Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is not unique, nor on point. I was saying that you were defining 'speech' in a way that made your point trivially true. "Nothing interesting" would have been a simple answer. Glad we managed to clear that up. Well - I can't agree until you define speech, can I? How can I know whether it is unique to humans? I've said it several times - ToE does not define things, it explains things. Biology can define biological things (such as speech). You can't define speech. One point for biology there. Yes, it can explain speech, but it does not describe it. The most telling thing is your reluctance to describe it in any way shape of form beyond 'its unique and has an impact'. Nor does one have to prove anything to deem griplplewhattlefevers as curiously snarglefangtic. However, if you want people to accept your claim, you'll need to define 'speech'. Questing simply refuses to teach nightmares in abundance regarding variegated coats. Five teens have circulated the green fantabule and eaten seventeen colours.Now - what has any of this got to do with the group of people we colloquially call 'Creationists'? So speech in humans is one of the earliest things to happen in the universe? I'll accept your challenge when you define speech. Otherwise how would I be able to show with any confidence that it existed at all? Note: I didn't say speech existed millions of years ago, but we'll let that slide if it means you tell me what speech is so that I can show you whether it was likely to have existed millions of years ago.

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!

You appear to be actually agreeing with those you are arguing with here. What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.E.g., If you can support this you should do so. I am sure you can not or will not.I am giving you 24 hours to do something you haven't taken the time to do so far: t h i n kWhen you return lets see if you can actually read and reason.

There should not be such hysteria about defining speech. I meant it is difficult to do so in a technical mode. If 5000 different life forms were recorded, including mimmicking parrots, dolphins, gorillas - and one was a human - none would have a problem which is human speech. The deliberation here is not coherent or honest, but aimed only at diffusion by scientifically contrived jargonising. One of the things associated with speech are 'WORDS' - but now you are going to propose words by parrots! I'm not going there: being honest is not the same as being scientifically honest these days.And no, I never meant speech is 'one of the earliest things to happen in the universe' in chronological terms. But it did change the universe and it is the only factor which denotes humanity. In similar vein, I did also expand the theory of perception here, that just as humans became humans via speech, with all their works being speech derived - then Genesis is saying the universe was brought into existence by a 'word', which represents an action derived from a thought: 'AND THE LORD *SAID* LET THEIR BE LIGHT'. The aspect of 'said' is alligned with speech. No other tools are mentioned, and this becomes a matter of perception when it is seen as all matter, including time, energy, forces, waves, particles, etc - are post-universe factors. What else is left as a possibility? What other factor do we have which is not provable this way - it only becomes possible when we eliminate the tools we propose as applying: they do not if they are not pre-universal factors. The latter is the only premise which bars our every means of determining anything which we are currently not able to fathom: a pre-universe scenario. We have to shut off all universal components!

LOLNonsense. It is saying that for over 11,000 years we have evidence that affirms human speech. Over 11,000 years. It does not mean that speech did not develop even further in the past, hundreds of thousands of years, maybe even millions of years in the past, but we know that for at least 11,000 years humans have also been recording written symbols and speech predated even that. Obviously the notion exists. We have examples of speech for many marine mammals, birds, our cousins the other primates, elephants, the great cats, hyenas, hippos, in fact just about everywhere you look.Now granted you are free to keep spouting the stuff you believe, but over here on the science side we need some evidence.Until information has been shown to suggest that "human speech" is in anyway different in nature than speech by any other species, all we have is another fairy tale.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're not actually talking about speech, you're talking about written language. I'm writing now, but I'm not speaking. No one requires written language in order to speak. Children speak long before they read and write.Written language is a technological tool. Many known cultures with complex spoken languages do not use written language. Implying that the earliest written languages have anything to do with the first human speech is like saying humans could not move around before they had invented the wheel, or could not farm before they had invented the tractor.Chimps can cry "hey, food here" and "hey, good food here" to each other. Because you can't speak Chimpish, like you can't speak Chinese, doesn't mean they can't understand things from each other's cries. Some experts reckon them to have the verbal communication equivalent of 100 words.For our species, complex speech is an inbuilt biological thing, and bear in mind that skulls like yours and mine have been found that have been dated at more than 150,000 years old.Like us, these people had a well developed "Broca's Area".Broca's area - WikipediaThey certainly spoke to each other, without writing. Just as certainly as they moved around without wheels.

Correct. So let's just do it and have it done with. What scientists mean by speech has been put forward. I've put forward the definition I think you are using, but you've said that isn't it. We've been trying to define speech - and you haven't. It is certainly difficult to define speech in such a way as to make you right, without resorting to tautology. Unfortunately, since you are debating you're going to need to do this very thing. The alternative is that you spend hundreds of posts repeating yourself. I think the 2 easiest things for you to do are1) Define speech
2) Withdraw your claim until you can. Actually, I've confused parrot's speaking with human speaking on a number of occasions. Either way, nobody is suggesting humans speech isn't distinctive - but I would likewise be able to pick out bottlenosed dolphin, blackbirds, humpback whale etc etc. What does being able to identify human speech have to do with your point? The only way to know if you have a valid or interesting point is if you demonstrate it. Assertions don't cut it. You have to show it logically, with evidence and definitions. Sorry if you think that by getting specific it 'diffuses' your point, but the rest of the world disagrees. OK, so speech isn't primal to the universe. Evidence? I thought you'd use that to demonstrate that speech was primal. And what is a word? I'd agree with you if your point was about complex exchange of information, or about language or something. But 'words' doesn't really help me understand you. How can I know if you are being honest unless you describe to me what you are talking about. If I disagreed about speech and told you that 'pargolation' is unique to humans and is the defining feature of humanity and that pargolation confirms the Theory of Evolution...you'd want to know what pargoloation was - right? Otherwise you would dismiss my argument as nonsense (hopefully).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So if it does not come from a human then by definition you don't count it as speech. We've already established that your definition is a trite tautology that begs the question. It is more interesting to watch a cat play with string ... And before you even get to bad science you need to know what science is. That is the "preamble" that matters.Hope you like living with your delusions -- they are meaningless.My advice to others: stop feeding this troll.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

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

---

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

This bird doesn't speak a language in the same sense (or even close) to the way humans can.First, at about 45 seconds in, the bird asks for water with '[I] want some water' When the tester gives him some water, he doesn't drink it. Clearly he didn't want water, and clearly he had no idea what the meaning was of what he said. The tester passes it off as him being silly, but she's just got her hopes up.She also does not inflect the word 'block', showing that the bird has not grasped one of the most fundamental components of language: grammar.I do not see this as anything significant.Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

Jon writes:

quote:

---

This bird doesn't speak a language in the same sense (or even close) to the way humans can.

---

Nobody is saying otherwise. Just because something is different in scope doesn't mean it is different in kind. We all agree that humans have very complex linguistic skills.That doesn't mean no other animal has them.I point out that children do the exact same thing that Alex does. Would you say that children aren't "speaking" at that point?

quote:

---

She also does not inflect the word 'block', showing that the bird has not grasped one of the most fundamental components of language: grammar.

---

And neither does a two-year-old. Does that mean the child isn't "speaking"?

quote:

---

I do not see this as anything significant.

---

So how do you explain Koko discussing her feelings about the death of her kitten, Ball?

---

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.

Where did I say that no other animal had them? Word repetition is not the only aspect of language; nor is a simple lexicon. With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc. Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas? No. There is also need of a grammar, or rather, a set of rules that govern how the words relate. With the set number of grammar rules, and the set number of words, a creature should be able to represent an infinite number of concepts/ideas/etc.”linguistic creativity”that's language.The bird just mumbles out sounds that are either completely random or simple responses to stimuli... and some knob recorded it all in order to get people going 'ooo... ahhh'. But a child will understand 'blocks' and 'block' as being morphologies of the same thing. The bird clearly wasn't able to understand that 'blocks' was an inflection of 'block', else the woman should've just spoken normal English. No, she had to say 'block' instead because the bird did not understand the grammar. Why did the bird not understand the grammar? Because the bird is incapable of understanding grammar. Because grammar is a key component of language, then it follows that the bird has no understanding or grasp on language. The child clearly understands the grammar, even if he/she is not able to repeat it properly at that age. Who? What? Unless Koko's a bird, I don't see how that's even relevant.

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

Jon responds to me:

quote:

---

Where did I say that no other animal had them?

---

Did you or did you not indicate that Alex wasn't really speaking? That you "do not see this as anything significant"?

quote:

---

Word repetition is not the only aspect of language

---

See, this goes back to a point I made a long time ago:Don't confuse "speech" with "language." The two are not the same.Where did I say, "word repetition"? I simply pointed out that a child whom we would claim is "speaking" does exactly the same thing that Alex did. They'll request things and then when you give them, they'll refuse it. Why is it "speaking" when we see a child do it but it is simply "word repetition" when a non-human does it?

quote:

---

With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc.

---

Now, that's not true and you know it. That's the point behind language: It allows you to combine the terms into things that are more than the sum of their parts. Simply having the word "not" in your vocabulary doubles the number of things you can say.

quote:

---

Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas? No.

---

Yes, I would. The fact that his linguistic skills aren't very sophisticated doesn't mean he doesn't have them.Using your logic, what is the magic number of words needed to be said to be capable of "speech"? English is one of the largest langauges out there with around a million words. Compare this to French which has a much smaller lexicon. If we only go with words in common use, French has about half the number of words as English. Does that mean that English has more "speechiness" than French? When one is using English, one is "speechier" than when one uses French?

quote:

---

There is also need of a grammar, or rather, a set of rules that govern how the words relate.

---

Indeed. But you seem to think that in order for it to be called "speech," that grammar has to be that of a sophisticated user of the language.Look at the way children learn an inflected language. The first thing they learn is a single concept. It gets used for everything. "Give." But because they are impressed with the regular method of inflection so often, they apply the regular inflection method to it. "Gived." It's only later that they come to learn that it has an irregular inflection. "Gave."Surely we're not going to say that the child hasn't learned how to speak until learning the irregular inflection, are we? It isn't the same grammar, but it is a grammar nonetheless.

quote:

---

The bird just mumbles out sounds that are either completely random or simple responses to stimuli

---

That's not true. Alex did much more than that. When presented with a complex field and asked to count how many of a specific type requiring recognition of multiple characteristics simultaneously, he was able to correctly respond.Is that the most sophisticated thing in the world? Of course not. But it is indicative of a basic level of speech.

quote:

---

But a child will understand 'blocks' and 'block' as being morphologies of the same thing.

---

Oh? Then why doesn't the child use "blocks"? Why is it always "block"? The ability to inflect the word to include plurality comes later. There are languages where the notion of plurality is not done through inflection but through an auxilliary term. Children don't immediately pick this up, though. It takes them time to figure out how to form plurals.

quote:

---

Why did the bird not understand the grammar?

---

Because the bird doesn't have the identical method of speech that we do. That doesn't make it "word mimicry." It simply means that the bird's method of speech is different from ours.

quote:

---

Because the bird is incapable of understanding grammar.

---

So a child who hasn't yet mastered plurality "is incapable of understanding grammar"? The vocalizations of a child between two and three aren't really "speech"?

quote:

---

The child clearly understands the grammar

---

Says who? The child clearly gets confused when you use inflections. By your logic, this clearly means that the child "has no understanding or grasp on langauge."So if you're going to say that the child is "speaking" even though said child is displaying all the characteristics of Alex, why is it Alex isn't "speaking"? Simply because Alex isn't going to get any better at it?

quote:

---

Unless Koko's a bird, I don't see how that's even relevant.

---

Because you're making the same argument that people use to claim that Koko isn't "speaking." It's just "mimicry." That because Koko isn't using perfect grammar, it isn't really "speech."I'm trying to point out that what Alex is doing is a difference in degree, not kind.

---

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.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about, and did you bother reading anything I wrote? How do you combine them if you have a lexicon and 'nothing else'? My apologies, but if that is the case, then you are an idiot. Where did I specify that a particular grammar was required? He responded to a simple stimulus, much like a dog when you say 'fetch ball'. Again, the fact that she didn't say 'blocks' shows the bird's inability to understand grammar. The bird does not see 'blocks' as a mere morphology of 'block', and so deduce they are relevant to the same thing. If we want the bird to understand 'blocks', we'd have to teach it to him as a separate word, which would have a separate meaning to him. In a true language, 'block' is a word that is altered via the rules of grammar to form 'blocks', and so once we learn the rule, we can make plural a myriad of nouns. If I gave you the word: 'kloomp', and told you it was a noun, you could tell me its plural, because you understand the grammar. If we did the same with the bird, he'd ask for his water. I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that IaJ was using them as being synonymous. Though I disagree with him here, it'd be better to simply argue within his definitions rather than trying to argue him on semantics.Jon