Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

quote:

---

Thanks for making that distinction between your position and science.

---

Its not so derogatory to be in the company of scientists like Chomsky in this instant. Whatever do you mean by 'science': only those things which have been fully solved - if so, we should not include the BBT, only a theory, in the science sector.My position was and is, that we have no understanding of what speech is from a scientific premise - which makes steering from its definition a reasonably coherent position.

Dsiagree here. This is not the premise behind the scientists quoted in many articles which agree with genesis in 'this' instant - regardless of other derived conclusion variances. Nor does the factor of speech make humans different by itself, to an anicnet humanity's views: they could have concluded speech just a human communication [another language], or that speech may be seen in other unencountered life forms far away.It is not sufficient to separate humans from this one factor alone, as it is for this generation to do - the later is due to retrospection backed by advanced and new knowledge in many areas not privy to ancient peoples. If anything, the reverse logic applies with ancient man, who believed in animals as deities which understoof mysteries and had great powers.To a large extent, the lack of full acceptance of this stat in genesis is alligned with an apprehension, and it is a legitimate one: it does pose some problems. Additionally, there are too many other factors in genesis which negate the fluke, chance or commonsense reasonings conclusions.

A better example would be an ape and an italian. The two you used would have no problem with or w/o the language variances and deficiencies, and would use compensatory improvisations based on the principle of logic. Some foreign travelers carry translation dictionaries or other modern gadgets to cater for the ethnic diversities. The operative factor is that both speech and languages are unique human traits - making the lack of one a muted point.

What is the definition of life and shall we stop mentioning it? Make sure you ask all the scientists in the links submitted who hold the same intelligent view about the definition of speech. Better, since you claim to 'KNOW' - why not make a splash!

quote:

---

What is a 'cause factor', and why does it pose so much problem in a 'finite universe'.

​

You make no sense.

---

The reverse is the case with making sense. In a finite universe, there is cause and effect. There's no such thing in science as effect by and of itself. Not so in an infinite uni - here pigs can fly too. So genesis becomes more demanding - unless you omit its opening preamble!

quote:

---

That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis.

​

You would say that, wouldn't you?

​

Jon

---

And you would not - is more applicable. If you called genesis a myth, then why be shy of also accreditising the same with its mythical premises, two of which were debated here: the first declaration of a 'finite' universe, and speech being unique to one life form. FYI, it means science is inclined to genesis territory in both these instances, and any postulations made in the guise of science - must obey those two factors - else your not talking science but sci-fi. FYI, the factor of humans being a different 'kind' is also a valid scientific premise.If this thread was not quagmired in the blatant, we could have examined a host of other myths.

quote:

---

Are calling fellow humans apes now? I specified two humans so we could see where the language distinction from speech is relevant.

​

The two you used would have no problem with or w/o the language variances and deficiencies, ...

​

So you are in effect saying that the frenchman and the italian do not need a common language to speak together?

---

What I said was simple and clear. Humans can improvise when faced with different languages - same as they do with dif skin colors and accents. French and italians can - apes cannot perform that trick.

quote:

---

What? Are you drunk? Have you ever tried talking to someone who didn't speak your language? The ability for two humans to effectively communicate without speaking the same language is almost completely absent. If they do make sense of one another, they certainly will not have 'no problem' doing it.

---

IMHO, this too is incorrect. Language is the medium, speech is the tool. While it would be more difficult with different languages, it is not the same as with not having speech. This applies even where there is no problem with languages but limited to not knowing certain word meanings only.If one does not know the meaning of a word - he basically cannot think in the instant of that word's meaning; one can confront another in the same language, using a complex assembly of technical words and intricate thoughts - and the other will not understand what was said.The same does not apply with non-humans. Language is an effect of speech, and when the latter is missing, a different language becomes a mute point.

Why do you think prominent and non-creationist scientists [specially biologists] state that speech, aside from it not being a subsequence or extension of communications seen in all life forms, is a problem in defining speech?I understand that in order to agree or disagree, a definition of a motion's premise is a required preamble: but so do those scientists know this fact. It seems they are indeed the correct and relevent rocket scientists in this issue, and if anything, would be unbiased, effected only by their inclination away from creationism. IOW, there is no shying away from the declaration speech is formidable to describe in technical terms, and it may be a correct, honest and relevant reality. Is there another way of discussing this issue?

Humans ARE the last life form embedded with speech. And however one looks at it - even that viruses mutate and are alledged as new species - the speech and humans compact remains a unique premise, undented by a zebra also being unique by its particular stripes. This premise only becomes dented when and if other life forms evolved to render speech not unique anymore - by possessing it.That this does not happen or will not happen, is varied from a zebra not expected to attain speech, nor a human not expected to attain zebra stripes. The unique aspect of one life form came post other life form traits, and appears to have factored in variances in degrees, which a zebra's markings fall under. Speech is thus an epochial and transcendent difference, one which changes the universe. Such a difference is not subject to reductionism of a zebra's stripes, a virus mutation or finger prints. So there is denial and contrivings perpertrated in this issue, while there is no doubt that admitting the motion of speech's unique position being a formidable factor for ToE: a statement declared by many scientists [as has been posted in this forum].

quote:

---

A three second stint with google gave me a working definition:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech is voice modulated by the throat, tongue, lips, etc, the modulation being accomplished by changing the form of the cavity of the mouth and nose through the action of muscles which move their walls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Your problem is the assumption no one remembered to click a search button. I am sure all the scientists quoted have read such 'descriptions' [as opposed definitions]. Your other problem is, you have negated your own held premise: all the attributes listed therein [throat, tongue, lips, etc - modulation, cavities and throat muscles, etc] are commonplace with life forms, contradicting the unique human speech factor. But you ARE affirming my premise by default.

If you scale this thread, the seizures are from the other sector. All I said was, it is a problem to define speech. You and a host of scientists today - are in concert in this premise with me, it's denial here notwithstanding.

quote:

---

Why did we not adapt likewise?

---

This is one of the counter arguements, and a reasonable one. But it does not make it all equitable, and here's why.All animals adapt to their environments or what they must do to survive - and whatever the attributes they inherit, the premise is the same, be it a squirrel able to open a shell like no one else, or a fish diving to massive pressure realms. All display graduated, accumulated steps to reach a point of adaptability to their immediate surrounds, and all of them have a form of limited communication - limited to their own environs, in which sense it is not unique, but a subset of uniqueness limited to their own environs and survival. A zebra's markings may be it's own, and so is a butterfly's imprints - but these are not universe-changing phenomenons, but variances - similar to more sub-set variances which define sub-sets of species within species.Humans did not emerge with 'another' form of communication, by graduated steps, or limited to their environs - else they would not be unique by speech, displaying a standour trait varied in kind. There is a blatant reasoning behind the widespread acknowledgement of biologists why speech is unique - notwithstanding the display of millions of differences seen in all life forms: it is also clear they know of unique diving fish.It is true that a list of life forms containing a zebra with stripes, and no other life forms displaying those exact stripes, still does not constitute a uniqueness, apart from a sub-set variance among life forms. It is true also, that if humans are placed on the same list of all life forms - speech will be a standout unique factor - by kind than degree. You will fail this exam if you tick anything else than humans by speech - even while protesting loudly how zebras are unique too.That in itself is not the factor making everyone uncomfortable. I have gone further, and made subsequent assertions what this means, imposing a variant on an established worldly mindset no less.My position is, even if this issue is partially accepted as a possibility, even as all evidence makes it blatant, that speech may have emerged recently, in an already formed state, and is unique to one life form only - it becomes very difficult to uphold the premises of ToE. Here, what was deemed a theological 'myth' factor, has become the pivotial 'scientific' counter to ToE: contradicting 'Adaptation' - a fulcrum pillar. It is also one reason why the secular/atheist disdain the OT most, and never bother to take on other scriptures. Anything which has a hint of theology begets a balistic, almost pychotic reaction, and which I understand - even when portraying a factor in genesis in a scientific premise, even when no other ancient document addresses the issue how the universe emerged, and in a logical, patterned view which is fully vindicatable via science - which does not necessarilly condone all factors in ToE. Here, I don't propose starting a thread why the creation chapter of genesis is fully scientific, unless it is inserted in a science thread - because it's only interest for me is any scientific vindication it has.

quote:

---

God does not exist until there is proof he does.

---

The aspect of speech remains one to debate via science, with no effect what can be proven [what criteria applies here?], or disproven, concerning the Creator premise. The assumption I have not posed scientific reasoning is ubsurd. Your statement is also ubsurd, considering the state of art sciences have no allignment with it's condoning: this issue is in escrow, so let's call a spade a black dish with a long handle.

quote:

---

Your other problem is, you have negated your own held premise: all the attributes listed therein [throat, tongue, lips, etc - modulation, cavities and throat muscles, etc] are commonplace with life forms, contradicting the unique human speech factor.

​

That's not my premise - the unique human speech factor is your premise. I have no qualms with definitions that harm your argument. Especially given that you have been unable to construct a definition that doesn't harm your argument that is not pointlessly tautological.

---

The problem is related to the factors mentioned in your definition: they subscribe to commonalities in all life forms, without defining any differences. There is no accounting for speech not seen in lions therein.

quote:

---

The degree of complexity and expressiveness of human language does exceed any form of language that other animals seem to have or be able to learn. Joseph's cardinal non-sequitur, however, is claiming this observation checkmates any possibility that it could have occurred via mutation and natural selection and he has consistently failed to show why this is the case.

---

What defines a difference in kind than degree? What's the odds ratio here: all against one - and how many life forms are there with their own form of communication systems - and one with speech?Compound the above with other impacting factors:No speech in any life forms - despite the evolutionary based advantage of time, NS, Adaptation and all other biological traits one can muster. Add to this that other life forms are far more audio/phonetically dexterous than humans, and that their survival more depends on a screech than humans with speech.Its not a difference in degree but in kind.