More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 15:05 (3175 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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.-According to Denton what replaces mutations might be an internal rearrangement of primal structures, not the functionalism of natural selection which is a survival mechanism analysis. Competition between types may not really apply even though it seems logical. Raup pointed out in his book, each extinction was more bad luck than bad genes!
> 
> DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...]
> 
> dhw: 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?-We do not know that weaver ancestors did anything of the kind. This is only in your imagination. We only know our brain had to greatly enlarge to allow for language to be spoken heard and written, requiring plastic modifications in the motor area, the auditory area, the optic area. Not to forget the physical changes required as noted by McCrone: high arched palate, dropped larynx with epiglottis, more mobile tongue, stronger lip muscles, more powerful throat muscles to help control 'bites of air' that allow us to speak up to 200 words a minute, while the chimp has none of these anatomical changes and grunts one sound at a time. And as Denton notes, no specific language genes have been found. Again it leads to saltation as a consideration. 
> 
> dhw: 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.-Again you have just proven we are different in kind, not degree.
> 
> dhw: 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.-There is a chicken/egg problem here. How did the brain know there was a need to interpret sounds if the sounds could not yet be made?-> dhw:.... This “mechanism” (writing) also undergoes intelligently organized mutations, but they are simply developments from the original invention.-And no one can find the genes to control this. Now you sound like Denton.
> 
> DAVID: He quotes comments by Tattersall and Gould as supporting the possibility of saltation.
> 
> dhw: Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. -Please look at the real definition of saltation which is an unexplained sudden advance. Obviously it will survive or we would not see it. The tautology is not part of the definition:-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/saltation - "the origin of a new species or a higher taxon in essentially a single evolutionary step that in some especially former theories is held to be due to a major mutation or to unknown causes"-Mutation in what gene for language? ->dhw: 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.-Yep! The IM invented all the anatomic and neurologic changes for human language with exquisite planning and everything works together beautifully, no genes to study available. Strong evidence for Denton's structuralism concept. No evidence for an IM without brain capacity, only hunt and peck.