Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 2:16 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Tanypteryx (6 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,832 Year: 4,869/19,786 Month: 991/873 Week: 347/376 Day: 24/116 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1773 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 268 (423979)
09-25-2007 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rrhain
09-24-2007 10:12 PM


quote:
You are aware that Koko is a gorilla, yes? Since what she is doing is identical to what humans are doing, why it is "speech" when it's us but not so when it's her?

Its not identical - the mimicry of sound repitition combined with the action can soon be established as 'different' in kind.

quote:

What is your definition of "speech"?


Describing it, passes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2007 10:12 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2007 2:36 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1773 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 62 of 268 (423981)
09-25-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Doddy
09-24-2007 11:32 PM


Re: Back to Biology 101!
quote:
Ok, so you're saying that genes have nothing to do with speciation? Back to Evolution 101 for you!

Better, you are saying the seed has nothing to do with it. I say, a seed can do w/o million year gene info - try that trick w/o the seed.
[quote]IaJ writes:

quote:

And how, exactly, does a mutation have such a generation limit? What makes it revert once this limit is up? And how does it know what it used to be so that it can revert accurately?

Back to Genetics 101 for you!


Why would your system work only forward and not backward too? We can see the ethnic imprints becoming less when away from one's original habitat - even w/o the effects of inter-breeding; with inter-breeding, it again affirms the seed impacts. Does an egg crack open with a chicken because of evolution - or what's in the egg? The gene does not impact, in the sense it is the egg contained embryotic gene, as opposed an evolutionary gene.

Evolution is only evidential where the seed effect is absent. Not so with its reverse mode.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Doddy, posted 09-24-2007 11:32 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Doddy, posted 09-25-2007 1:54 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 63 of 268 (423983)
09-25-2007 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by IamJoseph
09-25-2007 1:34 AM


Re: Back to Biology 101!
IamJoseph writes:

Better, you are saying the seed has nothing to do with it.


I think we should have a topic about this mythical seed concept of yours.
IamJoseph writes:

Does an egg crack open with a chicken because of evolution - or what's in the egg? The gene does not impact, in the sense it is the egg contained embryotic gene, as opposed an evolutionary gene.


An evolutionary gene? You're not making sense. What do you mean by this?

The genes that cause the chicken embryo to develop in the way it does are indeed acted on by evolution. In fact, there are lots of genes that influence and regulate development.

It is because of the genes contained in your genome that you developed into a human rather than a chicken. And those genes are free to be acted on by evolution.


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 1:34 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 268 (423984)
09-25-2007 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
09-23-2007 4:28 PM


IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:
We do know the last life with speech.

Oh really? How? By what evidence are we able to determine temporally when a particular species acquired speech?

Of course, to answer that, you have to define what "speech" is, and you have yet to do so.

quote:
If you hold that speech was an accumulated evolutionary asset from the past - why should it not represent the future path also

Because, as you should know, evolution does not have a goal. Just because something can evolve doesn't mean it will in any given evolutionary path.

quote:
Its selective science, is it not?

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

quote:
Sign language = the absence of speech

Since when? Why is sign language not speech? Are you saying speech must necessarily be oral? I thought you said that the definition of speech precluded "body" and "mind." By forcing speech to be something that is oral, you force it into the body, violating your own definition.

What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:
Can speech emerge outside of the evolutionary equation

What do you mean by "evolutionary equation"? You're playing a game of gotcha and I'm not willing to be suckered in.

What is your definition of "speech"? How does it relate to "language"?

quote:
Does it mean speciation occured by isolation of reproduction?

That's part of how we can distinguish one species from another: Reproductive isolation.

Now, why did you rephrase "reproductive isolation" as "isolation of reproduction"? What game are you playing?

quote:
If not, than the time factor is pivotal - else we could take snap-shots and video of ToE in action.

We have. We've seen evolution happen right before our eyes.

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.

You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.

We have also seen evolutionary changes on a much larger scale:

Tamer AU, Aragno M, Sahin N.
Isolation and characterization of a new type of aerobic, oxalic acid utilizing bacteria, and proposal of Oxalicibacterium flavum gen. nov., sp. nov.
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2002 Dec;25(4):513-9.
PMID: 12583711 [PubMed - in process]

Garner MR, Flint JF, Russell JB.
Allisonella histaminiformans gen. nov., sp. nov. A novel bacterium that produces histamine, utilizes histidine as its sole energy source, and could play a role in bovine and equine laminitis.
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2002 Dec;25(4):498-506.
PMID: 12583709 [PubMed - in process]

Ping W, Zhou D, Sun J, Fan C, Ding Y.
[A new genus of oral bacteria in human]
Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao. 1998 Apr;38(2):146-51. Chinese.
PMID: 12549377 [PubMed - in process]

Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Steyn PL, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Sandra P, Kersters K, Joubert JJ.
Classification of heparinolytic bacteria into a new genus, Pedobacter, comprising four species: Pedobacter heparinus comb. nov., Pedobacter piscium comb. nov., Pedobacter africanus sp. nov. and Pedobacter saltans sp. nov. proposal of the family Sphingobacteriaceae fam. nov.
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998 Jan;48 Pt 1:165-77.
PMID: 9542086 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

And for more:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

quote:
The point was - that humans had LESS time benefit than any other life forms

Says who? You? How do you know? Since speech is something that happens in the moment and is not preserved (which distinguishes it from "writing"), we can't know when speech became acquired since it leaves no trace of its existence.

quote:
Of course, the ToE has an improvised answer for this problem, and sites accumulative adaptation

Huh? No, it doesn't. Evolution doesn't say that humans developed speech while gorillas didn't because of "accumulative adaptation." It simply recognizes that not all evolutionary pathways are chosen.

Just because something can evolve doesn't mean it will.

Of course, you still need to define what you mean by "speech."

quote:
it just did not work with any life other than humans: an anomoly.

Except that other animals speak.

What do you mean by "speech"?

quote:
That applies to a ratio of 1: all others.

Except that other animals speak.

What do you mean by "speech"?

quote:
Its just one in a billion.

Except that other animals speak.

What do you mean by "speech"?

quote:
Line them all up, and see which one sounds like speech - when you ask a random question.

You mean like what we did with Alex? You mean like what we did with Koko? They responded with logical, coherent statements. How is that not "speech"?

What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:
where does a biologist place ToE's adaptation premise? I must have asked a scary question.

Not at all. On the contrary, you have asked a truly naive question.

"Adaptation" is the entire point of the theory of evolution: Species adapt to their environment through morphological change driven by mutation and selection.

That you think evolutionary theory doesn't consider adaptation is like saying a painter doesn't consider color.

It's part and parcel of the entire point.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2007 4:28 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 268 (423986)
09-25-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ihategod
09-24-2007 10:18 AM


Ihategod writes:

quote:
Couldn't identifying and relating mannerisms be classified as a form of speech?

In and of itself? No. Speech is specifically connected to language and not all forms of communication are verbal. Being able to use a facial expression to convey emotional state isn't "speech," but it is communication.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ihategod, posted 09-24-2007 10:18 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 268 (423989)
09-25-2007 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by anglagard
09-24-2007 9:17 PM


Re: Lysenkoism
anglagard responds to IamJoseph:

quote:
quote:
Adaptions such as a polar bear having greater cold defensive skins, are also not gene based factors, but environmental defense mechanisms based on environement impacts - these are reversable with environmental changes, negating the gene premise!

This sure sounds a lot like Lysenkoism to me.


I think you mean "Lamarckism."

Lysenkoism had to do with propaganda and faslifying data. Lamarckism is the idea that characteristics acquired by an organism during its specific life can be passed onto its children. The classic example is that of the giraffe:

According to Lamarckism, an individual giraffe would stretch its neck to reach the leaves, in the process lengthening it due to repeated action. Because it now has a longer neck, it passes that trait onto its children.

This is in contrast to Darwinism which says that a population of giraffes is born with different lengths of neck. Having a longer neck is a reproductive advantage since it allows easier, better feeding on the leaves, and thus those with longer necks are more likely to reproduce.

[Note: I know that current evidence regarding the giraffe's neck indicate that it had nothing to do with leaf eating but rather with the mating ritual of bulls (called "necking"), but the point remains that traits don't inherit as Lamarck posited but rather as Darwin did.]

Now, Lysenko was a follower of Lamarck, but that's not the same thing.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by anglagard, posted 09-24-2007 9:17 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by anglagard, posted 09-25-2007 2:50 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 268 (423990)
09-25-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by IamJoseph
09-25-2007 1:13 AM


Re: special pleading for uniqueness in begging the question for human speech
IamJosphe writes:

quote:
Better, if it is speech, it comes only from a human.

Why? Why is what Alex and Koko do not "speech"?

What is your definition of "speech"?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 1:13 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 68 of 268 (423991)
09-25-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
09-25-2007 1:22 AM


IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:
quote:
You are aware that Koko is a gorilla, yes? Since what she is doing is identical to what humans are doing, why it is "speech" when it's us but not so when it's her?

Its not identical


Why not? Be specific.

What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:
the mimicry of sound repitition

Huh? Who said anything about sound? We're talking about Koko. She speaks through sign language. She is not "repeating" anything as she comes up with unique sentences that were never taught her and even develops brand new signs that again were never taught her.

So why is that not "speech"? What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:
the action can soon be established as 'different' in kind.

But the actions are identical. Therefore, how can they be "different"?

What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:
quote:
What is your definition of "speech"?

Describing it, passes.


No, it doesn't. We need a definition that we can then apply to a given act in order to determine if it meets the definition.

What is your definition of "speech"?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 1:22 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 69 of 268 (423994)
09-25-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rrhain
09-25-2007 2:28 AM


Re: Lysenkoism
Rrhain writes:

I think you mean "Lamarckism."

From what I have read, one tends to lead, or better, be corrupted by the other. To be fair, IMO Lysenkoism is Lamarckism run amok.

Lysenkoism had to do with propaganda and faslifying data. Lamarckism is the idea that characteristics acquired by an organism during its specific life can be passed onto its children.

Thanks for the lesson I already learned 35 years ago. :) I find a connection, do you disagree?

Rrhain, FYI I don't necessarily consider condescension a virtue, especially when it's coming from you to me ;)

This discussion is off-topic anyway, my fault.

Edited by anglagard, : play nice


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2007 2:28 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2007 4:47 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1773 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 70 of 268 (424000)
09-25-2007 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
09-24-2007 11:31 AM


Re: uniqueness of uniqueness, large brain mystery
quote:
Thought the first problem is that you don't seem to be reading what I am saying a lot of the time - not helping our communication at all.

Eg?

quote:

And cheeters run fast only as cheeters - else they do not - is that logic still with us? Each finger print is only unique as that person's finger print: does it mean it cannot be a unique fingerprint? Water is wet - but only as wet water - else its bone dry.


The cheeter is runing, as do all animals - the faster quality does not render it unique; this is limited to being the fastest, not a variance of kind, as with speech. The relevency with finger prints is not that each human has a unique print, but was deliberated only in regards to the factor what constitutes and negates the aspect of unique.

quote:

Right. So we agree your position is pointlessly tautological then?


I don't see it as limited to academic, if I understand that word correctly.

quote:

So what do we conclude about unique traits then?


I see speech as an exclusive human attribute, and distinct from the communication of all other life forms. It is not a linear grad but a paradigm breakaway, in that all forms of communications are one block, and speech another: this makes humans a category of their own, and unlike zebras being a different category from birds or bears. And here, the skeletal and brain size differences do not constitute this difference.

quote:

So, that leads to - what is your point about unique traits? If there is nothing inherently 'special' about them (I agree), why do you bring them up? Is there something we can conclude about life forms with unique traits?

While all life forms have unique traits, including indiviuals in a category, and inanimate enitities as well, in both degrees and kinds - speech still remains outside that description. Why/How? - is not correctly determined, and can be subject to a misrep or contrivable to be offset by semantical manouverings if one wishes to indulge in that sort of contrivings. A technical, scientific definition of speech is outside the evolutionary methodology based on ToE, which hardly deals with this issue. That most here have saught to describe it as an evolutionary graduation makes this clear, with any definition requiring to fit into ToE, or it is seen as non-scientific. IMHO, speech is not adequately defined or categorised under ToE, which also is the case with the seed output's relevence in offspring.

quote:

I am wrong to assume creationists believe in a six-day creation?

Absolutely. Check the OT calendar, the oldest and most accurate of all: it does not include the creational days, which are not 24-hour days, being pre-luminosity.

quote:

So which is it? Tautologically unique to humans or not unique to humans? You'll have to provide a definition that is neither if you want to plead neither.


Speech is not merely unique to humans, but a unique attribute only possessed by humans. Any semantics aside, speech is varied from an elevating thread of communications, which gives the impression of lessening its uniqueness as below it's significance. Human speech is a primal phenomenon in the universe. And it appears to have come suddenly, which becomes an affront to evolutionists. While this is not easily provable, in the same ratio as it is not disprovable - indicators say that speech was not, as is seen in most google links, around for upto a 100K years. All the derivitives of speech also appear to allign with its recent emergence. If the latter is seen as valid, then the notion of modern man becomes different from the skelatal imprinted assessments in ToE. So there are threatening potential impacts here for ToE, one reason why it is not seen as a minority opinion sees it, as with myself.

quote:

I'm not sure how 'subsequent' is relevant. Consequences are more relevant to discuss surely?

If speech is recent - it becomes relevent and impacting on what constitutes modern man: skeletal imprints - or speech endowed man? While genesis dates speech as 6000 years, it is alligned with a host of other alligned complimenting factors, including almost immdiately following derivitive picture writings, civilization, modern human populations and history itself. The reverse is the case between the periods of 100s of 1000s of years and the start of the 6000 point - it is a vaccuum. That there was a definitive quickening of the pace on this planet 6000 years ago is an unexplained phenomenon, but usually side-swept as a mythical meandering - without confronting its veracity.

quote:

It probably is absurd, since if circumstances were so different with regards to the evolution of cheetahs we wouldn't have cheetahs at all. As it stands, the common ancestor of cheetahs and humans could not speak, and circumstances of one lineage lead to speech, another lineage went to fast felines.

How does this 'went' fit in here - went from where? The notion of random jitterbugging particles, followed by a definitive selection, is unevidenced, aside from being a contradiction. This says that a complexity resulted from a random of and by itself. But the universe structures are 'intergrated' - making any notion of a random account superflous and redundant. A house key may be seen as a random occurence - but when there is also an exclusively corresponding lock, we have to look elsewhere. Not being able to pick the source point here does not alter the equation from reducing a sound premise to random; and the premise of an elevation built on only what is prevalent also does not alter the equation - behind the prevalent is a fully random premise, so it comes to the same thing, namely evolution is rested on a random graduating to a complex.

quote:

Why is something else happening here? Because speech is a unique trait? I thought we had agreed that many life forms have unique traits and therefore the same thing is happening there.

Yes, something is happening here, which is varied from a host of life forms possessing communication traits or other unique attributes. Speech altered the universe.

quote:

The ToE does involve 'seeds', but either your concept of 'host seed' is irrelevant or it has a different name. Either that or you have made a massive breakthrough.

In ToE, the focus is on an offspring derived from a distant factor, while the seed does evidence all transmissions, including a program which can continue solely with the host parentage. Its like saying a pineapple and a zebra are derived from certain colors within quarks. What genesis is saying is, the whole gamut came at one point, which includes all the specetime of environment and structures of speciation which ToE renders to evolution, as well as the programs to effect repro. I find Gensis' premise more scientifically and logically plausable and sustainable, because the notion the repro system began at a later mid-point, after the universe emerged, less than plausable: better that the repro was contained in the same design that produced the universe, which is also a complex structure same as reproduction and all other mechanisms. ToE is starting on the 50th floor of the empire state building, and saying life began here of itself, then graduated in a complex fashion - in contradiction of the first 50 floors. But if there is an equal complexity in the initial 50 floors, it is more condusive to be the source of all the floors. One cannot select random and complex phenomenons selectively.

quote:

Why not say human intelligence is a form of intelligence of all life forms, thus not unique? Is it not an extension only?


Well, this requires very deep contemplation and deliberation. Firstly, there is a huge gap between all life forms and humans, in time periods as well as impact. This is a lack of transitory graduations, which defy the process of inferred elevation. It is not a step by step advancement, and not judged by criteria such as one cell amoeba to polar bears, but intelligence: this is not a graduation of amoeba intelligence and bear intelligence. Intelligence, as opposed instinct, can pose the same enigma as speech and communications. the intelligence of all life forms can be said to be varied from human intelligence, in kind and not degree - again, this is due to the absence of human kind intelligence, and the otherwise fundamentally same intelligence in all other life forms.

quote:

We could do, if you'd like. Then suddenly we have no unique traits in all of nature. So our discussion ends. Unless you can justify your position that speech is an exception - which I doubt you can.

Speech is marked by derivitive factors not associated by other forms of communications.

quote:

Though it does demonstrate that a certain brain is needed for speech, yes?

No contest. This is valid for anything - how does one differentiate with a thumb and not speech?

quote:

Right - and if we had a red marble and a blue marble and a green marble, they are all unique in colour. As far as colour goes - uniqueness is common in our pool of marbles. The question is - what special status does red have?


True, my analogy was limited to what constitutes unique only, not its consequences here.

quote:

Not at all. What I am saying is that, since you agree that lots of (or even all) life forms possess unique traits, that unique traits are common. That isn't to say any given unique trait is common to all, just that possessing a unique trait is quite normal.

Its not normal, in the sense of impact, from all other forms of uniqueness. That speech is singled out, says it is other than a normal bead on a chain of many beads. The ratio is humans are different from all other life forms, evidentially, and constitute a category of their own. This is a validated premise, and its watering down is a misrep.

quote:

Right, but many of those different forms of communications are themselves one of a kind.


Yes and no. if we have only one red marble in the universe, it can still be seen as only one other form of uniqueness, or it can be seen as part and parcel of unique things. What distinquishes the unique factor of speech is its transcendency and impact: while there are many types of grunts type communications, for example, their status is the same as bird calls and the communication of all other life forms. Its correct definition in scientific terms is not one I will indulge in.

quote:

Thus there are many unique types of communication. Are you suggesting that no other life form has a unique form of communication? Are you suggesting that communication is special and that other unique traits are irrelevant?


Not irrelevent, but I would call all other communications as one representing a separate issue. Speech is more than communication, appears better said.

quote:

So, your position then is this:

Speech is completely unique to humans. No animal partly speaks. In fact, partly speaking is not possible it's either or. Pigs don't speak. Snakes don't speak. This vindicates Genesis. Other unique traits of humans or other life forms do not suggest anything important.

And if I'm right - all I can see you saying is that the people who wrote Genesis saw that other animals don't talk and wrote that observation down. They also observed women have painful labours and wrote that down. Surely this isn't interesting?

Anyway, in case you have some killer point somewhere I'd be keen on you defining speech in way that doesn't lead to circularity in your argument. I'm thinking:

P1: Speech is doing x.
P2: Humans and humans alone do X
C: Humans uniquely have speech.

Rather than:

P1: Speech is how humans communicate
P2: Humans and humans alone speak.
C: Humans uniquely have speech.

Do you think you're up to that challenge?


No, I would not be confident in doing an off the cuff defining here. I don't know if anyone has or is able to, probably the reason it is not at hand anyplace, and because it has been, IMO, eronously placed as another degree of communication, as opposed the epochial phenomenon it represents. Science is one of its effects, as is my pc too. I very much doubt if the aspect of highlighting speech was a result of mere observation by Genesis.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 11:31 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2007 5:59 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 268 (424003)
09-25-2007 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by anglagard
09-25-2007 2:50 AM


Re: Lysenkoism
anglagard responds to me:

quote:
quote:
I think you mean "Lamarckism."

From what I have read, one tends to lead, or better, be corrupted by the other. To be fair, IMO Lysenkoism is Lamarckism run amok.


Um, no. You cannot extricate Lysenkoism from the political and cultural climate in which it arose. Lysenko's claim to fame was "vernalization," which was a method to get wheat to grow in the spring. While the Soviet machine trumpeted it as a breakthrough, it was neither original nor all that effective.

Given the political climate regarding "bourgeois" science and the study of genetics, it is not suprising that Lysenko rose on a claim that denounced genetics. Part of his act was to bury the naysayers with his propositions. With so much gobbledygook to go through, the biologists were hard pressed to keep up with his proclamations of pruning methods, fertilizers, etc.

To try and say that this is a logical outcome of Lamarck completely misses the point.

quote:
Thanks for the lesson I already learned 35 years ago.

Excuse me? I simply brought up the possibility that you misspoke yourself. Rather than simply leave it, I thought I would help those who don't know Lysenko and Lamarck by describing the two.

Is there a particular reason why you decided to take it as a personal attack?

quote:
I find a connection, do you disagree?

Yes. Lysenko, while an advocate of Lamarck, is not a logical result of Lamarckism.

quote:
Rrhain, FYI I don't necessarily consider condescension a virtue, especially when it's coming from you to me

And where, specifically, was the condescension?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by anglagard, posted 09-25-2007 2:50 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 268 (424010)
09-25-2007 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by IamJoseph
09-25-2007 4:13 AM


last chance to argue your point
Thought the first problem is that you don't seem to be reading what I am saying a lot of the time - not helping our communication at all.

Eg?

Are you being deliberately ironic? I gave you an example right after the quoted sentence. The fact that you are requiring an example after I gave you one, is ironically another example.


Right. So we agree your position is pointlessly tautological then?

I don't see it as limited to academic, if I understand that word correctly.

It means you are defining it to be true. It is nothing to do with being limited to academic, its a serious criticism of your position and it needs to be dealt with.

I see speech as an exclusive human attribute, and distinct from the communication of all other life forms. It is not a linear grad but a paradigm breakaway, in that all forms of communications are one block, and speech another: this makes humans a category of their own, and unlike zebras being a different category from birds or bears. And here, the skeletal and brain size differences do not constitute this difference.

Right - and what about other exclusive attributes of other life forms? What conclusions do we draw from them?

While all life forms have unique traits, including indiviuals in a category, and inanimate enitities as well, in both degrees and kinds - speech still remains outside that description. Why/How? - is not correctly determined, and can be subject to a misrep or contrivable to be offset by semantical manouverings if one wishes to indulge in that sort of contrivings.

So it is not based on anything at all - you are just engaging in semantical manouverings?

A technical, scientific definition of speech is outside the evolutionary methodology based on ToE, which hardly deals with this issue.

ToE is not a descriptive thing, it is an explanatory one. What difference does it make what ToE says about speech - ToE is not making claims about speech - you are.

That most here have saught to describe it as an evolutionary graduation makes this clear, with any definition requiring to fit into ToE, or it is seen as non-scientific. IMHO, speech is not adequately defined or categorised under ToE, which also is the case with the seed output's relevence in offspring.

Right - ToE does not define anything, it is an explanatory framework not a descriptive one. However, you have stated that speech is somehow special - to convince anybody of your case (ie debate) you need to describe speech in such a way as it can be shown it is not a gradation but is completely seperated from all other forms of communication. I doubt you can do this, and your insistence on avoiding doing so simply confirms the weakness of your position.


Absolutely. Check the OT calendar, the oldest and most accurate of all: it does not include the creational days, which are not 24-hour days, being pre-luminosity.

I'm not talking about the Bible, I am talking about Creationists. A short-hand for Young Earth Creationists. The people that profess to believe in a six day creation week and a young earth. You might think they are theologically wrong, but that doesn't change that they believe in a six day earth.

Speech is not merely unique to humans, but a unique attribute only possessed by humans.

What's the difference?

Any semantics aside, speech is varied from an elevating thread of communications, which gives the impression of lessening its uniqueness as below it's significance.

OK, so speech is part of some kind of continuum of communication? This includes other forms of animal communication I presume? This seems to be contradictory to what you said earlier.

Human speech is a primal phenomenon in the universe.

Are you sure it is a primal phenomenon? Do you know what you are saying here?

And it appears to have come suddenly, which becomes an affront to evolutionists.

It doesn't appear to have come suddenly, it appears to have arrived relatively rapidly in the last 6 million years or so. A hell of a lot of evolutionary change can happen in 6 million years. The biggest change humans (and their ancestors) have gone through in this time is their brain size.

While this is not easily provable, in the same ratio as it is not disprovable - indicators say that speech was not, as is seen in most google links, around for upto a 100K years. All the derivitives of speech also appear to allign with its recent emergence. If the latter is seen as valid, then the notion of modern man becomes different from the skelatal imprinted assessments in ToE. So there are threatening potential impacts here for ToE, one reason why it is not seen as a minority opinion sees it, as with myself.

Google is good isn't it. I get things like:

quote:
The evolution of speech can be studied independently of the evolution of language, with the advantage that most aspects of speech acoustics, physiology and neural control are shared with animals, and thus open to empirical investigation.

here

I'd certainly be keen if you have more links for us. I'm not sure what a skeletal imprinted assessment is so I cannot comment, though since ToE is an explanatory framework, I imagine it doesn't do such things nor would it be threatened by a short time period of change. You've heard of Punctuated Equilibrium wherein evolutionary change sometimes happens in short bursts, right?

If speech is recent - it becomes relevent and impacting on what constitutes modern man:

Right, but how is "subsequent" relevant when we should be talking about consequences

skeletal imprints - or speech endowed man? While genesis dates speech as 6000 years, it is alligned with a host of other alligned complimenting factors, including almost immdiately following derivitive picture writings, civilization, modern human populations and history itself.

And yet, such things predate Genesis' timeline.

The reverse is the case between the periods of 100s of 1000s of years and the start of the 6000 point - it is a vaccuum. That there was a definitive quickening of the pace on this planet 6000 years ago is an unexplained phenomenon, but usually side-swept as a mythical meandering - without confronting its veracity.

Not really, culture (including agriculture), allowed human settlements to reach a critical mass point wherein common languages were developed, the written word was developed and knowledge could be stored.

How does this 'went' fit in here - went from where?

Evolved from a common ancestor.

The notion of random jitterbugging particles, followed by a definitive selection, is unevidenced, aside from being a contradiction.

I never made any claims for random jitterbugging particles followed by definitive selection.

Yes, something is happening here, which is varied from a host of life forms possessing communication traits or other unique attributes. Speech altered the universe.

So how did speech alter the universe where other unique traits didn't? Or do all unique traits change the universe.

In ToE, the focus is on an offspring derived from a distant factor, while the seed does evidence all transmissions, including a program which can continue solely with the host parentage.

A distant factor? The ToE discusses parents and the offspring that come out of them. Evolutionary biology discusses the development of the offspring from two parent cells to blastocyst to child to adult. How close do you want?

ToE is starting on the 50th floor of the empire state building, and saying life began here of itself, then graduated in a complex fashion - in contradiction of the first 50 floors.

How does a sequence of events that start later, contradict a sequence of events that came before. Are you suggesting that cause and effect contradict one another?

But if there is an equal complexity in the initial 50 floors, it is more condusive to be the source of all the floors. One cannot select random and complex phenomenons selectively.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Speech is marked by derivitive factors not associated by other forms of communications.

Such as?

True, my analogy was limited to what constitutes unique only, not its consequences here.

Indeed - which is why you missed my point that if everything is unique, being unique is common. If lots of things are unique, uniqueness is common.

Its not normal, in the sense of impact, from all other forms of uniqueness. That speech is singled out, says it is other than a normal bead on a chain of many beads. The ratio is humans are different from all other life forms, evidentially, and constitute a category of their own. This is a validated premise, and its watering down is a misrep.

The only person to single out speech - is you. That doesn't say anything interesting, unless you can explain why speech should be singled out. That is what I have been asking you to do, and you have directly refused to do. Obviously humans constitute a category of their own, they are in the homo category, the sapiens species. There are other homos (now extinct), there are other great apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates and animals.

You can name any animal, and it can be shown that they are different from all other life forms. Name an animal who is the sole species in its genus and we'll find ourselves in the same position as we do with humans. We already know this, we've known it for a long time. Is that the conclusion of your position? It's not remarkable if it is.

Yes and no. if we have only one red marble in the universe, it can still be seen as only one other form of uniqueness, or it can be seen as part and parcel of unique things. What distinquishes the unique factor of speech is its transcendency and impact: while there are many types of grunts type communications, for example, their status is the same as bird calls and the communication of all other life forms. Its correct definition in scientific terms is not one I will indulge in.

Actually - speech in itself has no impact. Language has impact. Grammar and context and a structure which can be used to communicate complex ideas has impact. Speaking nonsense has no impact at all.

Not irrelevent, but I would call all other communications as one representing a separate issue. Speech is more than communication, appears better said.

Speech is more than communication? If I grant that as true, it would only be true in light of language. Without language speech would be gibberish and pointless. At best, basic ideas might be able to be conveyed - but even that would langauge of a sort.

No, I would not be confident in doing an off the cuff defining here. I don't know if anyone has or is able to, probably the reason it is not at hand anyplace, and because it has been, IMO, eronously placed as another degree of communication, as opposed the epochial phenomenon it represents. Science is one of its effects, as is my pc too. I very much doubt if the aspect of highlighting speech was a result of mere observation by Genesis.

So basically what you are saying is that

Fnorgle is a unique and special faculty of humans and fnorgling demonstrates Genesis' accuracy.

Or you might as well be. You came here with a claim. X is unique to humans. Yet you won't tell us what 'X' is. When pushed you give us contradictory or obfuscatory information about 'X' and then, when really pushed you simply refuse to give concrete evidence about 'X'. I guess I'll give you one more chance to reply with substance otherwise I'll have to simply dismiss your claims as baseless (since you adamantly provide us with a base!)

So far your position is:

Speech is unique to humans. It has had more impact than any other unique trait (on what?). I'm not going to disclose what speech is, but it is more than communication. Speech exists on a continuum but is discretely seperated from other entities on that continuum. Speech appears quickly (how do we know it does if we don't know what it is?), and resulted in civilization. You don't mean large brain size, you don't mean language (presumably), you don't mean making noises with the voice, you don't mean pronouncing syllables.

One last chance Joseph. A well rounded argument - I'm generous to my opponents (to a fault), but I have limited time and don't fancy spending hours chasing my tail. Please address the principle concern here "What is Speech" since it is integral to your argument that it gets defined by you. If you don't put forward a definition then I ask you to withdraw from the debate, concede the point for the time being and leave it there. Otherwise, I'll urge moderators to take a look in - there are certain requirements to debate you realize.


No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 4:13 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 1:12 PM Modulous has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1773 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 73 of 268 (424074)
09-25-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
09-25-2007 5:59 AM


Re: last chance to argue your point
quote:
It means you are defining it to be true. It is nothing to do with being limited to academic, its a serious criticism of your position and it needs to be dealt with.

Its one of my unique traits - I define what I believe to be true.

quote:

Right - and what about other exclusive attributes of other life forms? What conclusions do we draw from them?

That is not an impacting one here. A truth can stand on its own, without the aid of other truths. If any conclusions were to be drawn, it too would be non-alligned here. Speech is not unique because there are other unique things, and such comparisons were only incurred with the notion of watering down speech as a unique factor. The interesting bit remains after this is established and held as valid.

quote:

So it is not based on anything at all - you are just engaging in semantical manouverings?


In fact, the distorting of speech's place is based on such semantics, such as is unique really unique, and what of other uniques - when it is clearly manifest as a unique factor and a one only. One would be at pains to nominate a more singualr unique phenomenon, one which impacts the human status itself. the tendency to break down speech into its parts, as a biological definition, is, I suspect, only an attempt to distort its significance: the biological definition can clearly not rest on ToE, which speech stands as a stumbling block to. Its like asking for a definition of emotions. Speech is not an expounded, equationed phenomenon, and is greater than the sum of its parts.

quote:

ToE is not a descriptive thing, it is an explanatory one. What difference does it make what ToE says about speech - ToE is not making claims about speech - you are.


ToE does make claims about speech - by its promotion of adaptation. If viewed as one of the many Communications - there are many problems here. Speech stands as an affront to ToE.

That most here have saught to describe it as an evolutionary graduation makes this clear, with any definition requiring to fit into ToE, or it is seen as non-scientific. IMHO, speech is not adequately defined or categorised under ToE, which also is the case with the seed output's relevence in offspring.

quote:
to convince anybody of your case (ie debate) you need to describe speech in such a way as it can be shown it is not a gradation but is completely seperated from all other forms of communication. I doubt you can do this, and your insistence on avoiding doing so simply confirms the weakness of your position.

Firstly, one does NOT have to prove anything to deem speech as a unique and most special phenomenon: this is fact. What this debate seeks to do, is classify what is a singular item, as one of 100s of 1000s of others. My position is not weak - its as strong and valid as it gets. If I'm holding the only red marble - you have to produce another one to dislodge my unique position: saying you have blue marbles which my red marble came from does not alter/weaken my position, only yours. You do not have another life form possessing speech, but you have many life forms with their own non-speech, and cheeters which can run fast. Then some want to show that speech has the same scientific equation as any other grunt and coo: but they still don't have what it takes.

quote:

I'm not talking about the Bible, I am talking about Creationists. A short-hand for Young Earth Creationists. The people that profess to believe in a six day creation week and a young earth. You might think they are theologically wrong, but that doesn't change that they believe in a six day earth.


Its in the public domain. You can start another new religion with it - but the bible itself is a term with no meaning. Christianity made a hit sequal in contradiction of its law not to add or subtract - and called both the OT & NT as one bible, Islam gave it a new interior design. These are 2000 year later unilateral adaptations, and have young neo breeds who follow different takes on the OT. But creationism and monotheism were introduced in the OT, and are 100% scientific premises, and its validity cannot come from another place. The chaos is understandable but not resolvable, yet all cannot be right, while all can be wrong, with the dark horse being that one alone can be right. What I can say is, to correctly understand a verse in the OT, requires great deliberation, references, commentaries, history, math and science books, and tutors. I doubt the young breed incur such study. Creationism and monotheism are 100% scientific and logical premises with no alternatives on the table.

[uote]
Human speech is a primal phenomenon in the universe.

Are you sure it is a primal phenomenon? Do you know what you are saying here? [/quote]

Its a primal factor for modern humans, and humans are a primal factor in the known universe. And yes, its a phenomenon if there ever was one. Humans would not be humans without it.

quote:

It doesn't appear to have come suddenly, it appears to have arrived relatively rapidly in the last 6 million years or so. A hell of a lot of evolutionary change can happen in 6 million years. The biggest change humans (and their ancestors) have gone through in this time is their brain size.



Speech - millions of years ago? No wonder we;ve been chasing out tails here. Please show any proof of speech prior to 6000? That proof is not possible because no writings existed is a myth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2007 5:59 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 09-25-2007 2:45 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 75 by Equinox, posted 09-25-2007 4:17 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2007 6:34 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 74 of 268 (424090)
09-25-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IamJoseph
09-25-2007 1:12 PM


Re: last chance to argue your point
IamJoseph writes:

Speech - millions of years ago? No wonder we;ve been chasing out tails here. Please show any proof of speech prior to 6000? That proof is not possible because no writings existed is a myth.

It's naive asking for "proof" of something in ancient history. What you should ask for is evidence. Imagine me asking you for proof that speech did not exist before 6000 years ago.

Here's some evidence for you, related to the hominid evolution of the refined hearing necessary for complex speech.

As for our own species, there's plenty of evidence that they were doing agriculture and extensive trading more than six thousand years ago, and don't you think this would be difficult without complex speech?

I could find some more evidence, but first, perhaps, you could show some evidence (not proof) that speech began around 6000 years ago.

The beginning of written language isn't any good, as we know of many human cultures which have spoken language, but no written language, meaning that spoken language clearly can exist without a written form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 1:12 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 10:40 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 3246 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 75 of 268 (424103)
09-25-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IamJoseph
09-25-2007 1:12 PM


Re: last chance to argue your point
Please show any proof of speech prior to 6000? That proof is not possible because no writings existed is a myth.

The converse to what bluegenes said, however, *is* useful to us. In other words, evidence of written language does show that people were talking well before that. We have examples of writing earlier than 4004 BCE. One is the Jiahu script, at 6,600 BCE (nearly 9,000 years ago), and another is the Tartaria script, from the 5th millennium BCE (about 7,000 years ago). There are others as well. While it is debated how sophisticated these are as, say, alphabets, it really doesn’t matter for our discussion here, since even proto-writing shows that language is in use and probably has been in use for a long time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 09-25-2007 1:12 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 09-25-2007 4:37 PM Equinox has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019