Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

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.

Since you insist on posting utter junk in science threads and since you don't seem to grasp the obvious need to define what you are talking about you can have two days to work on it this time.

There's nothing being debated here because you have not said anything. You've combined words in random orders to make up theobabble nonsense. You go from speech to language to Genesis to astronomy to biology, generally all within the same damn sentence. We could make a separate topic out of everything you say, because nothing you say is relevant to any of the other things you say. It's all just a mish-mash of unrelated material. You put in random dashes and punctuation as if you think it makes you look intelligence, and instead you just come off as a senseless ignorant, Biblical Christian.I'm sorry... but you are generations behind even Alex the bird.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

The problem is how can you tell without first knowing that the french an italians are human?Let's say it is a blind test -- you have a list of questions you can pick from to ask an intermediate, they take it into the next room and ask the subject, then return to you with the answer: how do you tell that the subject is human?Enjoy.

---

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.

What is the nature of these questions?How much 'translation' is performed by this intermediate? What do we know of the other subjects possible? Are they birds? Apes? Cats? Fruit flies?Also, simply because someone cannot see the difference does not mean that the difference isn't actually there. What's the cliché? Looks can be deceiving.JonEdited by Jon, : Added paragraph.

Does it matter? Remember that the subject could be a human that does not understand the language at all, but communicates by other means. Does it matter? The purpose is to show that "speech" can be distinguished as a uniques human trait, so some animal subjects would be needed. But we're not using looks, we're using speech, and the purpose is to distinguish speech as a uniques human trait.Enjoy.

---

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.

Perhaps you'd care to explain then why certain types of brain injury render a previously speech-endowed person incapable of speech if it's not a function of mind? What study are you quoting?

Give me a break. The bible says that snakes and donkeys can talk. That doesn't sound like scripture backs up uniqueness of human speech to me.

Oh bull SHIT. Of course a parent teaches a child to speak. Why do you think children born to Spanish-speaking parents speak Spanish and children born to English-speaking parents speak English? Because they learn from observation and mimicry, not because God flips a switch and turns on their ability to speak.

(1) Humans are neither the last known nor the most recent. New species of bacteria and virus (among others) are evolving into existence constantly. (2) Recency has little to do with evolving. It's not like one thing turns into a better thing turns into another more better thing. Evolution isn't a straight line. It's a tree with many dead ends and many more branches. (3) Your only argument thus far has been that humans are the only speech endowed creature and that proves that humans are the only speech endowed creature when presented with evidence to the contrary.Honestly, as someone who has studied linguistics I could make a far stronger case FOR creationism based solely on speech and language than you've done so far.

So you've gone and applied the Turing Test to animals now? If that's the case, ELIZA must be "kind of speech endowed" despite any comprehension or understanding while Koko and Alex are not.

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].

IaJ, you are the one making claims for something called "speech". You refuse to define your terms. You have another 24 hours to try.

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.

---

Source. Wiki gives me another, similar definition:

quote:

---

Speech can be described as an act of producing voice through the use of the vocal folds and vocal apparatus to create a linguistic act designed to convey information.

---

I wouldn't confuse your ability to craft a definition, with the ability of biologists.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.