Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

Is the ability to recognize two green blocks on a tray, then speak and convey they correct answer considered speech? That's spatial and color recognition along with the ability to say it.

Yes, if speech was exclusive and not resultant from evolution that would be ... huge! So far however you haven't shown it to be exclusive and you haven't shown why it is not resultant from evolution. Last known: My searching was certainly not in depth, but most discoveries I am aware of are generally insects and such (small creatures not likely to have speech). I did however find this recent discovery of a new species of monkey, I find no indication that they speak.Most recent: I have read nothing about this years flu being able to speak. I have my doubts, could you be more specific? Are you aware of a more recent form of life? Though I suspect you mean humans, and not this years flu - you have not shown that others have not adapted likewise. All? Highly unlikely. At the rate of mutation bacteria still show no indication of speech. Lets not forget extinctions, ebola is quickly killing off some of our relatives as we speak - Read about it here.If they don't learn it soon are you going to say ToE is wrong? Extinction puts a damper on their chances. Attributes that can only be the result of magic have not been found. ToE so far is 'vindicated'. For some developments time appears to be quite important. Do you have any evidence that there is not enough of it? But it is seen elsewhere. What does originality have to do with anything anyways? I don't see why not. Have you any evidence that evolution came to a halt in our past? Its not like speech just showed up last tuesday.Edited by Vacate, : Spelling, as usual

Its a different form of speech.You have a nose, its not like an elephant, but its still safe to say its a nose. You cannot rule out that what you have is a nose simply because its not as "nose endowed" as other creatures.

quote:

---

Its a different form of speech.

---

Its different only in context. In how he phrased his question I would say its a different form of speech. Would I think a Gorilla doing sign language will trick me to think its a human reciting poetry? No.In the fact that Koko has created new signs and original sentences - no difference besides the fact that one is a human and one is a gorilla. IamJoseph has designed an experiment to fail - does Koko do humanspeech such as humans think Koko is human? Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Its different only in context.

---

Should I count the "period" as all you have for a supporting arguement? I am not often a person who listens to folks who say "just trust me, I'm right".

• Humans : Yes
• Squids : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
• Apes : All ape species? Humans, Chimpanzees, and gorillas, possibly more
• Parrots : All parrot species? Not that I am aware of.
• Amoeba : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
• Zebras : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
• Ants : No data that I am aware of to suggest speech
• Quarks : No, but I hear they like hamburgers and french fies
• Elephants : Yes
• Pineapples : No, but I hear they like hamburgers and french fies
• Computers : If true AI becomes a reality... interesting idea.
• Computer Virus : No, see above
• Bill Gates : Highly probable, the debate still rages if hes The Devil or human.
• Water : No, but I hear it likes hamburgers and french fies
• The Pope : Highly probable, the debate still rages if hes Bill Gates
• Theists : Yes
• Atheists : Yes, some debate if they are the devil
• Agnostics : Yes? Maybe? Not really sure? I cant decide
• Evolutionists : Yes, some debate if they are the devil
• Et : Long neck, flies on a bicycle? Yes

Does this count towards my average?Edited by Vacate, : Formatting

I did notice that. Yes and different forms of speech from different species is still speech. We blend it all together and call it speech. Take a breath, relax, and it won't be so bad.

Where I work many of the clients have varying abilities to speak. I can think of many that have a vocabulary of less than ten words. If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this? With a vocabulary of even less than an African Grey and less able to convey any complexities of speech, what should it be defined as if not speech?These people are not two year olds who will "get better", but I have never questioned that what they do is speech.

quote:

---

If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this?

---

Its not the same as if I make a face and they laugh. Is it also 'response to a stimulus' if they say "pie" and refuse to eat any other desert? The one in question certainly doesn't - He only says "pie". I am not really sure. This definition works for me - The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words only I would also add sign language.I would suggest that what differs from mimicing is the ability to construct. Saying "Pretty bird" is simply mimicing, counting blocks and constructing a grouping of words to express this would be speech.

I can show those attributes in a chicken. No it does not. Speech is not the result of a single adaptation. The ability to communicate does not automatically mean the next step is speech. Absolutely! Given that you have refused to say what makes it remarkable in the 'unique' category your arguement is unfalsifiable. Yet many people who do not agree with you are not athiests. Odd that such a 'talibanic' group is so welcoming of other beliefs. Friendly bunch arent they? I do think its unique, and not millions of years old, yet I still see no reason not to credit evolution as the cause. Its worked so well creating the millions of unique attributes of other creatures. Koko. Or you do want an example of a gorilla speaking english in the wild and recording it in his diary? What is human speech again? ... Humans speaking

You claim its transcendent, but the sub-sets contradict your claims. Correct, both are viable methods of organizing life. First impressions could be wrong. Further study of these life forms may show that crossing these arbitrary kind barriers is done on a regular basis. But you have not shown it to be brilliant. The categories that you have presented are completely inadequate to explain the varied life seen on Earth. As I have pointed out in the thread Problems of a different "Kind" your methods, though not incorrect, are not a viable tool for learning. Thus far you have attempted to show that a bear and a bacteria are the same thing while claiming that Genesis is "deceptively simple".If your theories made it to the textbooks, how do you suppose to get past these gradeschool level (at best) observations? Genesis is simple, explain why biology should revert back to simplistic explanations when we know so much more than the authors of the bible. How will you convince these children that chickens are air born, bears are creapeths, cats are ground things, and a crab is a fish.

It (Genesis) is superflous. You have not given me any information to think otherwise. Right. It does not say that there is some type of barrier to evolution. You are saying there is a barrier and then dictating how to make the distinction - regardless of all the species that contradict your distinction. True (in regards to kinds), yet this is somewhat pointless isnt it? We cannot advance our knowledge using your method. Right or wrong its useless. Now you understand! What good is it then to simply say - ground kind in an attempt to explain the 10 types of poodles? Good example, I hope that I can come up with an almost never ending list of them.Please don't use the word kind in this context. Based on your definition the use of kind is incorrect, I would prefer that you use type or some such variation to avoid confusion. Unless you are now trying to put forward that there are actually ten kinds of poodles that need to be added to the list instead of included in ground kinds. Levels?? You have not suggested that kinds are tier based. Any sub grouping defeats the purpose of having kinds in the first place.I would prefer to leave this to RAZD's 'kind' thread as its offtopic here and I try to keep under moderation radar. As a whole I am pretty satisfied with Jon's clarification on speech, as such I am finding it difficult to remain on topic.

I have asked you many direct questions regarding the commonality of water kinds and land kinds. As it stands there is no apparent way to distinguish between the groupings. You have already shown in the kind thread that any understanding of what constitutes water kind or land kind is not readily apparent. I had no idea for example that a bear and a bacteria where the same kind until you pointed it out. I still have no idea why, and therefore I believe its important to outline the criterea for such groupings before 'kind' could ever be considered a valid concept. There is a difference. ToE does not ignore this difference. Toe has not been around for millions of years. Could you outline these hidden differences between a salmon fish and a bear? Feel free to ignore the skeletal differences, I am curious to know the ones that biologists are unaware of. Darwin came after the bible not before. This could be the source of your confusion. Or not. Your a hard man to make sense of. Am I safe to assume that you can identify the hidden factors that allow bacteria to become bears but do not allow reptiles (with feathers!) to become birds?

I realize I may have misquoted you on two accounts. First: I assumed when you said "allows one to do what the other cannot" you meant ToE vs. Creation. I see that its possible you really cannot identify the differences between a salmon and a bear. For millions of years the two have had distinct differences, but they are not hidden. In fact they are exceedingly obvious. If in addition to the obvious differences you are saying there are also hidden ones - how do you reach this conclusion? Have you identified these differences?The other possible misquote: I assumed by this that you meant the common assertion that the true author of the bible was all knowing; and therefore Darwin pre-dated the bible. I see now that you may be saying that Darwin pre-dates modern times and that we are 'privy to everything and all knowledge in these subjects'. If this is the case I suggest that you are not mistaken but completely wrong.If I have misquoted you I am sorry. It was not my intent to twist your words. Feel free to clarify my mistakes.

If it was shown that you do not understand what "theory" means in the field of science would that make any difference?Care to point out a field of science that graduated a theory to "fully solved"?