Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

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

quote:

---

Well that sounds completely absurd. No - you have not read it correctly. I did not say that since everything has unique traits then nothing has unique traits. What I said was that many things have unique traits, so possessing unique traits is not unique to humans. Any questions that the unique trait of speech might bring up (assuming speech is a unique trait), are equally applicable to a unique trait in some other animal.

---

I don't see your continued upholding is correct, although there is a determination to attain a logical stance here. I have not questioned the uniqueness of other life forms, while you have negated the uniqueness I claimed for humans: the other does not negate the one. I have not represented your response wrongly, and gave a correct analogy why I cannot deny one being a good golfer because of another deflection. Then I gave a list of items to select the unique one item in a list as its conclusion. You are denying speech as a human unique trait, and thereby negating the aspect of a unique possibility anywhere - including other life forms. By subsequence, you deny humans also have unique individual fingerprints.

quote:

---

Once again you misread me. I did not say 'brain', I clearly was talking about intelligence and brain size. That's why I said "intelligence/brain size". I assume that when you say 'speech' you refer to complex communication which requires not only the ability to physically communicate but a suitable brain with suitable intelligence with which to form complex ideas to communicate.

---

Brains and brain size, have nothing to do with speech, nor was I referring to a complex form of communication - these are forms of denial: the factor relates only to speech, and that only one life form possesses it. The why and how are unrelated to the primal factor. Everything can be broken down to show it is related to another factor, so ToE is not a concept of anything - and we can select whatever reasoning to justify it. We end up with no determinable factor in the end - including of ToE. Thus there is no sun - it is part of a continueing strain of matter.

quote:

---

So, given that many other (or indeed all other) life forms have unique traits - why are you highlighting speech as something special?

---

Precisely. There is no *other* way of determining anything is special.

quote:

---

If its uniqueness

---

Why 'if'?

quote:

---

is not what makes speech an evolutionary question to be answered, what is it about speech that does set it apart from the millions of other unique traits?

---

The same which enables id via fingerprints. And its got nothing to do with evolution for its vindication. Its a yes/no type issue.

quote:

---

Heh - but both evolutionists and creationists agree that life has all evolved for the same amount of time. To suggest otherwise would require evidence on your part - surely?

---

This is unrelated too. The time factor applies notwithstanding that statement, which is anyway not correct on its own.

quote:

---

A unique trait is possible.

---

Yet, speech is not a human trait?

quote:

---

Time is required for a population to adapt. How does my argument now fail?

---

And crocodiles have had time to adapt. Either they chose not to adapt to speech - or speech cros are around the corner - or speech is unrelated to the given requirements of adaptation as per ToE.

quote:

---

I agree that you see speech is a unique trait. I don't think it is,

---

Is anything unique?

quote:

---

but I do agree that the degree of intelligence we have is a unique trait, which I feel is probably the same thing. That is to say, verbal communication isn't what you are talking about, but verbal communication of complex ideas.

---

Unintelligent humans have speech. Animals can be intelligent in their own spheare of relevence. Speech is outside this premise. There is no evidence that speech is nothing but a more complex communication or intelligence, nor does this alter it rendering humans possessing a one of a kind trait. When one says no other life form is as intelligent as humans - the issue becomes a mute factor.

quote:

---

I agree that most adaptions take longer than can be observed by a single human.

---

That means it is 'time' impacted.

quote:

---

For BILLIONS of years, no other current life form has acquired a large brain and communicative powers like ours. Likewise, for BILLIONS of years no other current life form has acquired the unique trait of being able to run 70 miles per hour. However, other beings have probably acquired complex communication of ideas in that last few tens of millions of years - they are just extinct. There may even be complex communication going on now that we do not understand.

---

But I did not negate a unique quality in others, and maintain such has no impact on other unique traits. If anything, I pointed this out - and it is denied in this thread. If only one animal can move at 70 MPH - that is a unique trait, and it does not negate another unique trait elsewhere. i never said all uniqueness rests with one life form, nor does the premise of uniqueness become negated because there are millions of other unique examples. A thing is unique when it has a singualarity of design in it - it is called exclusivity, despite other unique examples.

quote:

---

The arguements posited, variously in this thread, are that speech is not unique to one life form because it is a part of general communication modes seen in all life forms; it is a variance in degree only;

---

A 1:all ratio is not a variance in degree. That is why I gave a quick quiz scenario. One can equally say, there is no such thing as a golf champ - it is merely a variance of a virus's movements more pronounced.

quote:

---

Well running is not a unique trait, but running as fast as a Cheetah is.

---

No dif with:

quote:

---

Speech is not a unique trait, but the power of our speech to communicate the levels of complex ideas we do is unique.

---

quote:

---

that there is no such thing as a unqiue trait;

​

Nobody has put this forward, I hope you now understand.

---

Everyone here does.

quote:

---

and that time has no impact on adaptation.

​

Really? Who put that forward?

---

By subsequence.

quote:

---

Let's deal with *my* argument rather than a murky group of 'others'. Let me summarize it again:

​

The idea that speech is a unique trait is a red herring: There are countless unique traits. So - it seems that your actual argument is that there has been such a small amount of time to develop the trait we have that it seems to undermine evolutionary explanations for the natural history of life on earth. If that is your argument then I have addressed it by conceding that certain traits have arisen comparably rapidly and that research into the issue in underway, with some promising ideas and conclusions coming out of it. If you'd like to discuss this, perhaps we can?

---

You may feel justified, but its the same logic of the others. Speech is unique despite all the orguements tended. It is denied because it has formidable consequences - eg: Genesis is correct.

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

quote:

---

Nor have I claimed it does. What it does do, is demonstrate that uniqueness is either a problem across the board for evolution or it is not a problem for evolution. If the former, then you should demonstrate that uniqueness is a problem for evolution in totality, if the latter then we agree.

---

It has nothing to do with ToE. Nor has golf. ToE is a theory, not a fact - and the theory itself is dysfunctional, dependent on unscientific assumptions which have no evidence back-up anywhere, and is unrelated to this issue in a fundamental and focused way. It is becoming clear, the alligning of a logic, one which can dislodge certain premises of ToE, are being cast as a sub factor of ToE: because independently it is a stumbling block.

quote:

---

Yet I stated in fairly straightforward terms that I agree that humans possess traits that are unique to them - as do other organisms.

---

You have not stated it. The qualification - as other organisms - is superflous. Nowhere in ToE does the aspect of human speech proved as a sub-set of all other communication, one of its standout errors is categorising humans by skeletal divisions only. Thus speech, which is non-negotiably unique to humans, is cast in the same bag with superflous and contrived reasonings.

quote:

---

Nope - they do. And humans do have unique traits - I just don't think the one you have put forward is one of them. That surely isn't hard to understand, is it?

---

It is, seeing all life forms possess brains and communication traits. I know that humans exclusively wear clothes and engage in porn: no other life forms do that - but these are applied traits, not born traits. Humans also carry weapons sometimes. This does not impact on their speech.

quote:

---

Then we have an issue. You seem to be making the rather tautological statement that humans are the only life form that communicates exactly like humans.

---

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. I asked if crocs are anticipated to possess speech soon - because it is only a change in degree - and was told this need not impact here. So degrees too are selective factors, as with the term unique.

quote:

---

So what you are saying is, that since other life forms have unique traits, no life form is special? I agree.

---

You agree, but this is what you are saying, and I am opposing.

quote:

---

Do unique traits mark a life form as being 'special'?

---

Irrelevent, and this has no impact on a unique factor. Special is a subjective term.

quote:

---

We agree that time has to exist for adaption to occur. Yet you don't think that all life forms have had equal time for adaption? That's fine - but creationists believe that all life was created in the same week, so they must believe that as a near approximation all life has had equal time at its disposal within which to adapt.

---

This is not related here, but your wrong about that assumption.

quote:

---

Never said that. Speech is a trait that humans possess. Depending on how you define speech it is either uniquely human (tautologically speaking as described above) or it is not uniquely human.

---

It requires no qualification - else it becomes non-unique in all senses and views. Unique but = not unique.

quote:

---

Speech is not a required consequence of an evolving population. Nor is having wings, running at 70mph, sonic perception, or having gills. We can only do one of those, and that is speech. Likewise, cheetahs can only do one of those. Bats can do two.

---

More importantly, it is not subsequent to the laws of ToE, as opposed it is not a requirement. It is ubsurd to think that cheeters could have adapted to speech given some circumstances: this is disproven by the fact all life forms did not - despite all time benefits for adaptation. Obviously, something else from evolution is happening here, and its not related to millions of years of retrovirus impacts. ToE does not mention the host seed either - as if it is not relevent. In fact, the seed is manifestly responsible for 100 offspring transmissions, and ToE can only be evidenced in the absence of the seed factor. A seed represents an output of the parent host.

quote:

---

As I said, and you quoted me saying:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that the degree of intelligence we have is a unique trait
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

quote:

---

Not all unintelligent humans have speech. Some humans do not have speech. This could be for several reasons such as brain injury or never having learned language.

---

This does not effect the issue.

quote:

---

Right - and we agree on this. So since uniqueness is common, what can we conclude if a life form has a unique trait?

---

The unique quality of one stands. Else the aspect of
unique becomes negated. if there is only one red marble, it remains a unique condition. Regardless of many unique conditions elsewhere. Speech is not unique because there are many other unique conditions - it is unique because it is by and of itself. What you are trying to say is, one's child is unique to the mother only and not unique as ageneralisation. But I never made such a premise. Speech is unique because it is a one of a kind, and all forms of communications are different in kind. This is my point, and this is what Genesis is saying. It is vindicated and correct. It is not half-correct or subject to qualifications - the antithesis of a unique quality.

quote:

---

Well, as I said, I am mostly assuming your premise is correct and trying to see how it leads to your conclusions. Since a unique trait somehow has the formidable consequence that Genesis is correct...does that mean that since Cheetahs have the unique trait of running at 70mph does that also lead to the conclusion that Genesis is correct. If so, how? If not, why?

---

The answer is in your question. Cheeter velosity is a difference in degree, unlike speech and communication, and the reason such a superflous statement is not made in Genesis. its a document of wisdom - by impact, period of time and in relation to any other document.Anyway, cheers, and its food for thought.

quote:

---

This amounts to a special pleading fallacy that such a characteristic of uniqueness only applies to his argument.

---

Allow me to go further on this issue. There is no similarity or mere progression in degree, even in non-human life form communications: one of the factors used [namely, speech is a difference in degree as opposed kind].The notion a bird adapted communication from a fish or a different species, or that a zebra begat it from ancient crocodiles - even allowing for all the twists and turns expressed in ToE - defy the evidences tended. What appears the case, is each communication mode is focused only on small groupings focused fastediously in their own immediate surrounds, negating the view only a variance of degree applies.In fact an epochial shift from sameness [degree], namely a drift from the previous or any similar adjacent example, is the case. All life form groupings communicate in a language not shared by another - often in polar contrasting modes of another, negating any semblance of similarity of thread subject to degrees. These differences are far from similarities seen in the varied languages in humans.And when this is better considered, it appears not just logical, but leaves no sustaining plausability for the notion of elevationary communication skills by degrees. Apes are not learning tricks from mosquitoes from way back when; mosquitoes were never examining how apes communicate - there is no thread of connectivity or common relevence factors here.IOW, all life form groupings have their own, particular and unique communications, without this being effected by some commonality factors: the differences are more impacting than the commonalities, in the rendering of unique factors. There is a treshold, which when surpassed, the base commonalities have no impact; otherwise there would be not only no such thing as unique, but also no differences in differences per se.With the latter, it means, even mathematically, 2 will not equal 2: how does one know both 2's are the same in every manner? And this is what I see the merit of atheistic science has seccumbed to for its credibility. That all matter can be seen as academically inter-connected ultimately, as the reasoning for speech not being unique but part of communication of all life forms, is hardly credible - but this appears all there is to this arguement. I have pondered it awhile, and find that:1. Unique status is not negated because we are all contained in the same finite universe.2. There is no applicable commonality factors anywhere - by reason of [1] alone.

quote:

---

Furthermore, this would suggest that all animals can pick up "vibes" just like when we walk into a room and can sense discomfort. IMO, it is because of the vibrational state of unease that combines, resonates and amplifies within a group. Which could suggest a form of communication through vibrational emotional states when applied to pack animals, or any animals.

​

A question to IamJoseph:

​

There was a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden; why wouldn't animals be able to communicate thoughts and ideas? Commonality doesn't always point towards the ToE.

---

The issue is not about commonalities but differences. Communication is common to all life - and only one life form has speech. The latter is not negated by the commonalities, but is made more pronounced by it.Talking serpent. This requires better comprehension of texts, as one would do with numbers in a mathematical treatise such as MC2. The metaphorical story of adam and eve is set in a realm outside and varied from this physical earth, contextually, and must be factored in. It says clearly, the first couple were cast down [to this earthly realm, from a different realm], and re-entry was barred by angels with firey swords turing every which way to guard the gates. While christianity and islam did brilliant jobs in spreading the OT around for 2000 years, some deficiencies are also operative, due to lost in translation, etc. The Disney-like depiction of Abraham sacrificing an 8 year old youth, for example, requires adjustment: the youth was 37 years old, changing the factor who was being tested most here.

quote:

---

Those behaviours are passed through genes and modified by evolution. No memes involved.

---

There is something else more immediate than genes, which does not take millions of years, and evidential as the transmitting factor of all transmissions. It is found in an output of the host parent, and can even be termed as a 'seed'. Conversely, in the absence of the seed - nothing happens.It means speciation and its adaptation can be safely pointed to an internal factor, which is an immediate one, as opposed external factors such as pre-historic genes and/or environmental impacts. Unless of course, the seed factor did not exist. It means a lion does not eat meat not because of environmental factors but a pre-disposed seed factor. This remains the more plausable despite a generic connectivity of all components in the universe, which can be tracked to one point or source. 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!That adaptation is limited to a point of its activity and impact well after a life has emerged, as opposed by an ancestral gene factor, is evidenced by some commodities do not change [Hydrogen; carbon; quarks; etc]; and while those that do show changes and commonalities only emulate their immediate host parentage. A deformity or talent, for example, may be determined in the dna as a gene factor: but this is also limited to the immediate paranetal genes only - perhaps limited to four generations.
ToE is only evidential where the seed factor is absent.Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

There is no such thing as a meme: tracking down its inception will find it had no previous historical thread condusive to a meme, but in fact emerged suddenly and by a compulsion.

quote:

---

if it does come from a human then the speech shows us the human is human, but if it does not come from a human then the speech shows that it is not a human.

---

Better, if it is speech, it comes only from a human. It is not just unique to humans, but a unique phenomenon.

quote:

---

This is not science, logic or rational conclusions. It is self-delusion.

---

There is good and poor science, and before you get to good - the preamble must be right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

It's naive asking for "proof" of something in ancient history. What you should ask for is evidence.

---

Agreed. Evidence is the applicable factor here, the term I usually use, but did'nt this time.

quote:

---

Imagine me asking you for proof that speech did not exist before 6000 years ago.

---

Spot on, and this is again an important point, and I'm certain is going to end up in another sizable debacle, equally as that of speech and communication. I told you so will apply. I call it casino science - on closer examination, one will see the slight of hand cheats, making mockery of science and the terms proof and evidence.The 'evidences' for speech is not what has been proposed by evolutionists, and evidences are available to show if speech was prevalent - or NOT.OUT are: inferences of agriculture, mass burials, fireplaces, cave scratchings, dna imprints, beads, sharp edged stones and bones as knifes - etc, etc.IN are: a 'name' - backed by a date, place, a war, a people, a community, a folk song, an event, a recipe, a slogan, a concept, a premise, a sign.All of the above are the imprints of speech - and all of those are, if not recordable, memorable and recallable by speech humans: writings are not required here. These items are fully and irrevocally transferable, not by genes but by speech endowed human memory, traditions and transmissions - some use words such as adaptation and memes, but all these apply with or without writings being adapted to. And none of these are on evolutionist's list. Evidences and science and logic are not selective factors, and not subject to every qualification which allows it to remain only in the notorious twilight zone of grey area. Its not science, proof or evidence.The most common form of scientific verification today is not by dna or carbon, but by 'NAMES' - used by archeology to determine it's datings. A name circa 5000 is not seen circa 6000 or 3000 years ago: FACT.The second most common tool is 'writings style'. There are technical terms for both the above which escape me now, and 'writing style' is a tool used to verify if a parchment is circa 3000 or 2500 years ago, as are 'names'. Sarai and Abram are pre-4000 Mesopotamium; Sarah and Abraham are post-4000 years ago; the spellcheck confirms it.Evidence of speech, therefore, is available - but its not more than 6000. The rest is not science, but the notorious and selective casino scence used by evolutionists to prove what they want proven. Its become very much like a religionist syndrome: for 2000 years christians used the book of Isaiah to connect it with Jesus - perhaps the only reason this prophetic writer was reverred so much and his works cherished by chrstians.But they were wrong to make the connection, which was absolute jargon, and later admitted by every christian scholar. A word was mis-translated from its past to future tense, and every thing else in the writings was disregarded. And this is exactly what evolutionists are doing right now: a disdained truth is replaced with a desired falsehood!Understand and agree truthfully what speech is - not grunts and coos, not contrived items manipulated to appear as 'inferences'. Terms such as INDICATORS, INDICATIONS, IT IS BELIEVED, etc are OUT. This is such an important factor for humanity, that one must go to all lengths to demand real evidences where proof is not available, without any possibility of confusion - before drawing any conclusions. After all this is meant to be scientific - not mythical - remember?!There is NO proof or evidence of speech before the evidences provided in genesis. Before refuting this 'fact' - check out the data provided in that document, including its provided names, dates, places, cities, terrains, cultures, diets, animals, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge quitients, etc: none of these apply outside the dates and settings provided in its writings. Most importantly, do your checking and deductions while noting there was NO writings of the factors depicted in Genesis' early passages! If one wants to, it can be used as a cross reference for the verification of any grey areas outside those dates: do they measure up in evidential and specific criteria as per genesis!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

We also have pictographs dating as far back as 9000BCE which shows spoken language predates even those. So "human speech" goes back at least 11,000 years.

---

Notwithstanding the dates are too close for comfort [carbon dating is not accurate to small margins], the evidence for speech therein is nil, but with no back-up reasons for the absence of such accompanying evidences. It is saying, for 3000 years [9000 less 6000], all of humanity was in dormency mode, did not graduate to recall a single name or evidence directly affirming speech.

quote:

---

But still, no information has been shown to suggest that "human speech" is in anyway different in nature than speech by any other species.

---

Maybe because this notion simply does not exist!