communication isn't what you are talking about, but verbal communication of complex ideas.
Unintelligent humans have speech. Animals can be intelligent in their own spheare of relevence. Speech is outside this premise. There is no evidence that speech is nothing but a more complex communication or intelligence, nor does this alter it rendering humans possessing a one of a kind trait. When one says no other life form is as intelligent as humans - the issue becomes a mute factor.
quote:
I agree that most adaptions take longer than can be observed by a single human.
That means it is 'time' impacted.
quote:
For BILLIONS of years, no other current life form has acquired a large brain and communicative powers like ours. Likewise, for BILLIONS of years no other current life form has acquired the unique trait of being able to run 70 miles per hour. However, other beings have probably acquired complex communication of ideas in that last few tens of millions of years - they are just extinct. There may even be complex communication going on now that we do not understand.
But I did not negate a unique quality in others, and maintain such has no impact on other unique traits. If anything, I pointed this out - and it is denied in this thread. If only one animal can move at 70 MPH - that is a unique trait, and it does not negate another unique trait elsewhere. i never said all uniqueness rests with one life form, nor does the premise of uniqueness become negated because there are millions of other unique examples. A thing is unique when it has a singualarity of design in it - it is called exclusivity, despite other unique examples.
quote:
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;
A 1:all ratio is not a variance in degree. That is why I gave a quick quiz scenario. One can equally say, there is no such thing as a golf champ - it is merely a variance of a virus's movements more pronounced.
quote:
Well running is not a unique trait, but running as fast as a Cheetah is.
No dif with:
quote:
Speech is not a unique trait, but the power of our speech to communicate the levels of complex ideas we do is unique.
quote:
that there is no such thing as a unqiue trait;
Nobody has put this forward, I hope you now understand.
Everyone here does.
quote:
and that time has no impact on adaptation.
Really? Who put that forward?
By subsequence.
quote:
Let's deal with *my* argument rather than a murky group of 'others'. Let me summarize it again:
The idea that speech is a unique trait is a red herring: There are countless unique traits. So - it seems that your actual argument is that there has been such a small amount of time to develop the trait we have that it seems to undermine evolutionary explanations for the natural history of life on earth. If that is your argument then I have addressed it by conceding that certain traits have arisen comparably rapidly and that research into the issue in underway, with some promising ideas and conclusions coming out of it. If you'd like to discuss this, perhaps we can?
You may feel justified, but its the same logic of the others. Speech is unique despite all the orguements tended. It is denied because it has formidable consequences - eg: Genesis is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 4:22 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 8:25 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 44 of 268 (423746)
09-24-2007 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Vacate
09-24-2007 3:53 AM


Bounce it off ex your school teacher. I intentionally put animals which communicate.
If I put a list of different colored marbles - your arguement would be notorious, but can still be applied to show since all colors are changes in degree only - all the marbles can be any one color. This is the desperation of the situation here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Vacate, posted 09-24-2007 3:53 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Vacate, posted 09-24-2007 10:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 45 of 268 (423758)
09-24-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by IamJoseph
09-24-2007 7:37 AM


Re: uniqueness of uniqueness, large brain mystery
I don't see your continued upholding is correct, although there is a determination to attain a logical stance here. I have not questioned the uniqueness of other life forms, while you have negated the uniqueness I claimed for humans: the other does not negate the one.
Nor have I claimed it does. What it does do, is demonstrate that uniqueness is either a problem across the board for evolution or it is not a problem for evolution. If the former, then you should demonstrate that uniqueness is a problem for evolution in totality, if the latter then we agree.
You are denying speech as a human unique trait, and thereby negating the aspect of a unique possibility anywhere - including other life forms.
Yet I stated in fairly straightforward terms that I agree that humans possess traits that are unique to them - as do other organisms.
By subsequence, you deny humans also have unique individual fingerprints.
Nope - they do. And humans do have unique traits - I just don't think the one you have put forward is one of them. That surely isn't hard to understand, is it?
Brains and brain size, have nothing to do with speech, nor was I referring to a complex form of communication - these are forms of denial: the factor relates only to speech, and that only one life form possesses it.
Then we have an issue. You seem to be making the rather tautological statement that humans are the only life form that communicates exactly like humans. I agree, but it's a trivial fact. Domestic cats are the only life form that communicate exactly like domestic cats.
Precisely. There is no *other* way of determining anything is special.
So what you are saying is, that since other life forms have unique traits, no life form is special? I agree.
Why 'if'?
I was asking a "if not this then what" question. That's why.
The same which enables id via fingerprints. And its got nothing to do with evolution for its vindication. Its a yes/no type issue.
So if it isn't that it has a unique trait that enables us to mark something as special, it is that it has a unique trait that enables us to mark it as special?
That clearly doesn't make sense.
Let me try rewording the question in an easier way:
Do unique traits mark a life form as being 'special'?
This is unrelated too. The time factor applies notwithstanding that statement, which is anyway not correct on its own.
We agree that time has to exist for adaption to occur. Yet you don't think that all life forms have had equal time for adaption? That's fine - but creationists believe that all life was created in the same week, so they must believe that as a near approximation all life has had equal time at its disposal within which to adapt.
Yet, speech is not a human trait?
Never said that. Speech is a trait that humans possess. Depending on how you define speech it is either uniquely human (tautologically speaking as described above) or it is not uniquely human.
And crocodiles have had time to adapt. Either they chose not to adapt to speech - or speech cros are around the corner - or speech is unrelated to the given requirements of adaptation as per ToE.
Speech is not a required consequence of an evolving population. Nor is having wings, running at 70mph, sonic perception, or having gills. We can only do one of those, and that is speech. Likewise, cheetahs can only do one of those. Bats can do two.
The ToE does not say that speech is a given requirement of adaption. Speech is one possible adaption that a life form might theoretically have out of many many possible adaptions. Speech is not the goal of evolution, it is not the end result of evolution, it is just one possible result of many many possible results.
Is anything unique?
As I said, and you quoted me saying:
quote:
I do agree that the degree of intelligence we have is a unique trait
So yes, some things are unique.
Unintelligent humans have speech.
Not all unintelligent humans have speech. Some humans do not have speech. This could be for several reasons such as brain injury or never having learned language.
Animals can be intelligent in their own spheare of relevence.
Try to understand how I am using the word intelligence. I am using it to mean 'can form complex thoughts and ideas'.
But I did not negate a unique quality in others, and maintain such has no impact on other unique traits. If anything, I pointed this out - and it is denied in this thread. If only one animal can move at 70 MPH - that is a unique trait, and it does not negate another unique trait elsewhere. i never said all uniqueness rests with one life form, nor does the premise of uniqueness become negated because there are millions of other unique examples.
Right - and we agree on this. So since uniqueness is common, what can we conclude if a life form has a unique trait?
You may feel justified, but its the same logic of the others. Speech is unique despite all the orguements tended. It is denied because it has formidable consequences - eg: Genesis is correct.
Well, as I said, I am mostly assuming your premise is correct and trying to see how it leads to your conclusions. Since a unique trait somehow has the formidable consequence that Genesis is correct...does that mean that since Cheetahs have the unique trait of running at 70mph does that also lead to the conclusion that Genesis is correct. If so, how? If not, why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 7:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2007 9:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024