More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, March 19, 2016, 13:15 (3171 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You seem to think that before homo sapiens came along, our ancestors could not communicate! 
DAVID: Of course not! McCrone is quite explicit in his description of H. Habilis possible few words a minute.-I specifically asked what you meant by humans, and you said homo sapiens. However, my main point was: “Even different animal sounds are known to have different meanings. When did meaningful sounds turn into what you are calling “speech”, and how do you define the difference? The beginning of speech is pure speculation." “Possible few words a minute” is also speculation, and is hardly an explicit description of how language was born.
 
DAVID: If syntax and grammar are invariant and human ancestor groups are isolated, why doesn't punctuated equilibrium apply resulting in several types of language arrangements. There is only one. (My bold)
dhw: Syntax and grammar are not invariant at all. Each language does have its own “arrangements” [….]. (If you can tell me what grammatical structures Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" consists of, you know more about language than I do.)
DAVID: You are the translator of several languages. I can only repeat what the experts propose. Universal basic structure built into infants.-Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section:
	Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar-Then please tell me what are the universal grammatical structures and what is the one type of “language arrangement”.-Dhw: Language evolves, and there is no equilibrium to be punctuated. 
DAVID: Why did disparate groups all invent the same basis of language? You have no answer.-What do you mean by “basis of language”? Disparate human groups use different sounds (writing came much later of course), just as disparate animal species use different sounds. As humans have higher levels of consciousness, the range of sounds (each “group” language having its own vocabulary and structures) expands massively to cover the ever expanding range of subject-matter. Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. -dhw: As for exact coordination of anatomic and neural development........the cell communities themselves - including those of the brain - would have done the directing. 
DAVID: […] Yes, God helped them. Can primitive bone cell communities plan and cooperate with neuron cell communities by themselves? How do brain cells talk to bone cells?-How do brain cells talk to muscle cells to control movement? Does God have to pass the message from my brain to my arm to enable me to raise my glass? Even as a layman I know that cells communicate. If you can ask me to explain how brains talk to bones, then I can ask you how “God helped them”. Did he preprogramme the first cells to pass on instructions to every single brain, bone and muscle of every single member of every single disparate group that “invented” every single language? Or did he personally dabble with their brains, bones and muscles?
 
dhw: The confusion is entirely yours. You wrote that “degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point”. Clearly gradualism versus saltation was NOT Adler's whole point. 
DAVID: That is exactly the way I have interpreted the whole book! The appearance of our brain is exactly Adler's point. There is no other explanation for our brain except god's intervention. Adler was religious and ended up as a devout Catholic, although born Jewish.-Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, who proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, were respectively agnostic and atheist.
 
dhw: In the context of all our discussions, degree = the level or amount of something; kind = the nature of something. If you disagree, please give me your definition of each term. 
DAVID: For Adler 'kind' is a giant saltation. The title "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" gives the import. -I wonder how Adler defines the difference between saltations and giant saltations. If he equated ‘kind' with giant saltations only possible through God's intervention, then he must have believed that every species (broad sense = kind) was a special creation or was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. I know he was anti-Darwin, but before we go on, please clarify whether he rejected common descent and was a creationist, or did he subscribe to your divine computer programme theory?-dhw: I am telling you they DO cooperate. You tell me they cooperate because of your God's 3.8-billion-year computer programme... I am suggesting to you that they cooperate because they are intelligent enough to do so, and it may be that your God gave them their intelligence.
DAVID: We are very close together. Your God 'hedge' works to put you close to me.
-As an agnostic, I am as close to you as I am to atheists! I see both sides of the argument. But even with my theist hat on, I'm afraid I can't find any credibility in your divine computer programme theory for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder - all created for the sake of humans.