|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its not identical - the mimicry of sound repitition combined with the action can soon be established as 'different' in kind.
quote: Describing it, passes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5931 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
I think we should have a topic about this mythical seed concept of yours.
Better, you are saying the seed has nothing to do with it.IamJoseph writes:
An evolutionary gene? You're not making sense. What do you mean by this? 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. 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. 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?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events quote: 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: 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: Except that other animals speak. What do you mean by "speech"?
quote: Except that other animals speak. What do you mean by "speech"?
quote: Except that other animals speak. What do you mean by "speech"?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Ihategod writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
anglagard responds to IamJoseph:
quote:quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJosphe writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:quote: Why not? Be specific. What is your definition of "speech"?
quote: 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: But the actions are identical. Therefore, how can they be "different"? What is your definition of "speech"?
quote:quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Eg?
quote: 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:I don't see it as limited to academic, if I understand that word correctly. quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Speech is marked by derivitive factors not associated by other forms of communications.
quote: No contest. This is valid for anything - how does one differentiate with a thumb and not speech?
quote: True, my analogy was limited to what constitutes unique only, not its consequences here.
quote: 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: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: Not irrelevent, but I would call all other communications as one representing a separate issue. Speech is more than communication, appears better said.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
anglagard responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: Yes. Lysenko, while an advocate of Lamarck, is not a logical result of Lamarckism.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its one of my unique traits - I define what I believe to be true.
quote: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024