Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

quote:

---

According to the definition of speech the various communications used by Alex qualify. You need to show how you can include humans and exclude Alex in your assessment.

---

No - it does not. Recognising an offspring by sound is NOT speech, but instinctive, basic interaction of recognition and identification. All life forms have this ability - none have speech.Speech is recordable, memorable and enfusable for all who have this attribute, to recognise, transfer to an unknown third party/s, and able to form 'new' paradigms unrelated to immediate environmental impacts such as recognising an offspring, signalling danger or food approaching. Speech begets science, maths and all philosopies: even new ones, and is the sole attribute which renders humans able to have dominion of all other life forms.Speech could not have emerged from evolution, adaptation or by accident. In fact, all evidences show it evolved at a particular and recent time, and in an already advanced state: proof of this is the first written alphabetical books - which has no evidences of a gradual thread of evolution: no such books appear - not for a 1000 years before or after! And writings is an effect, not a cause of speech.The premise speech prevailed for 100s of 1000s of years, but which cannot be proved due to no writings - is a defunct scientific premise. Speech imprints are not subject to writings only as its proof.

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.

quote:

---

I am curious about your use of the term 'speech' to connote uniquely 'human.' Personally, since one of the colleges I work for is for the deaf, and since my interaction with the deaf indicates that not only are they every bit equal to the hearing in all human tasks not involving sound, but are also equal to all humans in intelligence on average, shouldn't you broaden your assertions and vocabulary enough to include them?

---

Its an interesting point, and should give deeper cadence of this issue. In a sense, a mute showing speech like qualities is firstly, a human action, and unrelated to the communication skills of any other life form, such as a parrot. It says that speech is an intrinsic quality in humans, and backed up by being 'intrinsic' - as opposed the result of any organ in the gullet.This is further backed by a parent not teaching a child to speak, but rather clicking on a switch - and the speech becomes automatic and involuntary - similar to a new offsrping acquiring breathing. This means, again, speech is an inherent and unique attribute in humans. That it is intrinsic, and not an unculcated skill, is the reason we see even a deaf or dumb person able to recognise and interact with speech - in a manner different than the same mute human would interact with a life form which does not possess this attribute. It is evident that a mute person can equally produce new, innovative and transcendent thoughts and actions [Stevie wonder, who writes sublime songs without sight].We find that a mute animal cannot emulate what a mute human can. Having no speech due to a birth defect, is more akin to one being born without an arm or leg. The exception does not negate the paradign here, but only highlights it's significance as a unique human attribute. This uniqueness is not contrivable as a commonplace syndrome akin to basic communication seen in all life forms.The 'SABU' analogy is likewise a poor contriving of this issue, and more an outsome of wanton denial. Lets face it - if Genesis is right, it blows a fatal blow to many currently held theories, assumptions and derivitive factors. There is a motive to deny here!Edited by IamJoseph, : spelling

This analogy is the same as enabling a rat in an imprisoned maze, learning how to get a piece of cheese. Speech is different even from intelligence, recognising colors, sounds and gestures. It comes in a ratio of one and all other life forms.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

Recognising an offspring by sound is NOT speech

---

Nobody said it was. That's why we're not talking about that.We're talking about communication. When dolphins use their names, it isn't "recognizing offspring." It's how they let each other know who they are. It's how they ask about other dolphins.Alex, the parrot, wasn't referring to offspring. He was asked about objects and he described them.When the various primates speak using sign language, they're not talking about offspring.

quote:

---

All life forms have this ability - none have speech.

---

Not even humans? Now I'm confused.Perhaps you can give us a definition of speech. This definition should be specific enough that it includes humans but somehow excludes other animals. Oh, and it must not include things that can be traced to the "mind" or "body," since you've already established that your conceptualization of "speech" does not include either.

quote:

---

Speech is recordable, memorable and enfusable for all who have this attribute, to recognise, transfer to an unknown third party/s, and able to form 'new' paradigms unrelated to immediate environmental impacts such as recognising an offspring, signalling danger or food approaching.

---

OK. So explain why what Alex and Koko were doing wasn't speech. You will notice, for example, that no offspring were present, no food was offered or asked for, nor was there ever any danger to be found.When Alex points out that there are two green objects on the tray, how is that not "speech"? When Koko talks about the death of her kitten, Ball, how is that not speech?What do you mean when you say, "speech"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

In a sense, a mute showing speech like qualities is firstly, a human action, and unrelated to the communication skills of any other life form, such as a parrot.

---

Koko the gorilla knows sign language. If it's "speech" when a human does it, why is it not "speech" when a gorilla does it?What is your definition of "speech" such that it only applies to humans?

quote:

---

This is further backed by a parent not teaching a child to speak

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. You have to teach a child to speak. In fact, if you don't teach a child to speak, they will eventually become incapable of ever learning how.

quote:

---

This means, again, speech is an inherent and unique attribute in humans.

---

So why is it so many other non-human animals are capable of it? Why is what Alex and Koko do not "speech"? What is your definition of "speech" such that only humans are capable of it?

quote:

---

We find that a mute animal cannot emulate what a mute human can.

---

Then explain Koko. Why is it she can talk about how she felt when Ball died?

quote:

---

Lets face it - if Genesis is right, it blows a fatal blow to many currently held theories, assumptions and derivitive factors. There is a motive to deny here!

---

On the contrary. That's a motive to accept. If you can overturn the dominant paradigm in science, they hand you the Nobel Prize and every university and laboratory starts beating down your door to beg you to join their research team. You can write your own ticket for the rest of your life.With all that wealth and fame right there for the taking, why on earth would anybody deny it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Koko the gorilla knows sign language. If it's "speech" when a human does it, why is it not "speech" when a gorilla does it?

---

Thanks. But its not speech. Not even gorilla speech, or a different mode of speech. Its called teaching a dog new tricks.

quote:

---

What is your definition of "speech" such that it only applies to humans?

---

Trick questions can beget only trick answers, but I'm not going there. Definition of Speech is what humans do, which is not a difference in degree: at what point do degrees cease and a new, different, never before kind develops: how about 1: all others - even for 4.5 Billion years of evolution? The notion of presenting Koko the gorilla is saying, without admitting it, tomorrow apes will talk, zebras will sing and parrots will write books. Fact is, we bring up parrots mimicking speech - only because we know they are not 'speeching'; else we would'nt point to parrots mimicking speech: its a HAHA only.The only true debate left after the contrivings have exhausted themselves in their own cyclical wonderings - is to examine the issue as if Genesis is correct: that speech is unique to humans. What does it mean - anything - nothing - something - everything - or back to the drawing board?

quote:

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. You have to teach a child to speak. In fact, if you don't teach a child to speak, they will eventually become incapable of ever learning how.

---

Maybe. As with any muscle in the body. But the operative factor here is - that we can click on a switch in humans and not in any other life form - and speech comes out. Education is mandatory and an onus - but the tool for speech is an inherent one in humans.

quote:

---

So why is it so many other non-human animals are capable of it? Why is what Alex and Koko do not "speech"? What is your definition of "speech" such that only humans are capable of it?

---

The reason one does and all do not, means its not an evolutionary impact - obviously. The definition of what causes speech is more than what can be listed as denoting this action can be performed by all life forms in different modes: science does NOT know what causes this difference - else they would prove it long ago in a museum or lab. We know that animals and birds can perform voice phonations better and greater than humans, and that they can communicate, have brains, recognise their environment and kin - but still not possess speech. This factor inclines toward my premise and against yours in its intensity and pointedness. There has even been some scientists and linguists pointing to a soft bone - which is unique to humans and not evidenced in animals today or in fossils: but I doubt this is THE reason.

quote:

---

Then explain Koko. Why is it she can talk about how she felt when Ball died?

---

Animals can express hunger and grief, and be made to allign their actions to win a certain benefit. There's a bear in a russian circus which says 'PLEASE, PLEASE!' - an emulation of a phonetic human speech - which begets the bear a prize: sugar.

quote:

---

On the contrary. That's a motive to accept. If you can overturn the dominant paradigm in science, they hand you the Nobel Prize and every university and laboratory starts beating down your door to beg you to join their research team. You can write your own ticket for the rest of your life.

​

With all that wealth and fame right there for the taking, why on earth would anybody deny it?

---

I don't think so. Not with proving speech as a unique human quality. Its like winning a prize for saying the sun is hot or water is wet. The best definition of human speech is the absence of a single life form to do so.

For any honest biologist, a host of enigmas present themselves if speech is an exclusive human attribute not resultant from evolution.WHY IS THE LAST KNOWN, MOST RECENT LIFE FORM SPEECH ENDOWED?WHY DID OTHERS NOT ADAPT LIKEWISE?DOES IT MEAN, OTHER LIFE FORMS WILL DO SO IN THE FUTURE - AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF NOT?IF A LIFE FORM CAN ADAPT TO STAND UPRIGHT [GORILLAS] - WHEN WILL GORILLAS LEARN SPEECH - AND ACQUIRE ITS DERIVITIVE VALUES: AND WHAT IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN - IS ADAPTATION STILL VIABLE?IS ADAPTATION A SELECTIVE PROCESS - VIABLE ONLY IF IT ALLIGNS WITH TOE - AND NOT ACKNOWEDGED WHEN IT DOES NOT?ARE ANY ATTRIBUTES IN ANY LIFE FORMS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ADAPTATION AS PER TOE? HOW SIGNIFICANT IS TIME IN ADAPTATION? DO HUMANS HAVE SPEECH BECAUSE OF ACCUMULATED BENEFIT OF TIME - BUT WHICH FACTOR IS NOT SEEN VINDICATED ELSEWHERE IN ANY OTHER LIFE FORMS?IS ADAPTATION TRUE SCIENCE - AND HOW DOES IT RATIFY SPEECH?IS TOE AND ITS DEPENDENT FACTORS VIABLE IF SPEECH IS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT?IS SPEECH AN ANOMOLY?

What is correct and vindicated today is that humans have speech as no other - this factor alone and of itself makes genesis a particularly powerful document. Arthur Custance - Who Taught Adam To Speak? 'Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language and all have failed." Maybe language did not evolve at all!''The more that is known about (communication systems in monkeys and apes) the less these systems seem to help in the understanding of human language. ''The difference could no longer be measured in terms of "higher" and "lower" but as a different way of conceiving reality, indeed from one point of view, a more complex way of viewing it. (4) G. G. Simpson rightly remarked: (5)''Do animals "speak" to one another at all? If so, are the two forms of communication related or comparable? If they are not, we cannot easily derive the one from the other. Since, as we shall see, a negative conclusion was reached by a number of investigators, the origin of human speech remained a profound mystery. 'Speech is the best show man puts on. It is his own "act" on the stage of evolution, in which he comes before the cosmic backdrop and "does his stuff."Benjamin Lee Whorf - Language, Thought and RealityMANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition of speech. (1) But he added with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human. The problem of accounting for the origin of speech appeared to him therefore to be insoluble. Apart from revelation, it still is.Because of the influence of Darwin's theories, it seemed at one time unnecessary to question the derivation of human speech from animal cries. Essentially the two were the same; it was merely a question of the degree of complexity. Following in the steps of earlier social anthropologists, who were arranging the various primitive cultures in a sequence from the simple to more complex, thereby illustrating man's supposed climb to Parnassus, those who philosophized about language assumed that the strange grunts, clicks, and grimaces of the lowliest "savages" were evidence that speech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)ORIGIN OF SPEECH: TWO ACCOUNTS1. The Evolutionary AccountBut little by little it appeared that the problem was more difficult. To begin with, more careful studies of the most primitive societies made by men in the field who spent enough time to learn to use the native languages they were studying, began to reveal that far from being simple, they were often exceedingly complex. (3) Indeed so rich in terms did they eventually prove to be in many cases, that such an authority as Levy-Bruhl came to doubt (perhaps unjustifiably) whether they even thought as we do. The difference could no longer be measured in terms of "higher" and "lower" but as a different way of conceiving reality, indeed from one point of view, a more complex way of viewing it. (4) G. G. Simpson rightly remarked: (5)
At the present time no languages are primitive in the sense of being significantly close to the origins of language. Even the people with least complex culture 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.Eric Lenneberg has said that primitive languages actually require more intelligence to learn than our so-called sophisticated languages do. (6) That language of a highly abstract nature must have been with man in very, very early times seems to have been recently confirmed by the finding, reported by Alexander Marshack, (7) of what appear to be clearly mathematical notations on a number of bone fragments dated (expansively) at 15,000 to 13,000 B.C.In fact, the simpler the culture, the more complex in this sense was its language likely to prove. Evidently therefore, the whole concept of arranging these cultures in an evolutionary scale was quite wrong. (8) Abandoning this principle cleared the way for a more careful investigation of the origin of human speech, and attention was turned to the problem from several different directions. To begin with, an answer was sought to the questions, What is the nature of human speech, and Do animals "speak" to one another at all? If so, are the two forms of communication related or comparable? If they are not, we cannot easily derive the one from the other. Since, as we shall see, a negative conclusion was reached by a number of investigators, the origin of human speech remained a profound mystery.Further investigation soon revealed other complications. Speech was always assumed to be instinctive. But the discovery from time to time of "wild" or feral children without speech, showed clearly that it results only where there has been social contact. Moreover such contact must be with speaking individuals, for it was further discovered that someone else has to start the process off for each one of us. Company alone does not create communication by speech. Without the spark from one party already the possessor of the faculty, there is no conversation.Having arrived at this point, it was felt that human beings should be able to encourage animals to speak, unless the organs of speech were different in the latter. In the course of time it was concluded from investigation of the anatomy of the higher apes that the organs of certain animals are not basically different, and that they therefore ought to be able to speak as we do. (9) And indeed, there are some creatures such as parrots, which, though not in the supposed evolutionary base line from amoeba to man, can be taught toreproduce all the sounds of common speech successfully. Yet apes and monkeys cannot speak. . . . Indeed, as J. B. Lancaster rightly observed: (10)
The more that is known about (communication systems in monkeys and apes) the less these systems seem to help in the understanding of human language.And G. G. Simpson, commenting on this, wrote, (11) Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language and all have failed." Maybe language did not evolve at all!On the other hand, history soon provided instances of human beings who lacked all the normal faculties of speech, i.e., sight, hearing, and voice, and yet who learned to speak (with their fingers of course) and to communicate ideas at a very high level of abstraction. This once more seemed to indicate that the real secret lay in the structure of the brain, or in some other quality of human nature, and not in the organs of the voice.It was therefore concluded that some genetic strain must suddenly have appeared to alter the structure of the human brain in some way at present unknown, thus paving the way for the appearance of this peculiarly human faculty. (12) Yet this does not answer the main problem, even if such a mutation could be shown to have occurred. For we have on record the case of two feral children, brought up entirely in the wilds, without any human companionship except that they were themselves companions in isolation, who never between them spoke a single word of any form whatever. Thus we find that even the presence of another human being, and the possession of a truly human brain (for subsequently they were taught to speak, though always with limitations) do not in themselves constitute the necessary framework within which speech must inevitably appear.We are still left, therefore, with the problem as to who started the process, for the process must be started by someone. While it is true that a few authorities believe that the human race may be an amalgam of several distinct and independently originated stocks, springing from lower forms of life, there are many others equally committed to an evolutionary origin for man, who hold that he must be derived from a single stock. (13) In this single stock we must have a first man and a first woman. It matters little what we call them, whether Adam (which simply means "man") and Eve (which really means "child bearer," i.e., mother), or some more technical name, we are still dealing with the same two individuals. What is to account for the fact that they began to talk to one another and this has continued wherever their descendants are found, and without exception, for no people on earth are known without a fully developed language. People are known in one part of the world or another without almost every faculty which we hold to be essentially human, even without mother-love, but not one people has ever been found without the faculty of speech.It may be stated simply then, that scientifically the question is beyond our reach. About all that scientific investigations can do is to demonstrate what cannot be the origin.2. The Biblical AccountIn Genesis, however, the story of the first conversation on earth is revealed. And since it is the only story that shows insight into the nature of man's first steps at conversation, it is of peculiar interest no matter whether we view it as fancy or as fact, for all about us every day are children learning to speak for the first time and showing us consistently a certain pattern of learning which by its very persistence leads us to suppose that it is the only pattern by which man ever learned to speak. Not merely the subject of conversation of the first pair, but the consequences of it, and the circumstances in which it came to pass, are of real significance for all those who today are concerned with the problem of human nature and conduct. For it is man's power of speech which has enabled him to do what he has done and to be what he is, whether for good or for ill. The power of speech involves the power of abstraction and of self-consciousness, and of delayed reaction and decision. It has in short made man in part a free-willed agent. But it has also enabled him to learn in a unique way and to pass on the substance of his learning so that culture has become cumulative.

This is an article which makes clear that the writings in Genesis is far from simplistic, able to transcend any writings in geo-history in its exacting, scientific, mathematical and grammatical status. It is therefore a mystery considering its ancient datings, and easily misunderstood and misrepresented by later conclusions to fault it - more on the grounds of neo science preferences than by contextual veracity.SO WHO DID SPEAK FIRST? So Who Did Speak First? The question still remains for us, as we consider this extraordinary and long overlooked or minimized trait of human nature, Where and how did it all begin? We have the case of two Indian children, Amala and Kamala, neither of whom had spoken one word between them, although they shared each other's company. Reverting back to the very first pair, whom we may most reasonably refer to as Adam and Eve for purposes of identification, who or what first induced them to talk to one another?Names stand for processes, and knowing the name seems to deceive us into thinking we understand the process. Those committed to the evolutionary origin of man must fall back upon the use of a magic word for the appearance of the special kind of brain man has which makes speech possible for him. They tell us it was a "mutation" of some sort! And there we have the whole "explanation." But even if a name were an explanation, they still have not told us who spoke first to start the process off, nor are we told what kind of a conversation would be most probable -- though we might have guessed by now that the one who began the process must be one who was other than Adam and Eve, and prior to them and must already have been a speaking person. And we might have guessed too that the first words would have to be a list of the names of things.In the first chapter of Genesis we are constantly told that "God said . . ." and not merely that God did. (43) Moreover in the creation of man a peculiar change takes place in the narrative, for having noted the recurrent phrase "Let the sea bring forth" or "Let the earth bring forth," as though directions were given to that which is inanimate to obey the word thus spoken, when the creation of man is in view, we are immediately presented with a conversation in heaven. (44) That God was not speaking to the heavenly host of angels when He said, "Let us make man . . ." is clear from the fact that man was to be made in His image, and after His likeness. This surely means that man was made in the likeness of God, and not in the likeness of the angels. When God therefore said, "Let us make man in our image . . ." He was not addressing Himself to the angels at all. This conversation was therefore originated and carried on within the Godhead. He who first spoke to Adam was God, who had already been conversing about him.What follows in the story is of real importance. Any thoughtful reader must surely be struck by the frequency with which the idea of "naming" things occurs in this early record. In some books one finds the glossary of terms at the end. Although they are needed at the beginning, it is discouraging to find oneself faced with such a list before some interest has been aroused in the subject matter. But in this instance, and for reasons which are obvious in the light of what we now know of the faculty of speech which man was given, the meaning of the first words and the names of the ordinary phenomena about which God wished to inform Adam, were given to him in some detail. Thus a name is given to the heavens, and to the earth, making more specific the general reference to them in Genesis 1:1. It is as though God had said, "Now I wish to tell you about these phenomena, and henceforth therefore we will refer to the sky as heaven, and to the soil upon which you stand as earth, to the light as day and the darkness as night, to the waters as sea, the atmosphere as the firmament, and we will name the rivers, and the sun and the moon, and even the stars." Then two trees are singled out and given compound names, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Then Adam received his own name. But there is a break in the narrative at this point. Having established a frame of reference, Adam was now invited to speak for himself. (45) Most of us like to name our own pets. Part of the commission given to Adam was that he should govern the animals, and it was natural therefore that he should be invited to name them for himself. None of them had any name up till then, and thus with artless simplicity the record says that whatever Adam called any creature, that was thenceforth its name.Now we are not told how he named them. We do not know whether he was guided by their colour, size, shape, or the cries they made. But what followed this naming ceremony seems to imply that there was a more significant reason for giving him the task. There are some who believe that Adam was merely one of many such representatives of man-like creatures, perhaps a special Homo sapiens singled out by the Creator who had then given him the benefit of a unique spirit. But the record seems in a remarkable manner to go out of its way to make it clear that Adam was the only man alive at that time. In Genesis 2:5, we are told that "there was not a man to till the ground." In Genesis 2:18, we are told that God had remarked "It was not good that man should be alone." In Genesis 2:20, we are told that "there was not found a companion for him." And finally in Genesis 3:20, it is stated that Eve became the mother of all living. It seems clear from the wording of Genesis 2:18-23, that God wanted Adam to discover for himself that he could never find among the lower forms of life a suitable companion in his loneliness. It seems manifest too, that if Adam had been a slouching half-ape creature God might well have brought to him other creatures little different from himself of the primate stock, which might have sufficed for his half-intelligent mind as an appropriate mate. However, with proper insight, Adam gave to each animal brought to him a name by which he signified in some way his reaction and his evaluation of its relative position with respect to himself.That this is so seems clear when one reads what followed this naming process, for, removed into a state of unconsciousness, perhaps tired by the exercise of judgment in such a critical matter, Adam is "divided" and from himself is taken a true help-meet. Awakening from this sleep, and quite probably still supposing that the process of naming must continue, he is presented with this creature in whom he instantly recognizes a true help-meet, and a very part of himself.The whole story is so simply written and so profound in its insight into the nature of speech and the forms which it first takes in childhood, and the true significance of the use of names for things, that it is almost as though God had cast the record in such a form deliberately that it might shed its own light on one of the profoundest of all mysteries. At any rate it is the only light we have. There is no other from any other source.Susanne Langer made a significant admission therefore when she wrote: (46)
Language though normally learned in infancy without compulsion or formal training, is nonetheless a product of sheer learning, an art handed down from generation to generation, and where there is no teacher there is no learning. . . This throws us back upon an old and mystifying problem. If we find no prototype of speech in the highest animals, and man will not say even the first word by instinct, then how did all his tribes acquire their various languages? Who began the art which now we have to learn? And why is it not restricted to the cultured races, but possessed by every primitive family from darkest Africa to the loneliness of the polar ice? Even the simplest of practical arts, such as clothing, cooking, or pottery, is found wanting in one human group or another, or at least found to be very rudimentary. Language is neither absent nor archaic in any of them. The problem is so baffling that it is no longer considered respectable.At the risk of over-loading a Paper already more than a little weighted down with quotations, valuable as they are, I cannot refrain from one last one by Roger Brown in his Words and Things who sums the situation up very effectively by writing: (47)
Neither feral nor isolated man creates his own language these days, but must not such a man have done so once in some prehistoric time and so got language started? Actually the circumstances in which language must have begun represent a combination for which we can provide no instances. We have animals among animals, animals in linguistic communities, and humans among animals; but in none of these cases does language develop. We have humans raised in linguistic communities and in these circumstances language does develop. What about a human born into a human society that has no language? We don't know of any such societies, and so we don't know of any such individuals. But these must have been the circumstances of language origination.Revelation is all that remains to us, and that revelation has been set forth in clear simple terms. God spoke to Adam first. And in due time Adam learned to speak with God. This is the unique relationship which man has with God, the capacity for conscious fellowship and communication, and all that these imply.For this fellowship he was created, and without it he is like a feral child, an orphan and terribly alone. To communicate with others is necessary for the generation of a soul in the personal sense of the term. To communicate with God it is necessary for that soul to be truly alive, and this kind of communication involves a fellowship based upon a true reconciliation between God and man.43. Genesis 1:3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 22 and 24.
44. Genesis 1:26.
45. Genesis 2:19.
46. Langer, Susanne, ref.27, pp.87, 88.
47. Brown, Roger, Words and Things, Free Press, Collier-Macmillan, London, 1968, p.192.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Koko the gorilla knows sign language. If it's "speech" when a human does it, why is it not "speech" when a gorilla does it?

---

​

Thanks. But its not speech.

---

Huh? Sign language isn't speech? Since when? It's referred to as "verbal" communication even though it doesn't involve sound. Are you saying that unless it is vocalized, it isn't speech?Question: Is Braille "writing"? After all, it isn't taken in visually but is something permanent. If it isn't taken in visually, it's isn't "writing"? If not, if Braille can be "writing" even though it is taken in through touch rather than vision, then why is sign language not "speech"? Just because it isn't oral?And if sign language is "speech," then why does it suddenly become not-speech when a non-human does it?

quote:

---

Its called teaching a dog new tricks.

---

Ah, but Koko is capable of creating new signs and original sentences.Once again, you need to give us your definition of "speech" that somehow excludes non-humans. Be sure not to include "mind" or "body" because you've already said that speech isn't connected to either.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What is your definition of "speech" such that it only applies to humans?

---

​

Trick questions can beget only trick answers, but I'm not going there.

---

Huh? You're the one who is quibbling about what "speech" is. We've given you examples of animals doing exactly what humans do, and yet you continue to claim that what they're doing isn't "speech." Thus, you need to explain what it is you mean by "speech" that excludes these examples.

quote:

---

Definition of Speech is what humans do

---

Why? What is it about being human that makes it speech? Why is it that when a non-human does the exact same thing, it suddenly isn't "speech" anymore?

quote:

---

at what point do degrees cease and a new, different, never before kind develops

---

At the point where something novel has happened. Since we see other animals engaging in behaviour that we identify as "speech" such as the creation of new "words" and unique sentences, we cannot claim that speech is unique to humans.

quote:

---

The notion of presenting Koko the gorilla is saying, without admitting it, tomorrow apes will talk, zebras will sing and parrots will write books.

---

Huh? Who on earth said that? Haven't you been paying attention? Part of the reason that other apes haven't developed vocal speech is due to their physiology. Part of the reason humans do so well with vocalizations is because we're upright. We have much more control over the diaphragm because it isn't compressed due to a bent-over posture.Chimpanzees laugh and humans laugh, but chimpanzees can't laugh multiple "ha's" on a single breath: Hahaha. Instead, each "ha" is on a single breath: Ha. Ha. Ha.Oh, by the way: Chimpanzees that have been taught sign language will teach it to their offspring and they will pick it up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. You have to teach a child to speak. In fact, if you don't teach a child to speak, they will eventually become incapable of ever learning how.

---

​

Maybe.

---

No, not "maybe." Studies of children who have been severely neglected show that they never gain language ability.

quote:

---

We know that animals and birds can perform voice phonations better and greater than humans, and that they can communicate, have brains, recognise their environment and kin - but still not possess speech.

---

Why not? What is it about "speech" that makes it off-limits to other animals? If they're doing the exact same thing that we're doing, why isn't it "speech"?What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:

---

Animals can express hunger and grief, and be made to allign their actions to win a certain benefit. There's a bear in a russian circus which says 'PLEASE, PLEASE!' - an emulation of a phonetic human speech - which begets the bear a prize: sugar.

---

And what, pray tell, was Koko's "prize" for talking about her dead pet? Be specific. Since you seem to know so much about her, you should be able to tell us why she did what she did. There was no food to be had. There was no danger about. There was no "prize."So why is what she did not "speech"?What is your definition of "speech"?

quote:

---

The best definition of human speech is the absence of a single life form to do so.

---

Except that we see other animals doing it. So why isn't it "speech"?What is your definition of "speech"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

WHY IS THE LAST KNOWN, MOST RECENT LIFE FORM SPEECH ENDOWED?

---

We don't know. Speech is transitory, a function of the present moment. It doesn't exist beyond the moment in time in which it is uttered. It is what separates it from "writing."

quote:

---

WHY DID OTHERS NOT ADAPT LIKEWISE?

---

Others have. Dolphins have speech.

quote:

---

DOES IT MEAN, OTHER LIFE FORMS WILL DO SO IN THE FUTURE - AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF NOT?

---

Who knows? Why does it have to "mean" anything?

quote:

---

IF A LIFE FORM CAN ADAPT TO STAND UPRIGHT [GORILLAS] - WHEN WILL GORILLAS LEARN SPEECH

---

Who knows? What makes you think gorillas are becoming upright?Are we back to the seeming claim that speech is necessarily vocal? That sign langauge isn't speech despite what all linguists say?

quote:

---

IS ADAPTATION A SELECTIVE PROCESS - VIABLE ONLY IF IT ALLIGNS WITH TOE - AND NOT ACKNOWEDGED WHEN IT DOES NOT?

---

Huh? Non sequitur. Please rephrase. You seem to have combined two thoughts into a single sentence but they don't go together.

quote:

---

ARE ANY ATTRIBUTES IN ANY LIFE FORMS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ADAPTATION AS PER TOE?

---

What do you mean by "attribute"?

quote:

---

HOW SIGNIFICANT IS TIME IN ADAPTATION?

---

Depends. We have seen reproductive isolation in as few as 13 generations.

quote:

---

IS ADAPTATION TRUE SCIENCE - AND HOW DOES IT RATIFY SPEECH?

---

Again, you are combining multiple thoughts into a single sentence.First, of course adaptation is amenable to science. It is because of science that we can analyze adaptive processes.As for speech, we have seen how changes in morphology have an effect upon speech. Now, there are multiple factors involved in adaptive change. The ability to communiate more effectively certainly is an evolutionary pressure.

quote:

---

IS TOE AND ITS DEPENDENT FACTORS VIABLE IF SPEECH IS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT?

---

No.

quote:

---

IS SPEECH AN ANOMOLY?

---

No.Now, would you please give us your definition of "speech"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Denial does not make it so, all it shows is that you are in denial.AND (as noted) we are not talking about recognizing offspring but about communicating complex concepts. It is obvious that you have not observed the video, and it appears that you have missed the speech communication in it.Answers to questions like "what color bigger" and "what material green" mean complex understanding and communication of the ideas.When Alex asks to "go back now" or for water or a nut, he is not responding to test conditions but communicating what he wants with speech. According to this definition of speech the various communications used by Alex qualify. You need to show how you can include humans and exclude Alex in your assessment.As I said before it is a matter of degree, or your definition will require you begging the question to exclude animals in favor of humans. See now, when you include humans in your definition of what speech is then you are begging the question. This is like saying that "all blocks are red" and then defining "blocks" to be "cube like solids that are red" -- it's a logical fallacy and not science.The answer to the question "how many green blocks" when the tray has green and other blocks and green and other not block items requires science (observation and testing), math (counting and adding) and philosophy (logic) to answer.You still have not provided a definition that distinguishes the "speech" from Alex from that of humans (except when you include humans only in the definition). As pointed out this means that Koko communicates as much as a human mute. Note that once again you beg the question by including human in your definition. If you only include human actions in your definition then you are begging the question. Except that this is totally at odds with the evidence. All the apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas) that have been taught sign language and the use of symbols to communicate do in fact emulate what humans do. They also talk about complex concepts and introduce ideas of their own. The evidence invalidates your position of human uniqueness. And again this is totally at odds with the evidence. All the animals in speech studies (the apes, parrots, dolphins, etc) are able to recognize, understand and interact with speech. Once again the evidence invalidates your position of human uniqueness. Nope. There is, however, motive for you to provide substantiation and evidence that your position is correct, but so far all you have done is blow smoke, deny the evidence and beg the question. So far all the evidence invalidates your position of human uniqueness. But that is also not what the speech studies cover -- they have nothing to do with learning to run mazes for cheese. They do have to do with intelligence, recognizing colors, being able to count and make logical conclusions. You have not (yet) shown in any way that there in any exclusivity to the speech of humans, and the evidence is otherwise. So this is what we do for mute humans? Teach a dog new tricks? How is it different when done by a human and when done by Koko? So far that's the only "there" you have been. You have not provided any evidence of exclusivity to human speech, you dodge the issue and beg the question. All of these are "tricks" to keep from actually confronting the evidence that refutes your position. There you go begging the question again. You realize that if this is the only way you can distinguish between the speech of humans and the speech of animals that the difference really is only a matter of degree and not a different kind. How do you distinguish between mimicry and communication? You test to see if the words are comprehended for thier meaning. Thus the answers to questions like "what material block" and "how many green" means more understanding than just mimicry. Your denial of it and your weak attempt to portray it as just mimicry is only evidence of your denial of the evidence of communication involving complex ideas and concepts.We bring up Alex and his tested ability to communicate through the use of words because it is demonstrably NOT mimicry. But this doesn't answer how the same thing happens with Alex. Speech comes out. Yes, he has been educated, but he was also capable of learning and using the language to communicate complex ideas and concepts. What is different that is unique to humans? Again you do not show that they are different from humans. All you have done is repeat your false assertion regardless of the evidence that invalidates it.And now deal with the evidence of Alex and the communication of complex ideas and concepts that is much more than "sugar please" ... or do you have nothing that relates to the evidence of speech in Alex? Not even humans now? That is taking begging the question to new heights. These are really rather pathetic misrepresentations of evolution rather than any real "enigmas" to worry about. They are also off topic, so I suggest you start a new topic on that issue (you know, like you tried to avoid doing on the speech issue to defend your ridiculous position).Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Now try to find a source based on facts and not wishful thinking and preconceived conclusions.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-dolittle-project.html

quote:

---

Now, researchers from several universities and institutions are working on an effort called the Dr. Dolittle Project, which aims to crack the code of animal communication.

​

In the past three years researchers with the project have captured sounds from a variety of animals, including African elephants, rhinos, horses, chickens, and bottlenose dolphins.

​

Scientists also videotape the animals' corresponding behavior and feed the data into a modified human speech-recognition program.

​

"There is a lot of information”such as individual identification, emotion, and function”that is encoded in their rumbles that we are just beginning to understand," she said.

​

"A lot of people, when they have to go deliver bad news to their boss, they'll get a little nervousness in their voice," she explained. "And you can actually measure the amount of shaking in their voice."

​

Savage found that the same thing happens in elephants: When lower-ranking animals approach dominant ones, their rumble contained a nervous jitter.

​

Savage wondered if elephants that had previously lived together would still communicate, even if the new ranking system separated them.

​

She discovered that the strong social bonds the elephants had previously forged won out.

​

"One of the things that was very clear in all of this is that best friends talk to each other all the time and are more likely to answer a call of their close friend than others," she said.

---

We learn more every year about speech in animals. But it still doesn't answer the question of the speech used by Alex to communicate complex ideas and concepts. Nor does it specifically make speech exclusively a human quality.Thank you for spending all that bandwidth to date without answering the question of Alex and his speech.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? Can you clarify?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

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