language and evolution
RichD
selection of superior traits.
Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
his offspring's, survival advantage? A chicken and egg
situation...
I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
--
Rich
Steven J.
> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> selection of superior traits.
>
do anything at all. Evolution works by modifying features to serve
new purposes better.
>
> Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
> his offspring's, survival advantage? A chicken and egg
> situation...
>
skills our ancestors used for purposes other than speech. Of course,
the use of sounds for communication is present in a great many
species, and presumably is older than primates or even than mammals.
So it's not as though we were talking about full-fledged language
ability springing up among a population that made no attempt to
communicate with one another until then.
Note that even as the abilities that were eventually used for language
evolved, they may have been used for purposes other than language as
they spread through the population: language may be a cultural
invention that made use of abilities we evolved for other purposes.
>
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
>
You do realize, do you not, that those are two different propositions?
>
> --
> Rich
-- Steven J.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
No you did not _think._
Even _if_ your claim would prove Darwin's theory wrong (without checking any
other replies to your OP I dare say that your claim will get torn to shreds
very soon), all this would mean would be that... Darwin was wrong.
Looooong way to go from there to "the judeo-christian sadistic monster gawd
jehoover exists".
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Bob D
I wonder if Adam had the power of speech before Eve was created? Or
did he just chat to God? Wonder what language they spoke and what they
said to each other.
'Hey, cool, God, but what's this thing between my legs for?'
'Adam. That's just given me an idea. Just lay down for a bit while I
borrow a rib, will you.'
Dick C
> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> selection of superior traits.
>
> Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
> his offspring's, survival advantage? A chicken and egg
> situation...
Evolution does not go in single large jumps. An increase in
the ability to communicate orally does not mean that a primitive
ape would suddenly be speaking modern english. All it means is that
he would be better able to form sounds, which would in turn make
him better able to pass on information.
>
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
How does proving Darwin wrong prove any thing about the
existance of any god? And, you should also note that it is
your idea of god, not anybody else's.
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
conrad
1.) Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.
2.) Read about complex adaptive systems.
--
conrad
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
Um, are you by any chance under the delusion that "evolution equals
atheism"?
Are you aware that well over two-thirds of the people in the US who
accept evolution and who think creationism is a load of dishonest
horse shit, are theists (as in "not atheists", as in "believe in
God")?
(sigh)
No WONDER everyone thinks creationists are pig-ignorant putzes.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
DJT
> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> selection of superior traits.
Well, traits that are more likely to result in reproductive success.
Whether they are "superior" is a judgement call.
>
> Now, how about language?
How about it?
> This is inherently a group
> activity, is it not?
More or less.
> If an individual (ape or similar)
> receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> no one to talk to... hmmmm..
Just like the first person to speak French had no one to talk
to.....
>.. where exactly is his, and
> his offspring's, survival advantage?
In being able to communicate better. Communication goes beyond
language, and traits such as language ability don't evolve in a
vacuum. They are part of a larger picture.
> A chicken and egg
> situation...
Eggs existed for millions of years before chickens came along.
>
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
Then you think wrong. Darwin was right, and I believe God exists.
Darwin being wrong doesn't mean God exists, and Darwin being right
doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
DJT
Mark VandeWettering
> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> selection of superior traits.
Among other things, but okay as far as it goes...
> Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
> his offspring's, survival advantage? A chicken and egg
> situation...
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has been answered
definitively. Eggs predate chickens.
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
You might think you have proven something. You might even think you are
thinking. But you are mistaken.
>
> --
> Rich
>
R. Baldwin
news:3aa39ace-cc5e-48f9...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It's not as if such an individual would be unable to communicate. Even among
humans, most communiction is non-verbal: eye contact, gesture, posture,
facial expression, non-verbal sounds, etc. But there is no expectation that
the ability to speak just popped up in a single generation. A population
might gain finer nuances in audible communication over time.
TomS
<3aa39ace-cc5e-48f9...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, RichD
stated..."
>
>Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
>selection of superior traits.
>
>Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
>activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
>receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
>no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
>his offspring's, survival advantage? A chicken and egg
>situation...
"The chicken or the egg" is an age-old problem for
creationism, which has as its only "solution", as far as I
know, in "omphalism". Omphalism is the concept that
the world was created with the appearance of age: Adam
created with a navel, trees created with tree rings, starlight
created along a path from a star.
"The chicken or the egg" concept has, historically, been
used to argue against the origins of the *individual*,
against the idea of the actual development of the embryo.
See:
<http://www.talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
>
>I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Dustan
On Jan 12, 11:04 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> selection of beneficial traits.
>
> Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> receives a gene that improves communication skills,
> independent of any language, then he may have more
> productive interactions with other individuals. A Nelson
> Mandela situation...
>
> I think this proves Darwin was right and God exists.
Further improvement could be accomplished as follows:
[snip]
But I don't think that's quite what you were looking for.
Timberwoof
<3aa39ace-cc5e-48f9...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> selection of superior traits.
>
> Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
> his offspring's, survival advantage? A chicken and egg
> situation...
I think your leap is a bit too big there. "Language skills" isn't a
single on/off illiterate/Shakespeare gene, but a vast collection of
traits it will take a long time to untangle. A lot of animals already
have some of the behaviors required. Moose foals and mares can recognize
each other by vice. Wolves have specific howls with with they
communicate. And those are just two simple examples.
> I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
I'm think your leap here is vast and unsubstantiated. There are also two
huge errors in it. First, yes, there are a lot of questions about how
humans developed advanced language abilities and a lot more questions
about how languages change and develop, but these in no way invalidate
the theory of evolution; there's too much other evidence for it. Second,
even if you did manage to invalidate evolution, that's all you'd
accomplish. Disproving evolution doesn't prove that God exists. You
haven't even presented any evidence for God.
Maybe you could define God for us and present some theory by which one
could experimentally verify His existence?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Timberwoof
<a137c495-51e4-478d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
DJT <mouse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:04 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> > selection of superior traits.
>
> Well, traits that are more likely to result in reproductive success.
> Whether they are "superior" is a judgement call.
>
> >
> > Now, how about language?
>
> How about it?
>
> > This is inherently a group
> > activity, is it not?
>
> More or less.
>
> > If an individual (ape or similar)
> > receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> > no one to talk to... hmmmm..
>
> Just like the first person to speak French had no one to talk
> to.....
Which proves that no one actually speaks French. Have you ever been to
France? No one can understand a word they're saying! Therefore no one
speaks French. Therefore none of the French received that gene.
Therefore God exists.
}: ) ;-)
Richard Harter
Interesting - this sounds suspiciously like a Loki post.
er...@swva.net
If Darwin was wrong, then how _did_ evolution happen? And why do you
suddenly stick in an off-topic, off-the-wall non sequitur such as "God
exists?"
Eric Root
AC
Fortunately we can be reasonably sure that language did not evolve in the
way which you say it did.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
David Hare-Scott
"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:478b1778...@news.sbtc.net...
> >I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
>
>
> Interesting - this sounds suspiciously like a Loki post.
>
>
Oh that such wickedness could be! I can't believe there were a dozen serious
replies to this bit of fluff.
David
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Alas, the problem with Loki's is that there are NO arguments that are
SOOOO silly or stupid or idiotic that creationists somewhere aren't
repeating them in all utter seriousness . . . . .
RichD
> > Evolution supposedly works by random mutation, then
> > selection of superior traits.
>
> > Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> > activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> > receives a gene with improved language skills, but has
> > no one to talk to... hmmmm.... where exactly is his, and
> > his offspring's, survival advantage?
>
>
> Fortunately we can be reasonably sure that language did not
> evolve in the way which you say it did.
Language ability did not evolve via genetic mutations?
Therefore Darwin was indeed wrong?
God is pleased....
--
Rich
Dustan
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Dustan
Ignore the other one. It's an either...or fallacy, but I can't find it
on Wikipedia.
AC
I never said that. The poster's "model" of the evolution of language is
oversimplified to the point of absurdity. It's the linguistic version of
"amoebas jumped out of the primordial goo" line that Creationists use.
RichD
> >>> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation,
> >>> then selection of superior traits.
>
> >>>Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> >>>activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> >>>receives a gene with improved language skills,
> >>>his offspring's, survival advantage?
>
> >>>I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
>
> >>Fortunately we can be reasonably sure that
> >>language did not evolve in the way which you say it did.
>
> > Language ability did not evolve via genetic mutations?
> > Therefore Darwin was indeed wrong?
> > God is pleased....
>
> I never said that. The poster's "model" of the
> evolution of language is oversimplified to the point of
> absurdity. It's the linguistic version of "amoebas
> jumped out of the primordial goo" line that
> Creationists use.
IC
So your pseudo-answer amounts to "I can't
answer your question with any substance, but it's
absurd, trust me."
oh Kayyyyyy...
PS 'the evolution of language' is a separate concept
than 'the biological evolution of language capability'.
fyi
--
Rich
Dustan
> On Jan 16, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> Evolution supposedly works by random mutation,
> > >>> then selection of superior traits.
>
> > >>>Now, how about language? This is inherently a group
> > >>>activity, is it not? If an individual (ape or similar)
> > >>>receives a gene with improved language skills,
> > >>>but has no one to talk to... where exactly is his, and
> > >>>his offspring's, survival advantage?
>
> > >>>I think this proves Darwin was wrong and God exists.
>
> > >>Fortunately we can be reasonably sure that
> > >>language did not evolve in the way which you say it did.
>
> > > Language ability did not evolve via genetic mutations?
> > > Therefore Darwin was indeed wrong?
> > > God is pleased....
>
> > I never said that. The poster's "model" of the
> > evolution of language is oversimplified to the point of
> > absurdity. It's the linguistic version of "amoebas
> > jumped out of the primordial goo" line that
> > Creationists use.
>
> IC
> So your pseudo-answer amounts to "I can't
> answer your question with any substance, but it's
> absurd, trust me."
So your pseudo-answer amounts to "I can't answer most of these
posters, so I'll pick the weakest argument."
Dustan
No offense to Aaron; a better wording would perhaps have been "so I'll
pick out the one argument I can develop a response to".
Occidental
OK, I'll bite: if AC's response is the weakest, which is the
strongest?
(actually AC's response is not a weak answer, it is a non-answer, as
RichD rightly points out).
AC
I have no idea why you think it's a pseudo-answer. To elaborate, any theory
on linguistic evolution I've seen involves the notions that the neural
hardware involved in modern human languages was likely co-opted from other
functions. As such, at least a portion of the evolution of languages was
not likely selecting for language at all.
Dustan
In part, I'm sorry I ever said that, because there was an implied
viciousness behind it that I didn't actually intend. So let me
clarify.
I truly felt (and still feel) AC's answer was one of the best, even
though, as you point out, it was effectively a non-answer. At the same
time as being the best, though, his answer was also the most
vulnerable, simply because he didn't fully elaborate. I did afterward
elaborate further that my intended meaning was "the one argument
[RichD could] develop a response to".
Even though AC's answer was a non-answer, I would rate his post as
pretty much identical in quality to about 95% of posts on
talk.origins, and on equal (as apposed to identical) footing with
about 99% of evolutionist posts (again, with regards to quality), I
overlooked the flaws. Obviously, it was not on equal footing a formal
essay. Nor was it intended to be.
I apologize for any misunderstanding of my words. I don't have an
answer to Occidental's question, simply because the question depends
on a meaning of my words that just wasn't intended.