quote:
Not what they said. Go back to the thread and read again.
Implying that you quoted scientists is dishonest.{/abe}
My links contained the best regarded scientists in the world today. Chomsky himself says language has no analogue elsewhere, so its definition in line with parrot mimicking should be discussed with his quotes, not what I said. The posts here do not factor any variant science responsa on the subject, and accuse me instead of correcting your runaway statements. Every criteria has been responded to, with the back-up of prolofic science experts. Slot it in, w/o paranoic qualifications.
You have a problem with science icons like Suzette Elgin, and 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’
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.aspNo 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.
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].
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
™ Version 4.2
