More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, March 20, 2016, 18:07 (3170 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section:
Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
DAVID: I've read them and have many points I could refute. A major complaint is that Chomsky's UG theory doesn't fit Darwin! Whew! That is the point. Why didn't you offer your point of view?-QUOTE: Hinzen summarizes the most common criticisms of Universal Grammar:
1.	Universal Grammar has no coherent formulation and is indeed unnecessary.
2.	Universal Grammar is in conflict with biology: it cannot have evolved by standardly accepted Neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles.
3.	There are no linguistic universals: Universal Grammar is refuted by abundant variation at all levels of linguistic organization, which lies at the heart of human faculty of language.You have focused on 2. -1 and 3 sum up the point of view I expressed in my last post. I'm afraid I don't know how Chomsky relates the single basis concept to biology, but as you well know, I do not accept random mutations as a credible explanation for innovations.
 
dhw: Then please tell me what are the universal grammatical structures and what is the one type of “language arrangement”.
DAVID: I'm not an expert, and can only quote authorities on the subject.-There are different experts with different opinions, which means there are no authorities.-dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”?
DAVID: The UG theory.-That is like saying there is a common basis of language, and that basis of language is the common basis of language.-dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. 
DAVID: Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work.-Convergent evolution requires intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. According to you, all the solutions were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God dabbled. Does Conway Morris support your theory? A theistic alternative is that God gave organisms the intelligence to devise their own solutions.
 
dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate.
DAVID: Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no.-They communicate information and take decisions according to the information they receive.-dhw: 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?
DAVID: Stop asking the question. I don't know how He helped, but of course He did.

You constantly question me on how cells (with their possibly God-given intelligence) might innovate through cooperation, and yet you object if I ask you how your God did it. In the words of the jilted brunette, “This is not fair.”-dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God.
DAVID: No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists.-I understand your point, apart from what you are referring to when you say “no”. -dhw: I wonder how Adler defines the difference between saltations and giant saltations. .... 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?
DAVID: Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more.-What a shame! As he was such a vehemently anti-Darwin theist, one would have expected him to consider how his God might have engineered our stupendous brain. In that case, we can go no further in our discussion of Adler - we are simply back to your hypotheses and mine.-dhw: 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.
DAVID: Your theistic hat is very askew. You theistic thinking is very limited by your agnosticism in my opinion. -Our discussion on evolution has nothing to do with agnosticism. I would be surprised if your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all innovations, lifestyles etc. was supported by all your fellow theistic evolutionists, and see no reason why my hypothesis should not be viewed theistically. It is your interpretation of evolutionary history and your teleology that I oppose.
 
DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.-A remarkable change since Friday, when you wrote: “”We are very close together. Your God ‘hedge' works to put you close to me.” The God ‘hedge' remains, as I am 50/50 as regards the origin of life and of my hypothetical cellular intelligence, but this volte face comes in direct response to my opposition to your 3.8-billion-year computer programme. For some reason, that has become dogma for you.