Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

Let us not forget that dolphins have names for themselves and each other. The idea that only humans have speech simply isn't true.Too, one of the things, at least in primates, that helped us to develop speech is our physical body: Our upright posture changed the way our respiratory system functions. Our diaphragms have glottal arrangements afford us an easier time.Chimpanzees laugh, for example, but because of their stooped over position, they can't do what humans do which is laugh in a continuous stream of air. Instead, each "ha" is its own breath.Note, this doesn't mean that language is somehow contained in the respiratory system. Instead, it means that with the change in our respiratory system, our ability to use language changed dramatically.So yes, there is a connection between physiology and language.

---

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.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

Better, let's not forget that dolphins who have names - do NOT have speech.

---

Huh? You're not suggesting that they're using written communication, are you? Are they psychic? No, they're making sound. Sound that has specific meanings is speech. The fact that they're not using their tongues or larynxes doesn't mean it isn't speech.

quote:

---

It makes the point more pointed that speech is not a result of ... any body organs

---

Huh? What is speech if not vocal reverberations that impart meaning? How can one speak without using a body part?

quote:

---

Single cell amoebas also recognise their offspring

---

Huh? What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about recognizing. We're talking about names. A name is a specific set of sounds that uniquely identify an individual. Dolphins name themselves. They introduce themselves to each other and the specific sequence of clicks and whistles is used to identify themselves.

quote:

---

Its simply true that Darwin was in error - Genesis was correct here.

---

Huh? Where did Darwin say anything about speech?And where does Genesis say that only humans have speech?Be specific. I want chapter and verse.

quote:

---

A sceintific view is derived when one must see the disdained truth and drop the paranoia - by dropping the denial.

---

Indeed, which is why science developed evolutionary theory and dropped Genesis.That said, you still haven't responded to the basic issue: Humans aren't the only animals with speech. Dolphins speak, too.Perhaps you could do us a favor and give us a definition of "speech" that explains why humans have it and dolphins don't.Be sure not to include aspects of "mind" or "body" since, according to you, speech is not the result of such things.

---

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.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

That, Meastro Hawkings, says there was a beginning - namely its ALL finite. Was that an OOPS or what? - how can something not be infinite when its whole is finite - do the maths!

---

Physician, heal thyself! I highly suggest you look up the distinction between "infinite" and "unbounded." It seems you haven't paid attention to what Hawking actually said.Help us out: What is Hawking's actual quote? Be specific.

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Your PC would not make the comments that Alex made during the session -- the requests that had nothing to do with the tests, but everything to do with what he wanted. That was not mimicry. Try confronting the evidence rather than ignoring it.

---

Now, now, let's not make the same mistake IamJoseph is making. Specifically, he is confusing "speech" with "language." The two are not the same. Writing is not speech, yet both writing and speech use langauge.It would seem that IamJoseph is really trying to say that only humans have language. And yet, because we have seen that other animals have speech, that necessarily means they have language. Oh, I heartily agree that their use of language is not nearly as sophisticated as ours, but that's a difference of degree, not kind. A child's use of langauge is not nearly as sophisticated as an adult's, but we wouldn't say the child is incapable of language.Along those lines, there appears to be a window of time wherein if a child is not taught language, he'll never be able to learn it. It appears that the ability to grasp the technicalities of language is a function of the development of the brain.

---

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.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

Recognising an offspring by sound is NOT speech

---

Nobody said it was. That's why we're not talking about that.We're talking about communication. When dolphins use their names, it isn't "recognizing offspring." It's how they let each other know who they are. It's how they ask about other dolphins.Alex, the parrot, wasn't referring to offspring. He was asked about objects and he described them.When the various primates speak using sign language, they're not talking about offspring.

quote:

---

All life forms have this ability - none have speech.

---

Not even humans? Now I'm confused.Perhaps you can give us a definition of speech. This definition should be specific enough that it includes humans but somehow excludes other animals. Oh, and it must not include things that can be traced to the "mind" or "body," since you've already established that your conceptualization of "speech" does not include either.

quote:

---

Speech is recordable, memorable and enfusable for all who have this attribute, to recognise, transfer to an unknown third party/s, and able to form 'new' paradigms unrelated to immediate environmental impacts such as recognising an offspring, signalling danger or food approaching.

---

OK. So explain why what Alex and Koko were doing wasn't speech. You will notice, for example, that no offspring were present, no food was offered or asked for, nor was there ever any danger to be found.When Alex points out that there are two green objects on the tray, how is that not "speech"? When Koko talks about the death of her kitten, Ball, how is that not speech?What do you mean when you say, "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.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

In a sense, a mute showing speech like qualities is firstly, a human action, and unrelated to the communication skills of any other life form, such as a parrot.

---

Koko the gorilla knows sign language. If it's "speech" when a human does it, why is it not "speech" when a gorilla does it?What is your definition of "speech" such that it only applies to humans?

quote:

---

This is further backed by a parent not teaching a child to speak

---

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

quote:

---

This means, again, speech is an inherent and unique attribute in humans.

---

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

quote:

---

We find that a mute animal cannot emulate what a mute human can.

---

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

quote:

---

Lets face it - if Genesis is right, it blows a fatal blow to many currently held theories, assumptions and derivitive factors. There is a motive to deny here!

---

On the contrary. That's a motive to accept. If you can overturn the dominant paradigm in science, they hand you the Nobel Prize and every university and laboratory starts beating down your door to beg you to join their research team. You can write your own ticket for the rest of your life.With all that wealth and fame right there for the taking, why on earth would anybody deny it?

---

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.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Thanks. But its not speech.

---

Huh? Sign language isn't speech? Since when? It's referred to as "verbal" communication even though it doesn't involve sound. Are you saying that unless it is vocalized, it isn't speech?Question: Is Braille "writing"? After all, it isn't taken in visually but is something permanent. If it isn't taken in visually, it's isn't "writing"? If not, if Braille can be "writing" even though it is taken in through touch rather than vision, then why is sign language not "speech"? Just because it isn't oral?And if sign language is "speech," then why does it suddenly become not-speech when a non-human does it?

quote:

---

Its called teaching a dog new tricks.

---

Ah, but Koko is capable of creating new signs and original sentences.Once again, you need to give us your definition of "speech" that somehow excludes non-humans. Be sure not to include "mind" or "body" because you've already said that speech isn't connected to either.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Trick questions can beget only trick answers, but I'm not going there.

---

Huh? You're the one who is quibbling about what "speech" is. We've given you examples of animals doing exactly what humans do, and yet you continue to claim that what they're doing isn't "speech." Thus, you need to explain what it is you mean by "speech" that excludes these examples.

quote:

---

Definition of Speech is what humans do

---

Why? What is it about being human that makes it speech? Why is it that when a non-human does the exact same thing, it suddenly isn't "speech" anymore?

quote:

---

at what point do degrees cease and a new, different, never before kind develops

---

At the point where something novel has happened. Since we see other animals engaging in behaviour that we identify as "speech" such as the creation of new "words" and unique sentences, we cannot claim that speech is unique to humans.

quote:

---

The notion of presenting Koko the gorilla is saying, without admitting it, tomorrow apes will talk, zebras will sing and parrots will write books.

---

Huh? Who on earth said that? Haven't you been paying attention? Part of the reason that other apes haven't developed vocal speech is due to their physiology. Part of the reason humans do so well with vocalizations is because we're upright. We have much more control over the diaphragm because it isn't compressed due to a bent-over posture.Chimpanzees laugh and humans laugh, but chimpanzees can't laugh multiple "ha's" on a single breath: Hahaha. Instead, each "ha" is on a single breath: Ha. Ha. Ha.Oh, by the way: Chimpanzees that have been taught sign language will teach it to their offspring and they will pick it up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Maybe.

---

No, not "maybe." Studies of children who have been severely neglected show that they never gain language ability.

quote:

---

We know that animals and birds can perform voice phonations better and greater than humans, and that they can communicate, have brains, recognise their environment and kin - but still not possess speech.

---

Why not? What is it about "speech" that makes it off-limits to other animals? If they're doing the exact same thing that we're doing, why isn't it "speech"?What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:

---

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

---

And what, pray tell, was Koko's "prize" for talking about her dead pet? Be specific. Since you seem to know so much about her, you should be able to tell us why she did what she did. There was no food to be had. There was no danger about. There was no "prize."So why is what she did not "speech"?What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:

---

The best definition of human speech is the absence of a single life form to do so.

---

Except that we see other animals doing it. So why isn't it "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.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

WHY IS THE LAST KNOWN, MOST RECENT LIFE FORM SPEECH ENDOWED?

---

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

quote:

---

WHY DID OTHERS NOT ADAPT LIKEWISE?

---

Others have. Dolphins have speech.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

IF A LIFE FORM CAN ADAPT TO STAND UPRIGHT [GORILLAS] - WHEN WILL GORILLAS LEARN SPEECH

---

Who knows? What makes you think gorillas are becoming upright?Are we back to the seeming claim that speech is necessarily vocal? That sign langauge isn't speech despite what all linguists say?

quote:

---

IS ADAPTATION A SELECTIVE PROCESS - VIABLE ONLY IF IT ALLIGNS WITH TOE - AND NOT ACKNOWEDGED WHEN IT DOES NOT?

---

Huh? Non sequitur. Please rephrase. You seem to have combined two thoughts into a single sentence but they don't go together.

quote:

---

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

---

What do you mean by "attribute"?

quote:

---

HOW SIGNIFICANT IS TIME IN ADAPTATION?

---

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

quote:

---

IS ADAPTATION TRUE SCIENCE - AND HOW DOES IT RATIFY SPEECH?

---

Again, you are combining multiple thoughts into a single sentence.First, of course adaptation is amenable to science. It is because of science that we can analyze adaptive processes.As for speech, we have seen how changes in morphology have an effect upon speech. Now, there are multiple factors involved in adaptive change. The ability to communiate more effectively certainly is an evolutionary pressure.

quote:

---

IS TOE AND ITS DEPENDENT FACTORS VIABLE IF SPEECH IS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT?

---

No.

quote:

---

IS SPEECH AN ANOMOLY?

---

No.Now, would you please give us 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.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

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

---

Huh?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?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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.