More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 13:51 (3175 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Because Nagel's book is a reason to recognize that any theory of evolution, to be complete, must include an explanation for consciousness, and none does so far. 
Dhw: There is as yet no theory of any kind that can explain consciousness, but that does not invalidate the theory of evolution, which claims that all organisms apart from the very first have descended from earlier organisms. (You and I have accepted this.) We are all perfectly aware that there is no “complete” theory about the origin of the first cells, the origin of consciousness, or how evolution works. How can there be a “complete” theory when we don't have all the facts? These are the subjects we've been discussing for the last eight years, so you really don't need to keep on sniping at Darwin or propping yourself up on Nagel!-I have reproduced the whole paragraph, since most of your response below simply repeats my own argument.-DAVID: My 'sniping' at Darwin is to reduce your dependence on him. He made a tremendous contribution based on the evidence he had, and it turns out most of his suppositions are wrong, and you now admit them. RM and NS don't explain evolution. His key remaining contribution is the acceptance of common descent, but not how it works.-My “dependence” on Darwin is limited to the theory of common descent and the fact that natural selection explains why some organisms survive and others don't. We agreed years ago that we do not accept random mutations and gradualism. You are flogging a dead horse.
 
DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...]-Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit. Or do you think your God preprogrammed these too 3.8 billion years ago?
 
DAVID: [...] I'm sure you will point out that most animals make meaningful sounds which in your mind will mitigate Denton's point. This again is different in kind. A horse nickers at me to say hello, but we don't go on to discuss breakfast! He uses body language for that.-Of course humans use human language and horses use horse language, and some organisms use chemical signals, and bees dance. As with every aspect of our culture, we have developed the basics into colossally complex structures. A sparrow builds a simple nest, and we build skyscrapers. A sparrow tweets, and we transform sounds into a vast vocabulary and myriad linguistic structures. How? See below.-DAVID: Of course we only know current history to see expressions of language, but he claims no one has expressed an evolutionary mechanism for its development...It would need a machine gun fire of mutations to create the complexity we see in such a short time.-Then let me offer a possible explanation. Other organisms work perfectly well within their existing range of language, but humans - with their additional layers of consciousness - constantly seek to expand their range. Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds. And once the machinery is there, the development is almost limitless. Eventually (a concrete analogy), some particularly intelligent humans even find a way to preserve the information that has been embodied in sounds, and they invent writing. And in no time at all (geologically speaking) you have zillions of books. This “mechanism” (writing) also undergoes intelligently organized mutations, but they are simply developments from the original invention.-DAVID: He quotes comments by Tattersall and Gould as supporting the possibility of saltation.-Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. Darwin, we think, got it wrong. Another dead horse.-DAVID: More evidence of difference in kind, and perhaps God's hand. Denton is agnostic and very anti-Darwin.-Yes, God may have created the (hypothetical) original inventive, intelligent, autonomous mechanism that has enabled all organisms to do their own inventing. I find that more convincing than God (hypothetically) providing the first cells with a programme for every possible evolutionary development for every type of organism in every type of environment, apparently now including a guide to syntax.