There is nothing more extreme than all life forms [trillions] vs one
Rarity doesn't say a thing about kind or degree. It just says how rare it is.
With the latter, no speech in any other life form, is a manifest and indisputable fact.
To which you've been presented over and over with counterexamples, which you've just dismissed as irrelevant without explaining why.
These are also upheld by sectors of prominent scientists who have made the same premise.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Cite specific study and show that you know
what case is being made, by
which "prominent scientists" and
why.
thus it is an anomoly humans begat speech before parrots, despite appearing billions of years later
Eh? Modern birds showed up 150 mya whereas human evolution only started around 85 mya. But it's irrelevant. Life evolves in many different directions; it's not a sliding scale of "less beneficial" to "more beneficial". It is in no way anomalous
even if humans predated birds.
This is another example of slight of hand casino science.
What? No. There's no sleight of hand involved here. And we're not doing "hard science" here, it's debate. This is an
ad hominem attack and not fruitful debate.
It is self-contradictory to assume the brain being both the cause and negation for speech.
No it's not. Ever hear of a double-edged sword? Something that can be both a benefit and a burden? For example, antibiotics can save your life but they can also kill you. That's not a contradiction, it just means that it's dependent upon the conditions in which it's administered.
The same goes for natural selection. The conditions have to be right for the burden to be minimized. This is true of just about every mutation. It's not self-contradictory. It's a cost-benefit game and the final judge is whoever lives long enough to reproduce.
To become optimized for flight, a bird must necessarily forfeit other potentially beneficial traits like say human language.
Secondly, the size of the brain becomes a moot factor when considering the overall weight and size of large birds.
Consider that the
largest bird capable of mimicking human speech has a much smaller head than that necessary to produce language at the complexity produced by humans.
One does not select what criteria suits one's preferred conclusion: this is casino science.
No, we explain based on what the theory of evolution
predicts. The theory of evolution is a model produced to fit the data and modified accordingly.
As soon as (1) evidence comes to light that is clearly and irrefutably contradictory to the theory of evolution and (2) an alternate, testable theory that fits the data better is presented, we'll all be happy to scrap ToE, but we'll still consider it a useful approximation.
Consider that we know the Bohr atomic model is wrong, but it still correctly predicts the behavior of hydrogen. Or that we know the Newtonian (g=9.8m/s
2) model for gravity is wrong, but it still correctly predicts the behavior of slow-moving objects near earth. For this reason they're still taught in science textbooks.
Because the speech factor comes from what is seen as a theology
No, because your premise consistently fails to hold up to scrutiny. You fail consistently to defend it. You just make the same assertions over and over again and make ad hominem attacks when we ask how you deal with such and such obvious implication of your premise. For example, you assert repeatedly that speech is not a function of the brain, yet I've presented you with evidence that it is (i.e., brain damage is known to cause speech impediments and speech loss) and you've not once addressed it. Scientists don't care
where a theory comes from, they care whether or not it is scientifically sound and fits the available data.
Had the premise of speech come from another scientists, and was not related to genesis - we would see 50% of the debate resting on one side, if not 75% of it.
If a scientist were to present this idea, the scientific community would expect the person who presented it to back his claim up with copious data and sufficiently explain away the obvious problem of
why certain types of brain damage affect speech ability; they wouldn't accept it just because "another scientist said so". They would ask the same questions we're asking you. Scientists are not above criticism. Scientists judge the merit of a theory based on how well the data lines up with what the hypothesis predicts. They don't pass laws by show of hands.
till suspiciously close to the Genesis dating when both speech and writings occured.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is yet another logical fallacy. We also have many other creation accounts from other traditions which occurred "suspiciously close" to that time. Who's to say one of those isn't more accurate? Who's to say that that wasn't just the oral tradition at the time when humans devised written word as a means of transmitting knowledge?
But this premise is a false one, and despite the absence of writings, there are numerous other indicators for evidence of speech: I sited the recalling of a human name, king, queen, nation, war, folksong or liturgy. These are recallable without writings.
Huh? So oral tradition predates writing. Explain how this demonstrates that speech can be traced historically in absence of writing.
Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.
Edited by bernerbits, : -of-
™ Version 4.2
