Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 138 of 268 (424899)
09-29-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Modulous
09-29-2007 4:50 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
quote:
If hydrogen and oxygen burn, then voila we have water - this is just a function of the structure of these atoms/molecules. It isn't a special 'key' and 'lock' type affair, it's just chemistry.
Does it mean there's no H and O on Mars? Does it mean if H2O were put on Mars - life would result? The latter must have been experimented by space missions, or they should have.
Now if one says, the critical conditions are only present on earth, then there goes your adaptation, life from the inanimate, survival of the fittest, etc, etc. Afer all, adaptation is not about adaptation only on the critical conditions on one blue planet: it is adapting to any critical conditions. Else it has no particular meaning, and requires devasting qualifications - applicable only to planet earth!
My conclusion: a hovering, external factor applies. Nothing to do with the subjective particles of matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2007 4:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2007 11:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 140 of 268 (424902)
09-29-2007 6:42 AM


The term 'kind' described in Genesis, is a correct and comprehensive devision of life forms. There is a greater significance and more underlying commonality factors in a 'kind' of water based life forms, and a kind of land based life forms, encumbent within that category 'kind', than limited to those enumerated in ToE.
When this is properly contemplated it is very logical and manifest: there must be a distinction between a salmon fish and a bear - intrinsically, which allows one to do what the other cannot, and did not for millions of years. These appear as hidden differences, and not limited to skelatal imprints. This is also significant of the premise why only humans have speech. This is not a rejection of Darwinism or lessening its importance, but an elevation of what he made us aware of. Nor is it a contradiction of Genesis, but which atheists have thus far used as a tool to suit their cause - eronously.
After all, Darwin would not have been privy to everything and all knowledge in these subjects, being from an earlier time. IMHO, if anything, Darwin will prove Genesis by default. It is similar to Newton and Einstein. Both made epochial contributions relative to their spacetimes. this assessment shows, from a scientific POV, that within the 'kind' category described in Genesis, there is hidden commonality factors which allow cross-speciation within one 'kind' of life forms, predating Darwin by 3000 years, as does Genesis also with the correct chronological order of life forms:
quote:
Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28-33, June-August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 7:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 268 (424916)
09-29-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Vacate
09-29-2007 7:26 AM


quote:
Your a hard man to make sense of.
Here's a counter scientific responsa to some of the factors debated here. The most relevent factors are quoted in preamble:
Unique: The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Re.Evolutionists' distortions to pose speech as another communication extention: Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language.
No non-human languages exist: In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ”there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ”language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added]
No pre-6000 speech: In fact, in the Atlas of Languages, this remarkable admission can be found: ”No languageless community has ever been found’.[5] This represents no small problem for evolution.
Speech emerged suddenly, not via evolution: But there is a single, common theme that stands out amidst all the theories: ”The world’s languages evolved spontaneously. They were not designed’ [emphasis added].[7]
The Origin of Language and Communication
© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduced by Permission from TJ, Answers in Genesis
By age four, most humans have developed an ability to communicate through oral language. By age six or seven, most humans can comprehend, as well as express, written thoughts. These unique abilities of communicating through a native language clearly separate humans from all animals. The obvious question then arises, where did we obtain this distinctive trait? Organic evolution has proven unable to elucidate the origin of language and communication. Knowing how beneficial this ability is to humans, one would wonder why this skill has not evolved in other species. Materialistic science is insufficient at explaining not only how speech came about, but also why we have so many different languages. Linguistic research, combined with neurological studies, has determined that human speech is highly dependent on a neuronal network located in specific sites within the brain. This intricate arrangement of neurons, and the anatomical components necessary for speech, cannot be reduced in such a way that one could produce a “transitional” form of communication. The following paper examines the true origin of speech and language, and the anatomical and physiological requirements. The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Introduction
n 1994, an article appeared in Time magazine titled ”How man began’. Within that article was the following bold assertion: ”No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.[1] Yet, in what is obviously a contradiction to such a statement, all evolutionists admit that communication via speech is uniquely human”so much so that it often is used as the singular, and most important, dividing line between humans and animals. In his book, Eve Spoke, evolutionist Philip Lieberman admitted:
”Speech is so essential to our concept of intelligence that its possession is virtually equated with being human. Animals who talk are human, because what sets us apart from other animals is the “gift” of speech’ [emphasis in original].[2]
In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ”there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ”language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added].[3] In his book, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, Terrance Deacon noted:
”In this context, then, consider the case of human language. It is one of the most distinctive behavioral adaptations on the planet. Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense. And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast.’[4]
What events transpired that have allowed humans to speak, while animals remain silent? If we are to believe the evolutionary teaching currently taking place in colleges and universities around the world, speech evolved as a natural process over time. Yet no one is quite sure how, and there are no known animals that are in a transition phase from non-speaking to speaking. In fact, in the Atlas of Languages, this remarkable admission can be found: ”No languageless community has ever been found’.[5] This represents no small problem for evolution.
In fact, the origin of speech and language (along with the development of sex and reproduction) remains one of the most significant hurdles in evolutionary theory, even in the twenty-first century. In an effort “make the problem go away,” some evolutionists have chosen not to even address the problem. Jean Aitchison noted:
”In 1866, a ban on the topic was incorporated into the founding statutes of the Linguistic Society of Paris, perhaps the foremost academic linguistic institution of the time: ”The Society does not accept papers on either the origin of language or the invention of a universal language.’[6]
That is an amazing (albeit inadvertent) admission of defeat, especially coming from a group of such eminent scientists, researchers, and scholars. While remaining quiet worked well for a while, evolutionists now realize that they need a materialistic answer for this problem.
The truth of the matter is, however, that the origin of human languages can be discerned”but not via the theory of evolution. We invite your attention to the discussion that follows, which demonstrates conclusively that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Evolutionary Theories on the Origin of Speech
Many animals are capable of using sounds to communicate. However, there is a colossal difference between the hoot of an owl or the grunt of a pig, and a human standing before an audience reciting Robert Frost’s ”The Road Not Taken.’ This enormous chasm between humans and animals has led to a multiplicity of theories on exactly how man came upon this unequaled capability. Many researchers have focused on the capabilities of animals”sounds and gestures”in an effort to understand the physiological mechanism underlying communication. But there is a single, common theme that stands out amidst all the theories: ”The world’s languages evolved spontaneously. They were not designed’ [emphasis added].[7]
Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language. For instance, in the foreword of her book, The Seeds of Speech, Jean Aitchison hypothesized:
”Physically, a deprived physical environment led to more meat-eating and, as a result, a bigger brain. The enlarged brain led to the premature birth of humans, and in consequence a protracted childhood, during which mothers cooed and crooned to their offspring. An upright stance altered the shape of the mouth and vocal tract, allowing a range of coherent sounds to be uttered.’[8]
Thus, according to Aitchison, we can thank ”a deprived physical environment’ for our ability to talk and communicate. Another evolutionist, John McCrone, put it this way:
”It all started with an ape that learned to speak. Man’s hominid ancestors were doing well enough, even though the world had slipped into the cold grip of the ice ages. They had solved a few key problems that had held back the other branches of the ape family, such as how to find enough food to feed their rather oversized brains. Then man’s ancestors happened on the trick of language. Suddenly, a whole new mental landscape opened up. Man became self-aware and self-possessed.’[9]
Question: How (and why) did that first ape learn to speak? It is easy to assert that ”it all started with an ape that learned to speak’. But it is much more difficult to describe how this took place, especially in light of our failure to teach apes to speak today. In his book, From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language, Michael Corballis stated:
”My own view is that language developed much more gradually, starting with the gestures of apes, then gathering momentum as the bipedal hominids evolved. The appearance of the larger-brained genus Homo some 2 million years ago may have signaled the emergence and later development of syntax, with vocalizations providing a mounting refrain. What may have distinguished Homo sapiens was the final switch from a mixture of gestural and vocal communication to an autonomous vocal language, embellished by gesture but not dependent on it.’[10]
The truth however, is that evolutionists can only speculate as to the origin of language. Evolutionist Carl Zimmer summed it up well when he wrote:
”No one knows the exact chronology of this evolution, because language leaves precious few traces on the human skeleton. The voice box is a flimsy piece of cartilage that rots away. It is suspended from a slender C-shaped bone called a hyoid, but the ravages of time usually destroy the hyoid too.’[11]
Thus, theories are plentiful”while the evidence to support those theories remains mysteriously unavailable. Add to this the fact that humans acquire the ability to communicate (and even learn some of the basic rules of syntax) by the age of two, and you begin to see why Aitchison admitted:
”Of course, holes still remain in our knowledge: in particular, at what stage did language leap from being something new which humans discovered to being something which every newborn human is scheduled to acquire? This is still a puzzle.’[12]
A ”puzzle’ indeed!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 7:26 AM Vacate has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 150 of 268 (424930)
09-29-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
09-29-2007 8:49 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
quote:
Clearly Alex understands the different parts of the question as different words, and understands the words to reach the correct answer.
Its called 'association'; which is more inclined with instinct; animals depend on this trait for their lives constantly, and can perform exceedingly well here. A rat, for example, can adapt here quicker than a human. Human speech is not an extension of this trait, and operates independently of it, even when in inactive mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 8:49 AM RAZD has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 173 of 268 (425041)
09-30-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Jon
09-29-2007 7:34 PM


quote:
All the studies point to language”what IaJ calls 'speech'”being something which no other creature has been observed to possess, whether naturally acquired or forcefully taught. Humans alone have been shown to have the capacity for langauge; language is a unique kind of communication only possessed by humans.
Is there any problem referring this to its 3,500 year old source? We do this all the time with cyclones - so why not credit what is clearly Genesis' 'non-mythical' and vindicated stat today - else how does one get off the cyclical and put PAID to the myth factor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 7:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:35 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 174 of 268 (425043)
09-30-2007 5:07 AM


quote:
Jon writes:
Mere understanding and response doesn't = language.
More than honest, this is an intellectual and intelligent statement. Language and speech are not decipherable or defininable by science, well admittedly so in the science community. It is one of the primal enigmas in the known universe - w/o exaggeration. Thus the definition debate should leap ahead of it.
It is also clear, that there are two categories of communication, and this is my compromise to the quagmire, if only for furthering on where it can lead to:
1. Non-human communication
&
2. Human speech.

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 176 of 268 (425046)
09-30-2007 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
09-29-2007 10:57 PM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Point: Grammar was introduced in the OT, and reaches it's epitomy there. Some of the factors of correct grammar includes:
Context overides chronology.
The less words = the best grammar, which makes the shortest distance between two points subject to less chaos, and requiring the most exacting usage of words.
The less superfluous, the more relevent and comprehensive.
The two factors, of the universe being finite [there was a *BEGINNING*], and that of speech being unique [a different 'kind'], are placed in the preamble of Genesis for potent reasons. These two factors impact all of science, requiring anything posited to either allign or contradict. When it is disregarded, there debate will go cyclical with no redeeming outcomes. Check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 10:57 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 180 of 268 (425053)
09-30-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Jon
09-29-2007 11:09 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
quote:
I don't think humans are of a different kind. Language is uniquely human, though.
Yet, 'differences' and 'unique' depend on each other for their viability. Here, the differential over-rides all commonalities, because the latter is, unlike the former, a variation only in degree.
If asked which is a more 'different' kind, two life forms which exhibit different skeletal frames [eg. feline cat and canine dog] - or - all life forms against one with a unique feature of speech: would you equate a cat as a different kind from a dog - or - a speech endowed human as a dif kind from the cat and the dog?
In the above, the difs between the cat and dog are not unique difs, thus they can be allocated as one kind - notwithstanding any difs in common variations of skelatal frames here, because these constitute non-unique difs of degree only. The same cannot be said with a cat/dog and human with speech - which introduces a unique factor in the equation. The difs between the cat and dog is not unique because it is also shared by humans [skeletal frames], the treshold between what is a dif in degree from kind.
This appears to be the premise of Genesis, and its point of variation from ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 11:09 PM Jon has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 181 of 268 (425054)
09-30-2007 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
09-30-2007 5:28 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
quote:
What? This all seems wrong.
If one talks cosmology, or about evolution - there can be two universes being considered: a finite or infinite one. The conclusions for each is markedly different. With a finite universe - one cannot omit a cause factor - which becomes far more demanding of science.
quote:
What? What source? What are you talking about?
That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:28 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 6:44 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 204 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 2:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 183 of 268 (425058)
09-30-2007 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Archer Opteryx
09-30-2007 6:44 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Yes, humans are said to have this Gd-like feature of speech ['In His Image'] - the first speech [*said* let there be light] was ascribed to the creator. Genesis also says, speech is unique to humans - in this physical universe. Grammar requires you take the only possible opening in the path of what it means.
The reading of 'serpent' depends on your textual comprehension: it is metaphorically given this human trait in the setting described, at all times subject to it being set in a realm other than the physical one. The text also says, to make it blatant, re-entry was barred, with angelic beings hurling firey swords every which way at the gates. So in the metaphorical analogy [there are no talking serpants or angels with swords in the physical universe - Adam was cast down here from someplace else/the text]- the applicable factor is about the impacts of speech, not contrived, base semantics.
Genesis is heavy stuff - harbouring much hidden cadence above MC2. I know your laffing now - been there, done it. I advice to thread with caution at this deceptively simple disney story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 6:44 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 7:42 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 186 of 268 (425075)
09-30-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Archer Opteryx
09-30-2007 7:42 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Metaphors, expressionisms, symbolisms and analogies are hardly unscientific premises, whereas I pointed out an error in texts and its decipherings. Science, in almost all areas, have developed via the metaphoric and hypotheticals: what does 'GD DOES NOT PLAY DICE' mean, and where has this led science? The first utterence in Genesis is dualist, 'LET THERE BE LIGHT', meaning both a scientific and expressionist premise. Science is more than numbers, angles and lines. The thought is the pivotal here.
This does not mean there is a lack of scientific, mathematical or historical evidences in a document. Genesis is brimming with all of these, and we are discussing some of its stats as we speak. The Adam story you referred to, which follows the creation chapter and is multi-leveled, is one which has captured the imaginings of all generations of mankind, w/o any loss of continueing impact.
I believe the debate here and now relates to two of Genesis' stats, namely that speech is a unique human phenomenon, and whether, subsequently, the categorising of humans as a separate 'kind' [similar to a macro, big pic view of species/life forms, predating ToE] is appropriate and legitimate from scientific and logical views. Here, I should remind, respectfully, that another POV from an atheistic science view, does not render Genesis unscientific by that reason. Genesis is positing a science too, one which requires deliberation when variance is seen from other science views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 7:42 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 10:33 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 188 of 268 (425083)
09-30-2007 10:34 AM


Article below represents more relevent scientific positations, which state that aside from being a unique human trait, speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state [a contradiction of ToE]; compounded by the positation the uniqueness of speech is not explainable, reducable to [equalisable] or repeatable by, any other life form.
The aspect of a sudden and already advanced trait is an anomoly and mystery, and a reason why it is not explainable for even prominant scientists today. With regard Genesis, the document which introduced this enigma for science, it also appears to be alligned with this mystery: it too seems to have appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state of language, in its grammar, being the first alphabetical 'books' [as opposed manuscripts and picure writings], in its exclusive and introductory historicity stats, and other factors - with no equavalence of such writings a 1000 years before or after.
Perhaps someone can input on this, but w/o using the M [myth] word, and hard copy against hard copy instead - does anyone here know of such telephone-sized alphabetical books, prior or near the Genesis date setting - or even the dead sea scrolls, for that matter - as a hard-copy evidence? Is this an important factor or irrelevent, even if it is inexplicable?
quote:
Complexity of Language”Uniquely Human
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp
No known language in the whole of human history can be considered ”primitive’ in any sense of the word. In her book, What is Linguistics? Suzette Elgin wrote:
”the most ancient languages for which we have written texts”Sanskrit for example”are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many other contemporary languages.’[40]
Figure 5. The most ancient languages for which we have written texts are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages.
The late Lewis Thomas, a distinguished physician, scientist, and longtime director and chancellor of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, acknowledged: ” ...Language is so incomprehensible a problem that the language we use for discussing the matter is itself becoming incomprehensible’.[41] It appears that, from the beginning, human communication was designed with a tremendous amount of complexity and forethought, and has allowed us to communicate not only with one another, but also with the Designer of language.
In a paper titled ”Evolution of Universal Grammar’ that appeared in the January 2001 issue of Science, M.A. Nowak and his colleagues attempted to discount the gulf that separates human and animals.[42] This paper, which was a continuation of a 1999 paper titled ”The Evolution of Language’,[43] used mathematical calculations in an effort to predict the evolution of grammar and the rules surrounding it. While Nowak and his team inferred that the evolution of universal grammar can occur via natural selection, they freely admitted that ”the question concerning why only humans evolved language is hard to answer’ [emphasis added].[44] Hard to answer indeed! The mathematical models presented in these papers do not tell us anything about the origination of the multitude of languages used in the world today. If man truly did evolve from an ape-like ancestor, how did the phonologic [the branch of linguistics that deals with the sounds of speech and their production] component of our languages become so diverse and variegated? Nowak’s paper also did not clarify the origination of written languages, or describe how the language process was initiated in the first humans, considering we know today that parents teach languages to their offspring.
Also, consider that when language first appears on the scene, it already is fully developed and very complex. The late Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson described it this way:
”Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. The oldest language that can be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.’[45]
Chomsky summed it up well when he stated:
”Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ”gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’[46]

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:44 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 190 of 268 (425085)
09-30-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
09-30-2007 10:33 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
quote:
Possessing a unique trait is one of the pieces of evidence that science looks at when determining categories for life. Humans are certainly a 'kind' in the sense that they are in a category of their own (they are in effect, a species). There is some debate over whether they are alone in their genus, Homo.
IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. Had this been the view countenanced by some more participants, we could progress to other subsequent factors. And of course, there are other factors which result from here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 10:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 10:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 192 of 268 (425088)
09-30-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
09-30-2007 10:38 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
quote:
He has not presented any qualifications for the term speech other than it comes (uniquely) from humans.
I did present the premise, that there is no equivalence or similarities, as the reason for it. Had there been - the factor of unique would become muted. This appears backed by prominent scientests, listed in articles posted. I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:49 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 194 of 268 (425091)
09-30-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
09-30-2007 10:44 AM


quote:
Are you now saying speech == language, that they are interchangeable?
There is no need to get quagmired again in semantics and runaway deflection under the guise of science. If the factors debated mean anything, it is that speech and language are, if not quite the same issue - or so alligned that is falls in a category of two solely unique phenomenons alligned together - with no alternative application. Its like intelligence and scienctific thought are alligned. I;ve no notion of what is speech w/o language: grunts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:44 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 11:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024