What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
backspace
Inez
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Barbra Bush.
Mitchell Coffey
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Who believes monkey's have ever talked?
Mitchell Coffey
Dan Listermann
"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69997b45-df00-4e65...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
See you are envisioning a being born instantly being capable of speech.
Your creationists need for instantaneous changes is probably making you
incapable of considering that speech was a result of a long evolution
improving as it went.
.
Woland
> On Nov 20, 1:04 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Very much like its mom.
> Who believes monkey's have ever talked?
>
> Mitchell Coffey
<cue argument for humans being monkeys based on cladistics>
Reddfrogg
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Undoubtedly like the "first talking monkey" itself. I.e. like a
anatomically modern human.
Why do you ask?
DJT
Kermit
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Whom did the first French speaker talk to?
Answer my question, and you answer yourself.
Kermit
His Highness Comandante Banana, King of the Apes I & Chief of Quixotic Enterprises
She looked like a monkey too, but went around with a parrot.
Bruce Stephens
And why ask exactly the same question again? (Didn't he ask this very
question a year or so ago?)
RAM
I share your bias.
TomS
<4de6aae9-68ef-4e4e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Reddfrogg
stated..."
What language did the mother of the first French speaker use with
her child?
Which was first, the chicken or the egg?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
raven1
<savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 10:04 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the category of "Astute Political Analysis":
Inez
Taking you seriously for some odd reason, what do you consider
"talking?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Spot-nosed_Monkey
These monkeys seem to have a primative language. I assume these sort
of languages evolved along with monkeys and apes.
chris thompson
> "On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 11:04=A0am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
> >Undoubtedly like the "first talking monkey" itself. I.e. like a
> >anatomically modern human.
>
> >Why do you ask?
>
> >DJT
>
> What language did the mother of the first French speaker use with
> her child?
>
> Which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Oh, the egg of course. All those invertebrates, you know...the chicken
is a johnny-come-lately.
Chris
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<69997b45-df00-4e65...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
It's mom.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
David Hare-Scott
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
How did it dance when the band played a foxtrot?
What coloured hat did it wear to church?
Which finger did it use to pick its nose?
Did it smoke a pipe or filter tips?
And most important: could it spell 'tautology'?
So many crucial and unanswered questions....
David
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bruce Stephens
<bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>:
Of course. He thinks (?) that everyone shares his IQ.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
There was no "first" in the sense (actually, lack of sense)
you mean. What language was spoken by the mother of the
first French speaker?
How many times are you going to post this idiocy?
Desertphile
Monkeys do talk. Baby monkeys even babble before they learn to
talk, just like baby birds do.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Dear shit for brains. Are you claiming you have never seen a
monkey?
Mark Evans
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 11:04=A0am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
> >Undoubtedly like the "first talking monkey" itself. I.e. like a
> >anatomically modern human.
>
> >Why do you ask?
>
> >DJT
>
> What language did the mother of the first French speaker use with
> her child?
>
> Which was first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Being a literal thinker I always answered the chicken/egg query with
"egg" since there were egg-laying critters well before birds, of which
chickens are a subset. I do confess that, when very young, I answered
the same way but for a different reason. We had eggs for breakfast
and chicken was a dinner food so of course the egg was first. I
wonder if the introduction of breakfast chicken sandwiches will affect
children's reasoning in this issue.
mark "scrambled with a little ramp, please" evans
Steven L.
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Like a female monkey with a speech impediment.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
All-seeing-I
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
There is no such thing.
Boikat
Is this one of those inane challenges that, if not met, disproves the
ToE
So much for your claim of an IQ in the 170 range.
Boikat
John Harshman
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
try again.
There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception. Children
differ only slightly from parents, but huge differences can accumulate
from slight changes over many generations. So there was no first talking
monkey, no first human, no first chimpanzee, or any other of your
bizarre misunderstandings.
Let me remind you of a simple analogy. Who was the first speaker of
French? How did he manage to communicate with his parents, who spoke
Latin? Even you should realize that those questions are ridiculous,
because Latin gradually transformed into French, with no parent-child
pair being unable to understand each other (at least not more than any
modern parent and child are unable to understand each other).
Do you understand that?
Ye Old One
>What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
I've never come across a talking monkey. Have you?
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Greg G.
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
An All-Seeing-I.
backspace
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:04:05 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>
> >What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
> There was no "first" in the sense (actually, lack of sense)
> you mean. What language was spoken by the mother of the
> first French speaker?
False analogy because the mother of the first French speaker could at
least speak a language - any language. But since there was a time when
monkeys couldn't talk at some point we had to have the first talking
monkey: What did its mother look like to an observer back then ?
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
> This is your usual fallacy. It's been explained to you many times, and
> yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
> try again.
> There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
> gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
Evolution or natural selection?
> Who was the first speaker of French?
Lets extend the question back to Latin, Sirian until the very first
language, lets call it "Fanagalo."
What did the first speaker of Fanagalo mom look like? By definition
having a first language means somebody had to speak it, now what did
his mom look like? It implies that the first language was simply given
and the first mom was Eve made by Jesus Christ speaking her into
existence.
Burkhard
Correct analogy. It is to some extend arbitrary where you draw the
line between "French" and the language from which French gradually
evolved. Similarly, it is to some extend arbitrary where you draw the
line between the type of sound based communication in grunts and
shouts that you observe in monkeys and football fans, and "proper"
languauge that evolved form these grunts and shouts.
You can see this e.g. in the fact that the shout of apes that warns
the others of a predator is still experienced as alarming and
upsetting by us - in musical theory, is is te "tritonus diavolus" and
can be used to grea effect.
The mother, of curse looked to an observer just like her child.
backspace
> The mother, of curse looked to an observer just like her child.
thus a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey?
Boikat
How about "what's your point?"
If the some "exact species' cannot be named, are you going to then
happily proclaim that "evolution is false?
Boikat
Boikat
Essentially, yes, if you want to put it that way. Just on't forget
that the "talking monkey" was slightly different than it's parents,
and was able to pass that trait on to it's offspring.
Boikat
Frank J
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
OK, first Nashton is reduced to cheerleader of trolls, now you're
reduced to a cheap imitation of one. Ask yourself, "What good is a
Half-Seeing-I"? ;-)
Burkhard
If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
and so on and so forth. That process continues of course, it may well
be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
advantage, etc etc. Somewhere along the way, we call what we find
somewhat arbitrarily "language" - which even today has a full
continuum from Marines or footbal players grunting on one end to Lord
Tennyson on the other
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
the very question shows he doesn't understand how evolution works.
populations evolve. individuals don't.
but, i guess if you're a creationist, with 2000 years of failure under
your belt, any stupid question is valid
Reddfrogg
You seem to forget that talking is not the only way to communicate.
Even modern day monkeys can make sounds, and communicate by sounds.
It's not that big a step to language.
>What did its mother look like to an observer back then ?
Again, it's mother looked like her child.
DJT
TomS
<53527f02-4f9b-48da...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Mark Evans
stated..."
>
>On Nov 20, 2:13=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), in article
>frogg
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 20, 11:04=3DA0am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>>
>> >anatomically modern human.
>>
>> >Why do you ask?
>>
>> >DJT
>>
>> What language did the mother of the first French speaker use with
>> her child?
>>
>> Which was first, the chicken or the egg?
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
> due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
>Being a literal thinker I always answered the chicken/egg query with
>"egg" since there were egg-laying critters well before birds, of which
>chickens are a subset. I do confess that, when very young, I answered
>the same way but for a different reason. We had eggs for breakfast
>and chicken was a dinner food so of course the egg was first. I
>wonder if the introduction of breakfast chicken sandwiches will affect
>children's reasoning in this issue.
>
>mark "scrambled with a little ramp, please" evans
>
I have a memory of being asked this by my grandmother when I was
quite young, and I of course replied that the chicken evolved
from a non-chicken, so the chicken was preceded by non-chicken
eggs. As I recall, this answer was not well received.
What is the official creationist solution?
Which was created, chickens, or eggs?
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 21, 3:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
> > This is your usual fallacy. It's been explained to you many times, and
> > yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
> > try again.
> > There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
> > gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
>
> Evolution or natural selection?
Evolution is the process. Natural selection is part of the mechanism
of that process.
>
> > Who was the first speaker of French?
>
> Lets extend the question back to Latin, Sirian until the very first
> language, lets call it "Fanagalo."
> What did the first speaker of Fanagalo mom look like?
Like her child, as has been explained to you before.
>By definition
> having a first language means somebody had to speak it, now what did
> his mom look like? It implies that the first language was simply given
> and the first mom was Eve made by Jesus Christ speaking her into
> existence.
Actually, if you look at the Bible story, Eve wasn't "spoke" into
existence, she was made from Adam's rib. Jesus hadn't come along by
that time. Also, the whole "first language" thing is part of your
fallacy.
DJT
John Harshman
> On Nov 21, 3:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
>> This is your usual fallacy. It's been explained to you many times, and
>> yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
>> try again.
>
>> There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
>> gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
>
> Evolution or natural selection?
I was talking about evolution. Natural selection is of course one of the
mechanisms of evolution.
>> Who was the first speaker of French?
> Lets extend the question back to Latin, Sirian until the very first
> language, lets call it "Fanagalo."
> What did the first speaker of Fanagalo mom look like? By definition
> having a first language means somebody had to speak it, now what did
> his mom look like? It implies that the first language was simply given
> and the first mom was Eve made by Jesus Christ speaking her into
> existence.
Or perhaps there was no "first language". Perhaps language evolved
gradually and there was no single point at which you could say it's a
language now, but a moment ago it was just a set of signals. That's your
habitual fallacy again. You seem unable to imagine that gradual
transformations can exist, even when you are presented with examples.
Many monkeys have fairly elaborate systems of verbal communication with,
for example, different alarm calls for eagles, snakes, and jaguars.
Modern humans have complex languages. Are you unable to imagine
intermediates, more than alarm calls, less than language?
Reddfrogg
Someone gave birth to you, apparently...
DJT
stew dean
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
I don't know - I didn't know we had talking monkeys. You might mean
apes I suspect - different type of creature.
hersheyh
Apes are still "'monkeys'. And monkeys are still primates. And
primates are still eutherian mammals. And still mammals (inclusive of
montremes and marsupials). And still tetrapods. And vertebrates.
And metazoan animals. And eucaryotes. And living organisms.
hersheyh
> On Nov 20, 11:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:04:05 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> > <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> > >What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
> > There was no "first" in the sense (actually, lack of sense)
> > you mean. What language was spoken by the mother of the
> > first French speaker?
>
> False analogy because the mother of the first French speaker could at
> least speak a language - any language.
Good analogy because it points out that there is a fuzzy boundary and
not a bright line boundary between a person who speaks a language we
have arbitrarily decided to call French, even though it would contain
a much greater degree of Latin than modern French does, and a person
who speaks a language we have arbitrarily called Latin, even though it
contains significant elements of French. The mother and child spoke
*almost* the same language, one with elements of both French and
Latin. We must *arbitrarily* declare one (the mother's) language
Latin (with a lot of French) and the child's language French (with a
lot of Latin). They would have no problem understanding each other.
Similarly species formation (with certain exceptions like polyploidy
and allopolyploidy speciation) generally has intermediate stages that
are just as fuzzy.
> But since there was a time when
> monkeys couldn't talk at some point we had to have the first talking
> monkey: What did its mother look like to an observer back then?
Monkeys, particularly those that live in tribes, talk to each other
(warning calls, among other things). They do not have human
languages. So tell me what you mean by "talking"? Do you think,
creationist that you are, that evolution somehow requires that we have
a completely mute monkey giving birth to a monkey spouting Aramaic or
English? That would certainly fit with creationist 'thought'.
backspace
> If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
> communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
> one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
> between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
> differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
> and so on and so forth.
From which monkey bone did you derive such an elaborate explanation?
To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
> That process continues of course, it may well
> be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
> parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
> advantage, etc etc.
"conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
here: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
backspace
> Monkeys, particularly those that live in tribes, talk to each other
> (warning calls, among other things). They do not have human
> languages. So tell me what you mean by "talking"? Do you think,
> creationist that you are, that evolution somehow requires that we have
> a completely mute monkey giving birth to a monkey spouting Aramaic or
> English? That would certainly fit with creationist 'thought'.
After reading all of this: From what monkey bone did you derive this
tale?
backspace
> Or perhaps there was no "first language". Perhaps language evolved
> gradually and there was no single point at which you could say it's a
> language now, but a moment ago it was just a set of signals.
From which monkey bone did you derive this, where was it established?
backspace
> On Nov 21, 2:17 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > backspace wrote:
> > > > What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
> > > This is your usual fallacy. It's been explained to you many times, and
> > > yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
> > > try again.
> > > There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
> > > gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
>
> > Evolution or natural selection?
>
> Evolution is the process. Natural selection is part of the mechanism
> of that process.
Do you mean the John burroughs version of NS:
[[JohnBurroughs]] in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...
backspace
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:04:05 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
> the very question shows he doesn't understand how evolution works.
> populations evolve. individuals don't.
But a population consists of individuals.....
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 21, 2:59 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
> > communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
> > one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
> > between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
> > differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
> > and so on and so forth.
>
> From which monkey bone did you derive such an elaborate explanation?
Why does it have to be a bone? There's plenty of observations from
living populations of monkeys and apes.
> To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
> be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
One doesn't have to disprove it, as no one is claiming that's exactly
how it happened. What it does is disprove your own suggestion that it
couldn't have happened.
>
> > That process continues of course, it may well
> > be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
> > parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
> > advantage, etc etc.
>
> "conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
> making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
> here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
Natural selection selects for traits that give an advantage, and
traits are known to be passed on to generations. There's no
tautology involved.
DJT
Reddfrogg
Why would one need a bone to establish this? Are you not aware that
evidence for evolution comes not only from fossils but from many other
sources, including study of animal behavior?
DJT
g...@risky-biz.com
I like this. It is mildly on topic:
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/magic-trick-clips/244f21aa750e5dedf24732fae61e1397
Reddfrogg
Yes, but those individuals don't change their genetic make up during
their lifetime. That's why it's populations that evolve, not
individuals.
DJT
Reddfrogg
I don't know John Burroughs, and I don't see why it's relevant.
Darwin didn't say that they eye 'made him shudder' and natural
selection is not chance. Darwin pointed out that the eye could well
have evolved though various stages, with slight improvements having
selectional advantage.
>Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...
Why should the opinion of one person, who apparently doesn't
understand that natural selection is not chance, matter?
DJT
Reddfrogg
Again, why this obsession with bones? There are other lines of
evidence for evolution other than just fossils.
DJT
bpuharic
let me type this slowly so you can read it
i mentioned individuals above. individuals can't evolve. their
genetic profile is fixed
populations have variable genetic profiles. they can change. that's
how evolution happens
OK i typed this vvveeerrrrryyyy slowly
did you understand it?
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 2:59 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
>> communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
>> one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
>> between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
>> differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
>> and so on and so forth.
>
>From which monkey bone did you derive such an elaborate explanation?
>To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
>be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
>
you ever been to a singles bar?
you think speech has zip to do with reproduction?
hersheyh
> On Nov 21, 2:59 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
> > communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
> > one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
> > between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
> > differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
> > and so on and so forth.
>
> From which monkey bone did you derive such an elaborate explanation?
No bone, but a brain (an organ you seem to have damaged). Real modern
monkeys do, in fact communicate with each other. They do so to a
greater or lesser degree. These are *quantitative* differences, not
*qualitative* ones.
> To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
> be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
We are indeed inferring that the ancestors to both modern monkeys and
the specific great ape offshoot you are interested in were able to
communicate verbally, as all their currently living progeny are able
to do so to a *quantitatively* greater or lesser degree. It is
inference (based on common anatomy and the above mentioned currently
living species) because vocalizations are rather poorly fossilized.
But it is hardly a wild speculation. In fact, *your* speculation that
there was some monkey that could not verbally communicate had an
offspring that not only could verbally communicate but could do so to
the quantitatively much greatly extent (had a complex vocalization
capacity) that modern humans can is what is wild speculation based on
no evidence whatsoever (other than the typical creationist demand that
a cat give birth to a whale -- ouch).
> > That process continues of course, it may well
> > be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
> > parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
> > advantage, etc etc.
Again, we do *know* that there is variation in ability to use and
understand language both within and between living species (and that
some of the variance is genetically based). When these variations
occurred during the divergence between species with and those without
a feature is an open question because oral language does not fossilize
well.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091111/full/news.2009.1079.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070529-languages_2.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162146.php
The above is what is called 'empirical evidence.' It is *easy* to
discover that this evidence exists, if you choose to look. Some
people, however, prefer their level of personal ignorance rather than
actually making any effort to question their underlying assumptions.
(Yes. I am talking to you.)
heekster
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:04:05 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>
>>What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
>There was no "first" in the sense (actually, lack of sense)
>you mean. What language was spoken by the mother of the
>first French speaker?
>
Gaulish, Frankish, and of course, vulgar Latin.
In various stages of evolution.
;)
SortingItOut
> On Nov 21, 3:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
> > try again.
> > There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
> > gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
>
> Evolution or natural selection?
>
>
> Lets extend the question back to Latin, Sirian until the very first
> language, lets call it "Fanagalo."
> What did the first speaker of Fanagalo mom look like? By definition
> having a first language means somebody had to speak it, now what did
> his mom look like? It implies that the first language was simply given
> and the first mom was Eve made by Jesus Christ speaking her into
> existence.
There are many examples of animals today that use verbal
communications. Apes, monkeys, birds, groundhogs, etc. What
differentiates your hypothetical first language "Fanagalo" from what
was being spoken in the generation just before it appeared? Please be
specific. Give an example. Do you think that a certain monkey was
able to speak a complete language that its mother was unable to
speak? If so, why do you think that?
hersheyh
Fossils of primates where there is enough evidence show that they had
the bones of the ears that other mammals had. That is evidence that
they could hear vocalizations (as well as ambient sounds). All the
modern monkey species (including the great apes and humans) can also
hear and also can understand vocalizations by their species used as
specific warnings and for other purposes, but to different degrees and
levels of complexity. The inference is that language is not a
*qualitative* and *discrete* difference, but largely a *quantitative*
and *continuous* difference.
BTW: Who invented the word "language" and what did he mean by it?
hersheyh
Yet individuals develop. They do not evolve. That is because an
individual has a genome with a specific set of alleles that he/she/it
was conceived with and not a population of alleles that can vary
quantitatively between birth and death. A population, OTOH, has
alleles in a quantitative fashion that is changeable in a quantitative
fashion between a generation's conception and death depending on the
local conditions. Evolution is an emergent property.
John Harshman
implied claim was that there had to be a discontinuity. I'm merely
suggesting that there is no reason to suppose such a thing, and thus
your critique of evolution is vacuous. See?
I suspect you're snipping most of the argument because you want
desperately not to see it.
Eric Root
> On Nov 21, 12:29 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > The mother, of curse looked to an observer just like her child.
>
> thus a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey?
No, a semi-talking monkey gave birth to a slightly-better talking
monkey, just as now, parents sometimes have kids that are a little
better at something than they are. You should be concerned that you
don't understand this.
Eric Root
Eric Root
>
> > If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
> > communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
> > one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
> > between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
> > differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
> > and so on and so forth.
>
> From which monkey bone did you derive such an elaborate explanation?
> To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
> be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
>
You asked for an explanation. It is irrelevant to start babbling
about bones, determination, and speculation. You were given an
explanation, and are now moving the goalposts. That is dishonest.
> > That process continues of course, it may well
> > be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
> > parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
> > advantage, etc etc.
>
(Snip irrelevant babbling about tautologies.)
Eric Root
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
It is clear that you have never read what Darwin wrote about the eye or
you would not have misrepresented what was written.
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 21, 4:57�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
So what? Individuals do not evolve. They reproduce and their children
are slightly different.
Eric Root
It doesn't come from a monkey bone; it comes from a human brain using
logic to attempt to explain to you.
Eric Root
Eric Root
Backspace, you really have a disability in the area of linguistic
pragmatics. When you ask for an explanation, the appropriate response
to the explanation would be: "Thank you, I understand where I was
mistaken," or, "I'm not sure I understand. Could you give more
examples?" To shift to talking about monkey bones and "where it was
established" is just to display bizarre, schizoid behavior.
Eric Root
backspace
> > > That process continues of course, it may well
> > > be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
> > > parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
> > > advantage, etc etc.
> > "conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
> > making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
> > here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> Natural selection selects for traits that give an advantage, and
> traits are known to be passed on to generations. There's no
> tautology involved.
=== rephrs ===
"... Ninja Turtles selects for traits that give an advantage..."
=== rephrs ===
"... traits that give an advantage are selected for" or "....if
traits provide an advantage they are selected for.."
"selected for" and "advantage" alludes to the same fact ,making your
argument tautological. From this unfalsifiable tale you now draw a non-
sequitur: therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey.
backspace
I wrote a whole article here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
that explains who Burroughs was and what his concept and the concept
Charles Kingsley had with Darwin: Absolute empire of accident. This
might not be your concept but NS has no single true meaning. NS isn't
a concept only you can have a concept, NS would be a semantic device
to communicate your concept in 1922 John burroughs writing in The
Atlantic had a specific concept: "....chance or natural
selection...." He used NS to communicate his interpretation of Darwin
as "chance" , this is also how Osborn understood Darwin in 1924 New
York Times, read my article, I can't do it for you....
backspace
> >Do you mean the John burroughs version of NS:
> >[[JohnBurroughs]] in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
> >Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
> >all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
> >call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
> >eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
> >Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> >they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...
> It is clear that you have never read what Darwin wrote about the eye or
> you would not have misrepresented what was written.
I quoted http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs , take it up
with him.
backspace
> levels of complexity. The inference is that language is not a
> *qualitative* and *discrete* difference, but largely a *quantitative*
> and *continuous* difference.
>
> BTW: Who invented the word "language" and what did he mean by it?
Who has defined what language is.
Woland
I think it may be in the dictionary.
bpuharic
>I wrote a whole article here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>that explains who Burroughs was and what his concept and the concept
>Charles Kingsley had with Darwin: Absolute empire of accident. This
>might not be your concept but NS has no single true meaning. NS isn't
>a concept only you can have a concept, NS would be a semantic device
>to communicate your concept in 1922 John burroughs writing in The
>Atlantic had a specific concept: "....chance or natural
>selection...." He used NS to communicate his interpretation of Darwin
>as "chance" , this is also how Osborn understood Darwin in 1924 New
>York Times, read my article, I can't do it for you....
the guy wrote a whole article on language
but when i asked him if he was different than his parents he pissed
his pants, shrieking that it was 'only a theory' that he was different
and wanted to know who invented that theory
such is creationism
Burkhard
> On Nov 21, 2:59 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
>> communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth to
>> one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle differences
>> between yells, or having a slightly better memory to remember the
>> differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was even better,
>> and so on and so forth.
>
The larynx, mainly. See e.g Lieberman, P., J.T. Laitman, J.S.
Reidenberg, and P.J. Gannon (1992) The anatomy, physiology, acoustics
and perception of speech: Essential elements in analysis of the
evolution of human speech. J. Hum. Evol. 23(6): 447-467.
The Hypoid bone als plays a role, see
Jungers, William L. et al. (August 2003). "Hypoglossal Canal Size in
Living Hominoids and the Evolution of Human Speech" (PDF). Human Biology
75 (4): 473–484. doi:10.1353/hub.2003.0057.
http://www.baa.duke.edu/kay/site/riogallegos/PDFs/j74.pdf. Retrieved
2007-09-10.
Though personally I find observations of current ape species is much
more compelling than the fossil record.
see e.g. Diamond, Jared (1992, 2006). The Third Chimpanzee: The
Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. New York: Harper Perennial.
pp. 141–167 and the observation on vervet monkeys and how they communicate
And for humans, we observe is to some extend in pidginisation and
creolisation on the one hand, and in the use of non-verbal communication
especially when speakers have no common language on the other.
See e.g. McWhorter, John. The Power of Babel: The Natural History of
Language, Random House Group. 2002
> To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
> be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
Sure, a certain degree of speculation is involved, but it is based on
the observation and evidence that we have, and thus beats pretty much
all alternative accounts.
as to how to falsify it: one possible observation was provided by you,
as a matter of fact: if we ever observed that offspring in a species
that does not have any verbal communication suddenly has a fully
developed language, that woudl falsify evolutionary accounts of language
development.
similarly, if we ever found a species that is much more distantly
related to us than the great apes, or monkeys, but has a communication
system that is closer to the one we use than tat of the apes is, taht
woudl be a problem.
>
>> That process continues of course, it may well
>> be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
>> parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
>> advantage, etc etc.
> "conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
> making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
> here: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
And as I pointed out several times, there is hardly a sentence in it
that is not obviously wrong. Starting with the "If you can't find
something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place"
example which is obviously not a tautology and can be falsified easily.
(e.g. the person looking may also be colour blind, and therefore not
spot the object which is right there where she looks)
Nor, of course, is my statement tautological. There is no logical
necessity that what is advantageous is also passed on. Being bilingual
for instance conveys an advantage, but is not necessarily passed on to
one's offspring.
>
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 7:46 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> > > That process continues of course, it may well
>> > > be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
>> > > parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
>> > > advantage, etc etc.
>
>> > "conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
>> > making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
>> > here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
>> Natural selection selects for traits that give an advantage, and
>> traits are known to be passed on to generations. There's no
>> tautology involved.
>
>=== rephrs ===
>"... Ninja Turtles selects for traits that give an advantage..."
notice how his rephrases leave out 'natural selection'.
kind of like saying that someone owes you a million dollars and you're
sitting on their porch 'til they come home....
rephrase: 'you're good friends because you're waiting for your friend'
this is a guy who thinks he's identical to his parents
so among creationists we have this idiot who can't differentiate
between himself and his dad, and 'all seeing' who think creationism
means all jellyfish are sharks
>
>
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 21, 7:46 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That process continues of course, it may well
> > > > be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
> > > > parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys an
> > > > advantage, etc etc.
> > > "conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
> > > making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
> > > here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> > Natural selection selects for traits that give an advantage, and
> > traits are known to be passed on to generations. There's no
> > tautology involved.
>
> === rephrs ===
> "... Ninja Turtles selects for traits that give an advantage..."
"ninja turtles" is the name of a comic book. How is that a reprhase
of what I said?
>
> === rephrs ===
> "... traits that give an advantage are selected for" or "....if
> traits provide an advantage they are selected for.."
Yes, do you have a problem with that?
>
> "selected for" and "advantage" alludes to the same fact ,making your
> argument tautological.
No, it's not. If the traits ,are not beneficial they offer no
advantage. Selected for, and 'advantageous" are not the same
thing.
>From this unfalsifiable tale you now draw a non-
> sequitur: therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey.
Why is it that creationists love to throw around terms they don't
understand. My statment is neither unfalsifiable (you'd just need to
see a lethal trait selected to falsify) or non sequitur.
A 'monkey' ie, a primate gave birth to a "talking" monkey, because the
"monkey" that gave birth could also communicate.
Why is this such a problem for you?
DJT
Reddfrogg
> that explains who Burroughs was and what his concept and the concept
> Charles Kingsley had with Darwin: Absolute empire of accident
So what? Your claims are wrong. Natural selection is not chance.
>This
> might not be your concept but NS has no single true meaning.
Natural selection has a meaning as used by biologists. Why would a
term have to have only one "true meaning"?
>NS isn't
> a concept only you can have a concept, NS would be a semantic device
> to communicate your concept in 1922 John burroughs writing in The
> Atlantic had a specific concept: "....chance or natural
> selection...
Actually, Burroughs died in 1921. That book was published after his
death. In any case, if Burroughs equated natural selection with
chance, he was wrong.
>He used NS to communicate his interpretation of Darwin
> as "chance" , this is also how Osborn understood Darwin in 1924 New
> York Times, read my article, I can't do it for you....
Why should I bother? Both Burroughs and Osborn, if you are
representing them fairly, were wrong. Natural selection is not
chance.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> with him.
Might be a bit difficult, as Burroughs has been dead for nearly 90
years. Darwin himself was not cowed by the complexity of the eye.
He gave a very lucid and plausible account of how the eye could have
evolved.
Quoting 90 year old authors to talk about modern science isn't very
credible
DJT
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 21, 8:45�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
You chose to quote someone quoting someone else when it should have
raised a flag for you. I take it up with you for being lazy and trying
to get away with another dishonest attempt at quote mining.
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 20, 11:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:04:05 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>>
>> There was no "first" in the sense (actually, lack of sense)
>> you mean. What language was spoken by the mother of the
>> first French speaker?
>
>False analogy
Wrong; it's a valid one.
> because the mother of the first French speaker could at
>least speak a language - any language.
And the mother of the first "talking monkey" (actually,
"ape") was an ape which looked very similar to her
offspring. What's your point, if any?
> But since there was a time when
>monkeys couldn't talk at some point we had to have the first talking
>monkey
So you contend that there was no point at which someone
spoke French for the first time, but there was a point at
which a "non-talking-monkey" gave birth to a "talking
monkey"? Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>: What did its mother look like to an observer back then ?
Almost exactly like itself, barring individual variation.
There has been no viable individual in the history of Earth
which didn't look nearly identical to its parents. Why is
this so difficult for you to grasp?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 21, 12:29 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The mother, of curse looked to an observer just like her child.
>
>thus a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey?
Why do you persist in snipping the relevant parts of the
responses to you? Do you wish to be seen to be ignorant by
choice?
Earle Jones
<69997b45-df00-4e65...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
Pagano?
earle
*
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 21, 3:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>> > What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>
>> This is your usual fallacy. It's been explained to you many times, and
>> yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
>> try again.
>
>> There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
>> gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
>
>Evolution or natural selection?
Yes.
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 21, 5:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Or perhaps there was no "first language". Perhaps language evolved
>> gradually and there was no single point at which you could say it's a
>> language now, but a moment ago it was just a set of signals.
>
>From which monkey bone did you derive this, where was it established?
Why do you think a "monkey bone" was involved? Or do you
think at all?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Reddfrogg
<redd...@bresnan.net>:
>On Nov 21, 10:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 6:29 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Monkeys, particularly those that live in tribes, talk to each other
>> > (warning calls, among other things). They do not have human
>> > languages. So tell me what you mean by "talking"? Do you think,
>> > creationist that you are, that evolution somehow requires that we have
>> > a completely mute monkey giving birth to a monkey spouting Aramaic or
>> > English? That would certainly fit with creationist 'thought'.
>>
>> After reading all of this: From what monkey bone did you derive this
>> tale?
>
>Why would one need a bone to establish this? Are you not aware
Not to any great extent; no.
> that
>evidence for evolution comes not only from fossils but from many other
>sources, including study of animal behavior?
>
>DJT
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 21, 5:12 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2:17 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 3:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > backspace wrote:
>> > > > What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>> > > This is your usual fallacy. It's been explained to you many times, and
>> > > yet you never seem to read or understand the explanations. Still, I'll
>> > > try again.
>> > > There is no such thing as the first talking monkey. Evolution is a
>> > > gradual process, and the evolution of speech is no exception.
>>
>> > Evolution or natural selection?
>>
>> Evolution is the process. Natural selection is part of the mechanism
>> of that process.
>
>Do you mean the John burroughs version of NS:
>[[JohnBurroughs]] in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
>Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
>all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
>call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
>eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
>Selection.
What a shame, then, that in the same chapter Darwin
accounted for the eye. Of course, quote mining is nothing
new, especially among those who wish to deny the existence
of evidence.
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 21, 4:57 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:04:05 -0800 (PST), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >What did the first talking monkey's mom look like?
>>
>> the very question shows he doesn't understand how evolution works.
>> populations evolve. individuals don't.
>
>But a population consists of individuals.....
Further evidence of your lack of understanding; thanks.
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 21, 8:45 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
I suspect he's dead by now. And his quotemine doesn't make
your refutation.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
I suspect the misrepresentation was by Burroughs, and BS is
merely parroting something which seems to him to refute
Darwin. Stupid of him, but certainly not unexpected; fundies
do it all the time.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
Of course they do it all the time, but that doesn't excuse them. They
claim the moral high ground and then tunnel under the sewer. When
caught, they act as if it is so unfair for people to notice when they
repeat falsehoods and refuse to learn anything about science.
backspace
> Why is it that creationists love to throw around terms they don't
> understand. My statment is neither unfalsifiable (you'd just need to
> see a lethal trait selected to falsify) or non sequitur.
Lethality is a proxy for "being dead" , there is nothing to select
from the dead dinosaurs being dead, by definition it is impossible
thus to select for T-Rex, he doesn't exist anymore, making the
overarching thrust of your argument unfalsifiable.
backspace
> Natural selection has a meaning as used by biologists. Why would a
> term have to have only one "true meaning"?
You misread it, "NS" like "You have a green light" from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics has no single true meaning. NS
means whatever you want to make it mean.
David Hare-Scott
> On Nov 21, 2:59 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> If you insist on calling it like that. A monkey (ape) that already
>> communicated extremely efficiently with grunts and yells gave birth
>> to one that was marginally better at it, maybe hearing subtle
>> differences between yells, or having a slightly better memory to
>> remember the differences, etc) which then gave birth to one that was
>> even better, and so on and so forth.
>
> To me it seems as you are making this all up, speculating and it can't
> be falsified, how could one disprove the story.
>
>> be that your linguistic abilities are slightly different from your
>> parent's, and if you breed, you may pass this on, and if it conveys
>> an advantage, etc etc.
> "conveys an advantage" and "may pass this on" alludes to the same fact
> making your sentence indisputable and a logical fallacy as explained
> here: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
A world record folks! It only took 4 posts to get from talking monkeys to
tautologies.
Who could have done it but backspce.
David
Mike Lyle
"Reddfrogg" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:480920d5-b69c-416e...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 1:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:45 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > It is clear that you have never read what Darwin wrote about the eye
> > or
> > you would not have misrepresented what was written.
>
> I quotedhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs, take it up
> with him.
Might be a bit difficult, as Burroughs has been dead for nearly 90
years. Darwin himself was not cowed by the complexity of the eye.
He gave a very lucid and plausible account of how the eye could have
evolved.
Quoting 90 year old authors to talk about modern science isn't very
credible
Are you joking? In South Africa, 90-year-old stuff is positively
futuristic. They think the reason nobody can understand Backspace must
be because he's ahead of his time. And he tends to agree with them.
--
Mike.
g...@risky-biz.com
> On Nov 22, 12:02 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > Natural selection has a meaning as used by biologists. Why would a
> > term have to have only one "true meaning"?
>
> means whatever you want to make it mean.
Really? It can mean "mince pie"? Or botulism? Or "don't"?
Let's take the most charitable view of your obsession, uh, argument.
"Words", can indeed take on different meanings depending on context.
Yet in context we rarely have any trouble understanding each other.
Someone might indeed market "Grandpa Charlie's 'Natural Selection'
Meat Pies ("Since 1849")". If they caught on well enough someone might
call across the market aisle "How much are those 'Natural Selections'
there?" That someone might even be a biologist, who might allow
himself a small chuckle. And the pimply-faced teen with the price-gun,
actually a biology student, might suppress a grin when he answers
"3.49 each. Get 'em before they go extinct, I mean, sell out".
And each would go back to their respective studies with absolutely no
confusion about the matter. Our student, faced with the task of
explaining the role of Natural Selection in the speed of both the
cheetah and its prey, would not freeze up with visions of pies
swimming in his head. And if after the exam his cute lab partner
invites him over to her room -- it's filled with rose petals and lit
candles -- and says "You have a green light, Harold", he probably
won't think about optics or traffic laws either.
Humans communicate. You dissect fragments of speech in order to argue
that there is some sort of confusion, when the whole would be
perfectly clear. And you extend the absurdity by claiming that how we
express something in words affects the truth of the concept itself.
The phrase "Natural Selection" is ambiguous, thus Natural Selection
doesn't happen.
Now, instead of addressing any of that you'll treat us to a monkey
bone or a tautology ("the study of tight things")
Greg Guarino
Dana Tweedy
What I was saying that it would falsify natural selection if lethal traits
were selected for. That does not mean dead species.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 22, 12:02 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Natural selection has a meaning as used by biologists. Why would a
>> term have to have only one "true meaning"?
>
> You misread it, "NS" like "You have a green light" from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics has no single true meaning.
The point is that many words have more than one meaning. Why would you
expect "natural selection" to have only one "true" meaning?
> NS
> means whatever you want to make it mean.
No. Natural selection, as used by scientists, means the environmental
factors that affect reproductive potential. It does not mean "chance".
DJT
Bob Casanova
I wasn't trying to imply that it excused them, only that it
was apparently Burroughs, not backspecies, who
misrepresented Darwin, and that such behavior (quoting any
source, no matter how dishonest, which seems to validate
their chosen beliefs) is only to be expected of the twits
who believe themselves to be "God's chosen".