Chomsky's book & human language (Humans)
DAVID (under “More Denton”): A review of Chomsky's new book which takes a negative slant:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078294-why-only-us-the-language-paradox/-I shan't reproduce the criticisms you have already quoted, but here are some more extremely pertinent ones:-Moreover, there is clear evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. The implication is obvious: both species must have had language. That being the case, this pushes the origins of spoken language back much further, perhaps even to half a million years ago.-In addition, research in primatology and animal behaviour suggests that some of the precursors for language do exist in other species, ranging from European starlings to chimpanzees - with the latter using a sophisticated gestural form of communication in the wild. In fact, gesture may well have been the medium that incubated language until ancestral humans evolved the full-blown capacity for it.-An influential, alternative view of the evolution of language is to take a bigger-picture perspective from the one that Berwick and Chomsky espouse. The alternative sees language as an evolutionary outcome of a shift in cognitive strategy among ancestral humans, fuelled by bipedalism, tool use and meat-eating.-This new biocultural niche required a different cognitive strategy to encourage greater cooperation between early humans. Building on the rudimentary social-interactional nous of other great apes, an instinct for cooperation does seem to have emerged in ancestral humans. And this would have inexorably led to complex communicative systems, of which language is the most complete example.-All this harks back to a discussion we had just over a year ago under “Animal language”, and I think it is well worth reproducing the post (11 January 2015 at 20.49) with which I opened that thread:-"A fascinating article in today's Sunday Times concerns research on gibbon language. Scientists believe that they and many other animals “use a system that is similar to early human language”. They also think they may be able to “construct a Rosetta Stone of animal communication because some animals not only have sounds for specific things, such as food, but also build these into sentences with rudimentary grammatical rules.”-By observing the behaviour of the animals after their conversations, the researchers are able to work out what must have been said. “They seem to comment on all sorts of events. It's not just warning calls.” The gibbons even sing songs.-The researchers are also working on the languages used by rats, whales, dolphins, bats and songbirds. For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising. Communication is essential to survival, but clearly it is also used for matters which humans in their arrogance assume are exclusive to themselves, including love, parental guidance, education, and in the case of the gibbons, even a fair division of the domestic chores! Our language and our range of thought have clearly evolved far beyond theirs, but they have enough for their needs. This is not anthropomorphizing animals. We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us."-I stand by this and by all the arguments I offered throughout that particular thread.
Chomsky's book & human language
by David Turell 
, Saturday, April 02, 2016, 16:33 (3155 days ago) @ dhw
Quote found by dhw: " Moreover, there is clear evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. The implication is obvious: both species must have had language. That being the case, this pushes the origins of spoken language back much further, perhaps even to half a million years ago."-Many assumptions here. Was interbreeding rape or consensual? Humans are only 200,000 years old, not a half million. And yes, I'm sure Neanderthals had speech that goes back earlier, but it may have been much more rudimentary than ours.-> dhw: The researchers are also working on the languages used by rats, whales, dolphins, bats and songbirds. For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising. Communication is essential to survival, but clearly it is also used for matters which humans in their arrogance assume are exclusive to themselves, including love, parental guidance, education, and in the case of the gibbons, even a fair division of the domestic chores! Our language and our range of thought have clearly evolved far beyond theirs, but they have enough for their needs. This is not anthropomorphizing animals. We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us." -> I stand by this and by all the arguments I offered throughout that particular thread.-My bold of your statement is to simply point out we did not merely develop what they passed on. Animals have simple communications. My dog communicates with me in very simple ways We humans speak and we think with words that carry concepts. We are different in kind and our language makes us that way.-By the way, I'm glad you quoted more of the article. We have space problems due to the restrictions of this website as it is built.
Chomsky's book & human language
Quote found by dhw: " Moreover, there is clear evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. The implication is obvious: both species must have had language. That being the case, this pushes the origins of spoken language back much further, perhaps even to half a million years ago."-DAVID: Many assumptions here. Was interbreeding rape or consensual? Humans are only 200,000 years old, not a half million. And yes, I'm sure Neanderthals had speech that goes back earlier, but it may have been much more rudimentary than ours. -The article you have posted on “Convoluted human evolution” suggests interbreeding on a very large scale. Ah well, mass rape if you like. I'm also sure that our own language has evolved on a huge scale, even since biblical times. Human language began as sounds, and many animals also communicate by sound. I have no doubt that gibbon language is “more rudimentary” than, say, Neanderthal language was, but that is evolution for you: from the comparatively simple to diversification and complexification. Dhw: Our language and our range of thought have clearly evolved far beyond theirs, but they have enough for their needs. This is not anthropomorphizing animals. We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us." DAVID: My bold of your statement is to simply point out we did not merely develop what they passed on. Animals have simple communications. My dog communicates with me in very simple ways We humans speak and we think with words that carry concepts. We are different in kind and our language makes us that way.-As above. I will happily acknowledge that we and our language as different in kind, just as your dog and its language are different in kind from your cat and its language, and I will happily acknowledge that our language and our intelligence have evolved far beyond theirs - or if you like, far, far, far beyond theirs. That's it, apart from what I wrote earlier, which still stands:-dhw: The researchers are also working on the languages used by rats, whales, dolphins, bats and songbirds. For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising. Communication is essential to survival, but clearly it is also used for matters which humans in their arrogance assume are exclusive to themselves, including love, parental guidance, education, and in the case of the gibbons, even a fair division of the domestic chores! -DAVID: By the way, I'm glad you quoted more of the article. We have space problems due to the restrictions of this website as it is built.-As always, I'm immensely grateful for all these articles. With regard to space,we have in fact gradually increased it, but I think a limit is essential, and actually it's good for discipline. I already tend to go on far too long, for which I must apologize!
Chomsky's book & human language
by David Turell , Sunday, April 03, 2016, 15:40 (3155 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: By the way, I'm glad you quoted more of the article. We have space problems due to the restrictions of this website as it is built. > > dhw: As always, I'm immensely grateful for all these articles. With regard to space,we have in fact gradually increased it, but I think a limit is essential, and actually it's good for discipline. I already tend to go on far too long, for which I must apologize!-As a wordsmith you needn't apologize. With our differences you look at the articles and find quotes I haven't used from my viewpoint that fit your viewpoint. Adds a lot!
How children may pick up a language
by David Turell , Saturday, May 07, 2016, 22:39 (3120 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study suggests they easily recognize patterns, but not as a built in grammar as has been proposed:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505222938.htm the study found children who were better at identifying patterns in non-verbal tasks also had better knowledge of grammar.-"The study found children who were better at identifying patterns in non-verbal tasks also had better knowledge of grammar.-"Even when other important factors such as intelligence and memory were taken into consideration, the findings still suggest the skill of pattern learning is strongly associated with language development.-***-"Published in Child Development, the study assessed 68 children aged six to eight years on two critical yet separate tests -- one on grammatical knowledge and the other a visual pattern learning task including an exposure phase (where children aren't asked to learn anything) and a surprise test phase.-"There was a strong connection between those who were able to identify the patterns in a seemingly trivial series of alien cartoon sequences on the computer, and those who performed better on the grammar test.-"Psycholinguist Associate Professor Joanne Arciuli from the University of Sydney said the research shows children have a remarkable capacity to learn without conscious awareness.-***-"'The study tells us that we have a whole lot of little statisticians running around," said Associate Professor Arciuli, co-author of the study and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow.-"'Unbeknownst to children themselves their brains are constantly computing these patterns or statistics -- for example which words co-occur regularly, which words follow others, and different contexts in which words are used."-"'Their ability to identify patterns is very much related to how they learn to use the conventions of language.'"-Comment: Aging has slowed my learning capacity. When quite young everything I studied stuck like glue. This may refute Chomsky, but the study is an assumption by association, not proof.
How children may pick up a language
DAVID: A new study suggests they easily recognize patterns, but not as a built in grammar as has been proposed: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505222938.htm the study found children who were better at identifying patterns in non-verbal tasks also had better knowledge of grammar.-QUOTES: "Even when other important factors such as intelligence and memory were taken into consideration, the findings still suggest the skill of pattern learning is strongly associated with language development." *** "Psycholinguist Associate Professor Joanne Arciuli from the University of Sydney said the research shows children have a remarkable capacity to learn without conscious awareness." *** "'Unbeknownst to children themselves their brains are constantly computing these patterns or statistics -- for example which words co-occur regularly, which words follow others, and different contexts in which words are used."-David's comment: Aging has slowed my learning capacity. When quite young everything I studied stuck like glue. This may refute Chomsky, but the study is an assumption by association, not proof.-Thank you for this interesting article. It's a subject very close to my heart, since I have spent my whole working life in the field of language - as writer, translator and lecturer. Here are a few thoughts that arise from the article.-I do not believe in a universal grammar, but I think the researchers are right that children observe patterns. A typical example is their gradual understanding of our English irregular verbs. Once they have grasped the concept of past, they almost invariably start by adding the suffix -ed to all verbs: I eated it, I runned…It's only later that they learn the individual exceptions to the “pattern”. The concept of past/present/future is not caused by an in-built grammar: the grammar is a construct that has to be learned in order to express an in-built awareness of time. Even a small child knows perfectly well that there is a difference between an ice cream already eaten and an ice cream on the way. We all know that children aged 6-8 (and pre-puberty generally) do not have the same “conscious awareness” that teenagers, let alone adults have, and that is why they are much more receptive to certain kinds of learning. Consciousness raises questions, and may also pit new knowledge against what has already been acquired. For example, in the context of language-learning a major obstacle at a more conscious age is the interference of the already established native language. My 7-year-old grandson is bilingual (his father is English and his mother Portuguese) because he has been exposed to both right from the start. His father will never ever speak Portuguese like a native! The Germans cottoned onto this long before the British, and brought in foreign language learning at primary school long before we even thought of it.-However, a child can only learn from what it hears. A feral child will have no grasp of human language, but if brought up by wild animals will “speak” their language. There are known cases in which such children later had great difficulty coping with human language, which for me constitutes evidence against Chomsky's theory.
How children may pick up a language
by David Turell , Monday, May 09, 2016, 15:28 (3119 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: However, a child can only learn from what it hears. A feral child will have no grasp of human language, but if brought up by wild animals will “speak” their language. There are known cases in which such children later had great difficulty coping with human language, which for me constitutes evidence against Chomsky's theory. - Thank you for this commentary. Very complete and persuasive.
How children pick up a language: another study
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 07, 2016, 16:27 (3089 days ago) @ dhw
This is a careful study of infants as hey listen to language:-https://aeon.co/ideas/listening-to-speech-has-remarkable-effects-on-a-baby-s-brain?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=5ee2a8ee63-Daily_Newsletter_7_June_20166_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-5ee2a8ee63-68942561 -"But how, and when, do infants begin to link language to meaning?-"We know that the path of language acquisition begins long before infants charm us with their first words. From the beginning, infants are listening, and they clearly prefer some sounds over others. How could we possibly know this? Newborn infants can't point to what they like or crawl away from what they don't. But when infants' interest is captured by a particular sight or sound, they will suck rapidly and vigorously on a pacifier.-"Using rates of sucking as a metric, infancy researchers have discovered that, at birth, infants prefer hearing the vocalisations of humans and non-human primates. Then, within months, they narrow their preference specifically to human vocalisations. And toward the end of their first year, infants become ‘native listeners', homing in with increasing precision on the particular sounds of their own native language.-***-"In other words, when we form object categories, we streamline our subsequent learning.-"We can now turn to the question at hand: do infants link language and object categories? To address this, with my colleagues Alissa Ferry and Sue Hespos, we invited three- and four-month-old infants and their parents to visit our lab at Northwestern University in Illinois. Once infants were settled in and seated comfortably on their parents' laps, we showed them a series of different objects, all from the same object category, such as dinosaurs.-***-"Listening to human language had a powerful effect. Three- and four-month-olds listening to language successfully formed object categories; infants listening to the tone sequences did not. Thus, even before infants can roll over in their cribs, listening to language boosted their cognition.-***-"Infants' responses to the lemur vocalisations were striking. At three and four months, listening to lemurs conferred precisely the same advantage as human language. Interestingly, although our infants had considerable exposure to human language, and very little, if any, to lemur calls, human and lemur vocalisations offered our youngest infants precisely the same cognitive advantage. This tells us that infants initially make a broad link between ‘language' and cognition, one that includes vocalisations of both human and non-human primates, our closest genealogical cousins. But by six months, lemur calls no longer offered this cognitive advantage; only human language did the trick.-***- "For example, one of the most complex problems that infants face is gaining insight into the minds of others. It turns out that infants' headway in ‘mind reading' is supported by language. By six months, infants appreciate the communicative status of speech, and view it as a conduit between minds, a channel through which we can share goals and intentions.-"These glimpses into the infant mind illuminate the mystery of how infants forge a link between language and thought. They also give new meaning to the words of the poet Rita Mae Brown: ‘Language exerts a hidden power, like the tides on the Moon.'-"Listening to language exerts its hidden power far earlier than even the most devoted parents, teachers or policy-makers could ever have imagined. Language is an elixir - and infants drink it in. It fuels the infant's mind and catalyses her quintessentially human psychological capacities from the very beginning."-Comment: Shows the progression of infants learning, but doesn't suggest an underlying innate grammar in the brain, but their speed of understanding speech does not deny it either.
How children pick up a language: not instinct
by David Turell , Saturday, June 11, 2016, 19:13 (3085 days ago) @ David Turell
The author presents a long article saying Chomsky is wrong, but the a makes one fatal mistake. He believes in Neo-Darwinism gradualism, not saltation, and that colors his argument. The rest of his discussion is reasonable:-https://aeon.co/essays/the-evidence-is-in-there-is-no-language-instinct?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=dadb6e2213-Saturday_newsletter_11_June_20166_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-dadb6e2213-68942561-"Chomsky's idea dominated the science of language for four decades. And yet it turns out to be a myth. A welter of new evidence has emerged over the past few years, demonstrating that Chomsky is plain wrong.-***-"What is in dispute is the claim that knowledge of language itself - the language software - is something that each human child is born with. Chomsky's idea is this: just as we grow distinctive human organs - hearts, brains, kidneys and livers - so we grow language in the mind, which Chomsky likens to a ‘language organ'. -***-"If our knowledge of the rudiments of all the world's 7,000 or so languages is innate, then at some level they must all be the same. There should be a set of absolute grammatical ‘universals' common to every one of them. This is not what we have discovered. Here's a flavour of the diversity we have found instead.-***-"And of course, language doesn't need to be spoken: the world's 130 or so recognised sign languages function perfectly adequately without sound. It's a remarkable fact that linguistic meaning can be conveyed in multiple ways: in speech, by gestured signs, on the printed page or computer screen. It does not depend upon a particular medium for its expression. How strange, if there is a common element to all human language, that it should be hidden beneath such a bewildering profusion of differences.-***-"Recursion allows us to rearrange words and grammatical units to form sentences of potentially infinite complexity. This ‘unique' property of human grammar might not be so unique after all. It also remains unclear whether it is really universal among human languages.... In 2005, the US linguist-anthropologist Daniel Everett has claimed that Pirahã - a language indigenous to the Amazonian rainforest - does not use recursion at all. This would be very strange indeed if grammar really was hard-wired into the human brain.-***-"As it happens, cognitive neuroscience research from the past two decades or so has begun to lift the veil on where language is processed in the brain. The short answer is that it is everywhere. -***-"For one thing, Chomsky's claim is that language came about through a macro-mutation: a discontinuous jump. But this is at odds with the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis, widely accepted as fact, which has no place for such large-scale and unprecedented leaps. Adaptations just don't pop up fully formed. [This is patently wrong] -***-" Children have far more sophisticated learning capacities than Chomsky foresaw. They are able to deploy sophisticated intention-recognition abilities from a young age, perhaps as early as nine months old, in order to begin to figure out the communicative purposes of the adults around them. And this is, ultimately, an outcome of our co?operative minds. ...At last, in the 21st century, we are in a position to jettison the myth of Universal Grammar, and to start seeing this unique aspect of our humanity as it really is."-Other than the bolded paragraph, the author makes strong points to deny Chomsky's theory. I've skipped much. The article should be read in full.
How children pick up a language: not instinct
DAVID: The author presents a long article saying Chomsky is wrong, but he makes one fatal mistake. He believes in Neo-Darwinism gradualism, not saltation, and that colors his argument. The rest of his discussion is reasonable: - https://aeon.co/essays/the-evidence-is-in-there-is-no-language-instinct?utm_source=Aeon... - I agree that it's a mistake, but it's not fatal. As usual, this discussion boils down to definitions. All communicative organisms have some form of language, and the tools they use can be vocal, chemical, gestural etc. Human language is unique to humans, just as ant language is unique to ants. Our language is mainly vocal, and like so many other of our inherited characteristics, it has evolved beyond all recognition from its beginnings - the vocalizations of our ape ancestors. In its complexity it is the equivalent of the skyscraper compared to the gorilla's bed. I would suggest that the key to human language lies in the following: QUOTE: “It might have begun as a sophisticated gestural system, for example, only later progressing to its vocal manifestations. But surely the most profound spur on the road to speech would have been the development of our instinct for co operation. By this, I don't mean to say that we always get on. But we do almost always recognise other humans as minded creatures, like us, who have thoughts and feelings that we can attempt to influence.” - I think the author has both hit and missed the point: ALL language, from individual cells to humans, must stem from cooperation of some sort, since it is always a means of communication. My suggestion is that the human level of consciousness has almost infinitely expanded the subject matter to be communicated. A small range of sounds could not encompass the concepts they had to convey. For the range to expand, the physical tools also had to expand, and this may have been the spur to the anatomical changes that enabled us to make new sounds. (We must remember that writing is a much later addition to our language tools.) Using my favoured hypothesis: the inventive mechanism (intelligence) of the cell communities would have reorganized the vocal mechanisms in response to the need for greater complexity of sound. As for Chomsky, I agree totally with the author: "Chomsky's idea dominated the science of language for four decades. And yet it turns out to be a myth. A welter of new evidence has emerged over the past few years, demonstrating that Chomsky is plain wrong.” But we have discussed this before (e.g. my post of 9 May on this thread).
How children pick up a language: not instinct
by David Turell , Sunday, June 12, 2016, 21:20 (3084 days ago) @ dhw
Quote: But surely the most profound spur on the road to speech would have been the development of our instinct for co operation. By this, I don't mean to say that we always get on. But we do almost always recognise other humans as minded creatures, like us, who have thoughts and feelings that we can attempt to influence[/i].” > > dhw: I think the author has both hit and missed the point: ALL language, from individual cells to humans, must stem from cooperation of some sort, since it is always a means of communication. My suggestion is that the human level of consciousness has almost infinitely expanded the subject matter to be communicated. A small range of sounds could not encompass the concepts they had to convey. For the range to expand, the physical tools also had to expand, and this may have been the spur to the anatomical changes that enabled us to make new sounds. (We must remember that writing is a much later addition to our language tools.) Using my favoured hypothesis: the inventive mechanism (intelligence) of the cell communities would have reorganized the vocal mechanisms in response to the need for greater complexity of sound. (my bold) > > As for Chomsky, I agree totally with the author: "Chomsky's idea dominated the science of language for four decades. And yet it turns out to be a myth. A welter of new evidence has emerged over the past few years, demonstrating that Chomsky is plain wrong.” -My bold is a key point in regard to your cell communities: To be humanly vocal our bodies had to change in many ways from apes: high arched palate, dropped larynx which requires a special epiglottis, specialized lip and tongue muscle development, and development in the brain of speech and hearing centers. If the development is not gradual, and you've agreed to that, we are dealing with a complex saltation, way beyond the learning capacities of cell committees unless they have a complexity mechanism they can turn on to guide the development.
How children pick up a language: defending Chomsky
by David Turell , Sunday, July 24, 2016, 23:59 (3042 days ago) @ David Turell
This is an article that defends his point of view, that children have an innate ability to pick up language and grammar:-http://www.medicaldaily.com/noam-chomskys-theory-universal-grammar-right-its-hardwired-our-brains-364236-"In the 1960s, linguist Noam Chomsky proposed a revolutionary idea: We are all born with an innate knowledge of grammar that serves as the basis for all language acquisition. In other words, for humans, language is a basic instinct. The theory, however, has long been met with widespread criticism — until now. A new study presents compelling evidence to suggest Chomsky may have been right all along.-***-"Although humans learn by example, he proposed that we are all born with a fundamental understanding of the underlying mechanisms of language. Chomsky's original work, called universal grammar, is the reason why humans can recognize grammatically correct yet nonsensical phrases, such as “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Past research has shown our ability to distinguish words from nonwords even without an understanding of the language, is a skill that even non-verbal babies possess. Researchers have long failed to prove this same instinctual knowledge also exists for grammar.-***-"researchers from New York University recently used new technology to prove Chomsky's theory may have been factual all along (not unlike these other scientists whose ideas were ahead of their time).-"For the study, the team recruited volunteers to listen to word phrases spoken in both English and Mandarin Chinese, including predictable sentences like “New York never sleeps,” grammatically correct yet less predictable sentences like “Pink toys hurt girls,” and word lists like “eggs, jelly, pink, awake,” a press release reported. These sentences were specifically designed so all obvious indications of grammar, such as voice intonation cues, were missing. This ensured the only indication of grammar would come from the subjects' own minds, not the sentences themselves.-***-"As subjects listened on, researchers measured their brain activity using two tools: magnetoencephalography and electrocorticography. The first measures tiny magnetic fields created by brain activity and the second measures brain activity in patients undergoing brain surgery.-"Results revealed brain activity changed depending on whether the volunteers had listened to a sentence, a phrase, or a word list. This showed that the subjects were able to process the grammar minus the obvious learned cues. "Because we went to great lengths to design experimental conditions that control for statistical or sound cue contributions to processing, our findings show that we must use the grammar in our head," explained researcher David Poeppel in the release.-"According to Poeppel, our brains lock onto every word to comprehend phrases and sentences. He said, “The dynamics reveal that we undergo a grammar-based construction in the processing of language.”-"In an email to Medical Daily, Poeppel explained that although it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove theories, the data ascertained in his research supports crucial aspects of Chomsky's theory, namely that listeners build abstract, hierarchical constituent structures of linguistic information.-“'I'd say, on balance (comparative language research, language acquisition research, these kinds of brain data) the empirical research favors the Chomskyan view, as unpopular as it is,” Poeppel wrote-"Poeppel also recognized the controversy in his finding, seeing as the preferred view is that grammar is achieved by using acoustic cues such as intonation, and statistical cues, like word transition.-“'However, we demonstrate that linguistic structure building happens in absence of those cues — so grammar based structure building must exist,” Poeppel said. “That is, in brief, the controversy.'”-Comment: No doubt the theory is still very controversial. Why do babies distinguish between words and non-words? It seems something is preset in the babies' brains. Also children learn a second language without any accent until about age eight. After that an accent from the initial language tends to appear. What does that mean about the early brain? Does it lose language ability as it ages?
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky
by David Turell , Sunday, August 28, 2016, 00:30 (3008 days ago) @ David Turell
Thomas Wolfe has a new book, The Kingdom of Speech, saying Chomsky is wrong:-http://www.wsj.com/articles/taking-on-chomsky-and-darwin-1472238740-"Speech leaves no traces, so tracing its origin is extraordinarily difficult. To me, it seems plausible that the question was “abandoned” because scientists are loath to hurl themselves at questions that may not be answerable in their lifetimes.-***-"In any case, as Mr. Wolfe recounts, the impasse was finally broken by the arrival of Noam Chomsky, a combative linguist and philosopher hired by MIT about a nanosecond after he finished his doctoral dissertation. In “Syntactic Structures” (1957), Mr. Chomsky argued that babies learn to speak with so little instruction that the underpinnings of language must be present from birth in a built-in “language organ” in the brain, a biological construction given to us by evolution. Because all humans have the same language organ, its capacities must shape all languages. These shared properties are a “universal grammar.”-***- "by the 1990s, the failure of biologists to find an actual language organ in the brain was leading to dissent. Mr. Chomsky also had trouble specifying the precise features of the universal grammar—it had to be broad enough to include every language from Japanese to Urdu yet simple enough to be viewed as a small batch of principles. Recognizing the problems, Mr. Chomsky sought to find the minimal foundation of language. In 2002 he and two Harvard cognitive scientists announced that they had discovered it: recursion.-***-"Take the awkward but understandable sentence “The cat (that the dog ((which the boy called Spot)) chased) ran away.” Slipped inside one thought (“the cat ran away”) are two more thoughts, one about the dog, one about its name. Recursion allows small units to be combined into larger units, with no theoretical stopping point. -***-" Mr. Chomsky et al.'s recursion was criticized at length by two luminaries, Steven Pinker and Ray Jackendoff.-***-"an account by linguist Daniel L. Everett, a former Chomsky disciple, of the Pirahã language, spoken only by the several hundred members of an indigenous group of the same name in the western Amazon. Mr. Everett had gone to the Pirahã as a missionary with his family, lived for years in difficult conditions and emerged as one of the few outsiders fluent in the language. Pirahã, he said, has no recursion—it doesn't embody Mr. Chomsky's universal grammar. More than that, its structure is so obviously tied to Pirahã culture that the language must have been created in its reflection—and not by some universal language organ. Nurture, Mr. Everett was saying, not nature.-***-"'Bango!” Tom Wolfe explains in his conclusion: There is a cardinal distinction between man and animal, a sheerly dividing line as abrupt and immovable as a cliff: namely, speech.” (Aristotle made exactly this argument around 330 B.C. in his “Politics.” But maybe it doesn't count?) To Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Everett's attack on recursion—and on the idea that speech was produced by evolution—was proof our species is special. “Speech, language, was something that existed quite apart from Evolution. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Man, man unaided, created language.”-***-"Speech, Mr. Wolfe says triumphantly, gave our species “the power to conquer the entire planet,” “the power to ask questions about his own life,” the power to control other human minds—“a power the Theory of Evolution cannot even begin to account for . . . or abide.” “Speech! To say that animals evolved into man is like saying that Carrara marble evolved into Michelangelo's David.”-***-"None believe that today's languages evolved from some unknown ape tongue. Meanwhile, everyone who accepts evolution at all—including, I had thought, Mr. Wolfe—knows that the larynx evolved over time, as did the pharyngeal cavity, motor cortex and the rest of the mechanism of speech. Geneticists have turned up a library of genes involved in language. Zoologists have found that animal sounds are more complex than previously believed.-***-"To all of these people, the arrival of language is not a matter of abrupt on-and-off, like a light switch, but more a subtle accumulation, like a dimmer switch. Co-evolution, as Darwin hand-waved at the beginning."-Comment; Too bad Wolfe and Adler cannot get together and discuss 'different in kind', which is just what speaking ability and language do for Humans. I think Wolfe and Adler would agree. Great article which contains insights into Wallace and Darwin and should be completely read.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky
QUOTE: Speech, language, was something that existed quite apart from Evolution. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Man, man unaided, created language.” - If you want to define language as the use of human speech, then humans created language (unless you think your God taught them). If you want to define language as means of communication, then bees unaided, chimps unaided, ants unaided, whales unaided, sparrows unaided, bacteria unaided created bee, chimp, ant, whale, sparrow, bacterial language. What does that prove? It is hard to imagine evolution having taken place without cooperation, and it is equally hard to imagine cooperation taking place without communication. I would therefore suggest that language as communication is not only part of evolution, but is essential to it.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 07, 2016, 22:43 (2997 days ago) @ dhw
Another article which takes sharp issue with Chomsky: - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-... - "Recently, though, cognitive scientists and linguists have abandoned Chomsky's “universal grammar” theory in droves because of new research examining many different languages—and the way young children learn to understand and speak the tongues of their communities. That work fails to support Chomsky's assertions. - "The research suggests a radically different view, in which learning of a child's first language does not rely on an innate grammar module. Instead the new research shows that young children use various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all—such as the ability to classify the world into categories (people or objects, for instance) and to understand the relations among things. These capabilities, coupled with a unique hu­­­man ability to grasp what others intend to communicate, allow language to happen. The new findings indicate that if researchers truly want to understand how children, and others, learn languages, they need to look outside of Chomsky's theory for guidance. - *** - "Such an alternative, called usage-based linguistics, has now arrived. The theory, which takes a number of forms, proposes that grammatical structure is not in­­nate. Instead grammar is the product of history (the processes that shape how languages are passed from one generation to the next) and human psychology (the set of social and cognitive capacities that allow generations to learn a language in the first place). More important, this theory proposes that language recruits brain systems that may not have evolved specifically for that purpose and so is a different idea to Chomsky's single-gene mutation for recursion. - "In the new usage-based approach (which includes ideas from functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics and construction grammar), children are not born with a universal, dedicated tool for learning grammar. Instead they inherit the mental equivalent of a Swiss Army knife: a set of general-purpose tools—such as categorization, the reading of communicative intentions, and analogy making, with which children build grammatical categories and rules from the language they hear around them. - *** - "At the time the Chomskyan paradigm was proposed, it was a radical break from the more informal approaches prevalent at the time, and it drew attention to all the cognitive complexities in­­volved in becoming competent at speaking and understanding language. But at the same time that theories such as Chomsky's allowed us to see new things, they also blinded us to other aspects of language. In linguistics and allied fields, many researchers are be­­coming ever more dissatisfied with a totally formal language approach such as universal grammar—not to mention the empirical inadequacies of the theory. Moreover, many modern re­­searchers are also unhappy with armchair theoretical analyses, when there are large corpora of linguistic data—many now available online—that can be analyzed to test a theory. - "The paradigm shift is certainly not complete, but to many it seems that a breath of fresh air has entered the field of linguistics. There are exciting new discoveries to be made by investigating the details of the world's different languages, how they are similar to and different from one another, how they change historically, and how young children acquire competence in one or more of them. - "Universal grammar appears to have reached a final impasse. In its place, research on usage-based linguistics can provide a path forward for empirical studies of learning, use and historical development of the world's 6,000 languages." - Comment: Very long article which makes many points that refute Chomsky, but in no sense removes the uniqueness of human language and speech.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
QUOTE: “Universal grammar appears to have reached a final impasse. In its place, research on usage-based linguistics can provide a path forward for empirical studies of learning, use and historical development of the world's 6,000 languages." - David's comment: Very long article which makes many points that refute Chomsky, but in no sense removes the uniqueness of human language and speech. - I agree with all the points refuting Chomsky. If we take language to mean human language, then of course human language is unique. If we take language to mean a system of communication, all organisms have their own unique languages.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Thursday, September 08, 2016, 21:15 (2996 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “Universal grammar appears to have reached a final impasse. In its place, research on usage-based linguistics can provide a path forward for empirical studies of learning, use and historical development of the world's 6,000 languages." > > David's comment: Very long article which makes many points that refute Chomsky, but in no sense removes the uniqueness of human language and speech. > > dhw:I agree with all the points refuting Chomsky. If we take language to mean human language, then of course human language is unique. If we take language to mean a system of communication, all organisms have their own unique languages.-'Unique' simply means peculiar to that group. No language comes close to human communication. It is different in kind. I won't let comments like yours get by.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
QUOTE: “Universal grammar appears to have reached a final impasse. In its place, research on usage-based linguistics can provide a path forward for empirical studies of learning, use and historical development of the world's 6,000 languages." David's comment: Very long article which makes many points that refute Chomsky, but in no sense removes the uniqueness of human language and speech.-dhw:I agree with all the points refuting Chomsky. If we take language to mean human language, then of course human language is unique. If we take language to mean a system of communication, all organisms have their own unique languages.-DAVID: 'Unique' simply means peculiar to that group. No language comes close to human communication. It is different in kind. I won't let comments like yours get by. -I agree with your first two statements. However, we have spent many hours on Adler's distinction between kind and degree, which to me is a non issue. I see language - like so many of our constructs - as a product of our enhanced consciousness. Our cities are anthills and rabbit warrens developed beyond all recognition; our schools and sports are animals' teaching and play developed beyond all recognition; our societies are packs, herds, colonies developed beyond all recognition; and our languages are grunts and howls and roars and songs developed beyond all recognition. Regardless of the physical differences that influence what and how organisms build, teach, interact and communicate, the progression from comparatively simple to enormously complex is clear in all these contexts. Different in degree, different in kind? Why is this so important to you, especially since you believe in common descent?
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Friday, September 09, 2016, 15:31 (2996 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Regardless of the physical differences that influence what and how organisms build, teach, interact and communicate, the progression from comparatively simple to enormously complex is clear in all these contexts. Different in degree, different in kind? Why is this so important to you, especially since you believe in common descent? - Because in the pattern of common descent, species appear without short steps, but the changes are not giant. The human leap of difference is giant, so extraordinarily large the leap is a difference in kind, and therefore strongly suggests an intervention.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
DAVID: 'Unique' simply means peculiar to that group. No language comes close to human communication. It is different in kind. I won't let comments like yours get by.-Dhw: I agree with your first two statements. However, we have spent many hours on Adler's distinction between kind and degree, which to me is a non issue. I see language - like so many of our constructs - as a product of our enhanced consciousness. Our cities are anthills and rabbit warrens developed beyond all recognition; our schools and sports are animals' teaching and play developed beyond all recognition; our societies are packs, herds, colonies developed beyond all recognition; and our languages are grunts and howls and roars and songs developed beyond all recognition. Regardless of the physical differences that influence what and how organisms build, teach, interact and communicate, the progression from comparatively simple to enormously complex is clear in all these contexts. Different in degree, different in kind? Why is this so important to you, especially since you believe in common descent?-DAVID: Because in the pattern of common descent, species appear without short steps, but the changes are not giant. The human leap of difference is giant, so extraordinarily large the leap is a difference in kind, and therefore strongly suggests an intervention.-Please explain what sort of intervention you are talking about. Are you saying that humans and apes do not have common ancestry, and humans were specially created? And do you think other species also needed your God's personal intervention to teach them how to communicate in their unique ways, or do you think they worked it out for themselves? We mustn't forget that according to you, God even had to intervene to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest (or he preprogrammed it for the first cells to pass on). Degree versus kind makes no difference if - as you have consistently argued - every innovation and natural wonder required your God's preprogramming or intervention. So why single out human language if intervention is all you're concerned with?
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Saturday, September 10, 2016, 16:35 (2994 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Because in the pattern of common descent, species appear without short steps, but the changes are not giant. The human leap of difference is giant, so extraordinarily large the leap is a difference in kind, and therefore strongly suggests an intervention. > > dhw: Please explain what sort of intervention you are talking about. Are you saying that humans and apes do not have common ancestry, and humans were specially created? And do you think other species also needed your God's personal intervention to teach them how to communicate in their unique ways, or do you think they worked it out for themselves? We mustn't forget that according to you, God even had to intervene to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest (or he preprogrammed it for the first cells to pass on). Degree versus kind makes no difference if - as you have consistently argued - every innovation and natural wonder required your God's preprogramming or intervention. So why single out human language if intervention is all you're concerned with?-Humans and apes did descend from the same animals. The intervention is very obvious. Rapid Human development of a different anatomic skeletal posture, of a different vocal anatomy, of a large brain with self-aware consciousness are all parts of the evidence. We developed language tamed fire and control the whole of Earth. Apes are still apes little changed over six-eight million years. Is the evolution of humans purely chance? Not in my eyes.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
DAVID: Because in the pattern of common descent, species appear without short steps, but the changes are not giant. The human leap of difference is giant, so extraordinarily large the leap is a difference in kind, and therefore strongly suggests an intervention. dhw: Please explain what sort of intervention you are talking about. Are you saying that humans and apes do not have common ancestry, and humans were specially created? […] Degree versus kind makes no difference if - as you have consistently argued - every innovation and natural wonder required your God's preprogramming or intervention. So why single out human language if intervention is all you're concerned with?-DAVID: Humans and apes did descend from the same animals. The intervention is very obvious. Rapid Human development of a different anatomic skeletal posture, of a different vocal anatomy, of a large brain with self-aware consciousness are all parts of the evidence. We developed language tamed fire and control the whole of Earth. Apes are still apes little changed over six-eight million years. Is the evolution of humans purely chance? Not in my eyes.-I doubt if any of us would dispute the astonishing range and scale of human abilities. In my previous post, I tried to show how humans have developed various inherited forms of animal behaviour beyond all recognition. According to you, however, no innovation or natural wonder is purely by chance, and I agree. My proposal is that they were engineered by the possibly God-given intelligence of cells/cell communities. But once more, if for example you think your God also intervened to teach other species to communicate in their own unique ways, or to build their unique nests, why single out human language or even human anatomy as “part of the evidence”? EVERY complexity is part of the evidence for you. -May I make a tentative suggestion? Could it be that your insistence on “difference in kind, not degree” has nothing to do with proving that humans are the product of intervention and are not the product of chance, but has everything to do with your theory that God created life in order to produce humans? Although you cannot find any rational, logical pattern to gear the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth to the emergence of a single species, you cannot bear the thought that your God might possibly have given organisms the wherewithal to design their own evolution. Humans must have been the purpose from the very beginning, your God has always maintained control, and any other hypothesis fails to match your own personal interpretation of his mind and modus operandi. Just a tentative suggestion to explain why you are so keen to separate one intervention from all the others.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Sunday, September 11, 2016, 15:10 (2994 days ago) @ dhw
> I doubt if any of us would dispute the astonishing range and scale of human abilities. In my previous post, I tried to show how humans have developed various inherited forms of animal behaviour beyond all recognition. ...... why single out human language or even human anatomy as “part of the evidence”? EVERY complexity is part of the evidence for you.-Your last sentence is correct. Evidence for God is not one item or fact. It is the overall picture which encompasses all of the complexity seen in life, including the miracle of life itself. > > May I make a tentative suggestion? Could it be that your insistence on “difference in kind, not degree” has nothing to do with proving that humans are the product of intervention and are not the product of chance, but has everything to do with your theory that God created life in order to produce humans?... Humans must have been the purpose from the very beginning, your God has always maintained control, and any other hypothesis fails to match your own personal interpretation of his mind and modus operandi. Just a tentative suggestion to explain why you are so keen to separate one intervention from all the others.-Your point fits my thinking completely. 'Different in kind' is just one piece of evidence, but it is a major example of how the process of evolution created the most amazing organism of all the rest. I suggest you read the book by James Le Fanu, Why Us?, 2010, who is a parallel thinker to me, marshalling an enormous amount of anatomic and neurologic evidence of our difference from all the rest. A major point of his. Our giant brain is really very old compared to its current use in the past 25,000 years. Are we to believe that chance evolution put it together so early to just see it sit there without expression of its function until hundreds of thousand of years later? If the evolutionary process is thought to be adaptations to immediate stresses, our brain does not fit the pattern in any way.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
Dhw: …why single out human language or even human anatomy as “part of the evidence”? EVERY complexity is part of the evidence for you. DAVID: Your last sentence is correct. Evidence for God is not one item or fact. It is the overall picture which encompasses all of the complexity seen in life, including the miracle of life itself.-So we can forget about “different in kind not degree” if we are only interested in proving the likelihood of God's existence and interventions. Dhw: May I make a tentative suggestion? Could it be that your insistence on “difference in kind, not degree” has nothing to do with proving that humans are the product of intervention and are not the product of chance, but has everything to do with your theory that God created life in order to produce humans?... Humans must have been the purpose from the very beginning, your God has always maintained control, and any other hypothesis fails to match your own personal interpretation of his mind and modus operandi. Just a tentative suggestion to explain why you are so keen to separate one intervention from all the others. DAVID: Your point fits my thinking completely. 'Different in kind' is just one piece of evidence, but it is a major example of how the process of evolution created the most amazing organism of all the rest. […] If the evolutionary process is thought to be adaptations to immediate stresses, our brain does not fit the pattern in any way.-Firstly, over and over again, we have agreed that the evolutionary process is NOT adaptations to immediate stresses, since that would not require life forms beyond bacteria. Hence my proposal that evolution is driven by the twin forces of survival and improvement. Secondly, I have never disagreed with the view that the process of evolution created humans, or that humans are “the most amazing organism of all the rest”. The disagreement resides in your insistence that humans were always your God's purpose, while at the same time every innovation and natural wonder has required his personal preprogramming or dabbling. In other words, the disagreement is over how the evolutionary process works. Nobody knows, but your theory simply makes no sense to me. All I can see in the history of life is one vast free-for-all, with organisms coming and going in accordance with the vagaries of environmental change. With my theist hat on, I don't even have a problem with the concept of the occasional divine dabble, which could certainly include humans. But the apparent free-for-all suggests to me that your God did NOT deliberately design every single twiddly bit on the evolutionary bush, and if he did not, that in turn suggests to me that organisms have the (possibly God-given) wherewithal to do their own designing.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Monday, September 12, 2016, 18:06 (2992 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: …why single out human language or even human anatomy as “part of the evidence”? EVERY complexity is part of the evidence for you. > DAVID: Your last sentence is correct. Evidence for God is not one item or fact. It is the overall picture which encompasses all of the complexity seen in life, including the miracle of life itself. > > So we can forget about “different in kind not degree” if we are only interested in proving the likelihood of God's existence and interventions. - You can forget about it. To me it is a major point of evidence. > > dhw: Firstly, over and over again, we have agreed that the evolutionary process is NOT adaptations to immediate stresses, since that would not require life forms beyond bacteria. ....In other words, the disagreement is over how the evolutionary process works. Nobody knows, but your theory simply makes no sense to me. All I can see in the history of life is one vast free-for-all, with organisms coming and going in accordance with the vagaries of environmental change. - And what I see in the evolutionary process is a built-in drive to complexity, perhaps triggered by environmental stresses, but not necessarily as evidenced by bacteria survival unchanged and the drive to humans for no obvious reason. This easily explains the h-p bush.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
Dhw: Firstly, over and over again, we have agreed that the evolutionary process is NOT adaptations to immediate stresses, since that would not require life forms beyond bacteria […] In other words, the disagreement is over how the evolutionary process works. Nobody knows, but your theory simply makes no sense to me. All I can see in the history of life is one vast free-for-all, with organisms coming and going in accordance with the vagaries of environmental change. […] - DAVID: And what I see in the evolutionary process is a built-in drive to complexity, perhaps triggered by environmental stresses, but not necessarily as evidenced by bacteria survival unchanged and the drive to humans for no obvious reason. This easily explains the h-p bush. - I don't see much difference between what you see here and what I see. The drive to complexity is what I have called the drive to improvement, and I would add environmental opportunities to stresses (both of which explain why life advanced beyond bacteria). By editing my quote, you left out the all-important distinction between us: “The disagreement resides in your insistence that humans were always your God's purpose, while at the same time every innovation and natural wonder has required his personal preprogramming or dabbling.” According to you, every product of the “built-in drive” has been designed by your God. It doesn't make sense to me that he should have designed the weaverbird's nest because he wanted to produce humans. That is why - when I wear my theist's hat - I suggest that instead he gave organisms the built-in drive (the intelligence) to design their own twigs of the h-p bush, though he may have reserved the right to dabble (which may be applied to humans).
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 02:07 (2991 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: when I wear my theist's hat - I suggest that instead he gave organisms the built-in drive (the intelligence) to design their own twigs of the h-p bush, though he may have reserved the right to dabble (which may be applied to humans). - And I agree that is possibility if the drive is under guidelines.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
dhw: ...when I wear my theist's hat - I suggest that instead he gave organisms the built-in drive (the intelligence) to design their own twigs of the h-p bush, though he may have reserved the right to dabble (which may be applied to humans). DAVID: And I agree that is possibility if the drive is under guidelines.-We have had this conversation before: DAVID: I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'. I would just like proof that such a mechanism exists. Until then pre-planning or dabble.-dhw: …That means that cells/cell communities may be intelligent after all. Hallelujah! I'd better frame this post.-DAVID: You are framing a hollow comment. I've not changed at all. If organism can work things out it will be by God's guidance thru a mechanism He has given them, that is intelligent information which makes it look like they are actually intelligent of their own accord. -dhw: If you are guided, you do not work things out for yourself. Divine guidance can only take the form of preplanning or dabbling. So apparently your statement means you agree that God may have given organisms the ability to be guided by preplanning or dabbling, but until that is proven, they are guided by preplanning or dabbling. When you agreed with me, I think you knew just what I meant by “work it out for themselves”!-Sadly, that is where this particular exchange ended. Perhaps you would like to explain how your “God may have given organisms the ability to work it out for themselves” only if he tells them what to do and makes it look as if they are working it out for themselves.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 16:16 (2990 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Sadly, that is where this particular exchange ended. Perhaps you would like to explain how your “God may have given organisms the ability to work it out for themselves” only if he tells them what to do and makes it look as if they are working it out for themselves. - Same stopping point: intelligent information can make organisms appear intelligent, when in fact they are only following instructions. Can you discern the difference when sitting outside the organisms? No, and neither can I. We each have taken our own choices. Mine is based on reason guided by Adler.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
dhw: Sadly, that is where this particular exchange ended. Perhaps you would like to explain how your “God may have given organisms the ability to work it out for themselves” only if he tells them what to do and makes it look as if they are working it out for themselves.-DAVID: Same stopping point: intelligent information can make organisms appear intelligent, when in fact they are only following instructions. Can you discern the difference when sitting outside the organisms? No, and neither can I. We each have taken our own choices. Mine is based on reason guided by Adler.-You said “I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'", then later added that this was only possible if God guided the organisms. I am simply pointing out that this is an either/or. Either organisms are intelligent enough to do it themselves or your God tells them what to do. You clearly do not agree that God gave organisms the ability to work it out for themselves, and so there is no point in saying that you do. You have therefore restricted yourself to the belief that every innovation and natural wonder was preplanned or dabbled.
How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2
by David Turell , Thursday, September 15, 2016, 19:13 (2989 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:You said “I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'", then later added that this was only possible if God guided the organisms. I am simply pointing out that this is an either/or. Either organisms are intelligent enough to do it themselves or your God tells them what to do. You clearly do not agree that God gave organisms the ability to work it out for themselves, and so there is no point in saying that you do. You have therefore restricted yourself to the belief that every innovation and natural wonder was preplanned or dabbled.-Yes.
How children pick up a language: Review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 12, 2016, 18:12 (2962 days ago) @ David Turell
Another review disagreeing with Wolfe's criticism of Chomsky:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108618-the-electric-kool-aid-language-test/
"Wolfe’s second hero, Everett, enters in 2005, with an article that delivers “OOOF! – right into the solar plexus!” for the Chomsky tribe.
"Many decades earlier, a brilliant young Chomsky had knocked big holes through B. F. Skinner’s behaviourist psychology and argued that children pick up language so effortlessly from the bits of conversation they hear around them that the underlying rules of all languages must already be stored inside their brains, waiting to be activated by experience. For him, language is an instinct, and with Chomsky’s ascendancy, the focus shifted to the search for its universal grammar.
"Everett’s dramatic claim is that the language of the Pirahã does not fit universal grammar but fits their unique culture. The implication is that language is not an instinct, but a cultural invention shaped by evolution.
"The challenge is big and the response ugly, with few in Wolfe’s tale ready for another paradigm shift. Everett is attacked as an “out-and-out liar” by a Chomsky disciples, and Chomsky calls him “a charlatan”. A massive criticism of his work is written. Other researchers visit the Pirahã to try to prove him wrong.
"But Everett finds the media willing to listen (Wolfe quotes at length from a New Scientist interview) and writes his bestselling book, which turns him into a folk hero.
"It is a dramatic fable, but at the end of the book we have not reached a real ending. Everett’s work is not enough to convince linguistics researchers, as Wolfe might wish, that they had “wasted half a century by subscribing to Chomsky’s doctrine of Universal Grammar”. But Everett is surely right in thinking that language is not going to be explained by the study of grammar alone.
"We need to look at how humans evolved cooperative cultures in which effective communication was at a premium, and at “theory of mind”, which gives humans knowledge of the intentions of others. We need to understand the appearance of symbolic thought, and the hierarchical and recursive structuring of complex actions such as toolmaking. We need to ask how language “means” something, which grammar alone does not give, and how culture co-evolves with language so that we might see how an unstructured set of words slowly acquires deeper grammatical complexity. All these and many more are rich research areas alongside the continuing search for a universal grammar.
"There is far more to language than Wolfe can handle in this short book, and growing excitement ahead. Everett himself has two new books in the works that will provide his own take on culture, symbolism and the appearance of language.
"If I had to make a bet, after the storms pass, we’ll see it end in a grand new synthesis that might cast quarrelsome academics in a better light than Wolfe allows."
Comment: This review fits in with our discussion of the new large brain in sapiens. Look carefully at the 'needs' paragraph just above. All of the needed acculturation was aided by open areas in the brain to be plastically developed, involving muscle control of the tongue, lips and lungs, and development of speech, hearing and visual areas for reading, writing and listening. Infants do this easily, absorbing like sponges. They can learn two or three at once and easily distinguish between them, research has shown. Why does this become more difficult after age 8 or so?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Friday, October 21, 2016, 21:57 (2953 days ago) @ David Turell
This is a favorable review:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/were-only-human/
Wallace wrote, possessed powers that were radically discontinuous with the kinds of adaptations that natural selection could account for. Abstract thought, the use of language, the creation of music and art, and consciousness as we know it are absent from even the highest primates. More, Darwinian theory couldn’t show how these distinctively human attributes might have evolved step by step from lower species, through a steady series of environmental adaptations, to their present advanced state. Wallace concluded that some process must be operating in nature in addition to the materialist machinery of natural selection.
***
Human exceptionalism has a lot to do with their relative reputations. Wallace embraced it and so did Muller; indeed, they thought it was self-evident. Darwin didn’t. And most scientists, especially fundamentalists like Jerry Coyne, have inherited Darwin’s materialism as dogma. It’s a good deal for scientists. After all, if everything we consider uniquely human is a consequence of purely materialistic processes, then the guys who study materialistic processes for a living hold the key to every human question. It’s nice work if you can get it.
There’s a problem, though. Evolutionary theory is no closer than it was in Darwin’s day to explaining in materialist terms how traits like self-consciousness and language came to be. The scientists keep trying, of course, as scientists should. One of the most advanced efforts to explain language as an evolutionary adaptation has been undertaken by the linguist Noam Chomsky of MIT. After 80 pages chaffing Darwin, Wolfe turns his attention Chomsky-ward, and the result is brutal.
***
Chomsky’s effort to explain human language in evolutionary terms, and thus reinforce the case against human exceptionalism, has largely failed. Wolfe outlines the reasons in jaunty style....Chomsky’s armchair theorizing is being dismantled by the accumulation of empirical evidence, which is how scientists told us science works all along....Chomsky’s armchair theorizing is being dismantled by the accumulation of empirical evidence, which is how scientists told us science works all along.
***
Clearing the popularizers from the field, as many specialists would like to do, would cede all scientific argument to scientists, who in many notable cases have not earned the deference they demand. The danger is doubled when scientists use science to draw metaphysical lessons—when, that is, they assert that human beings and primates are in essence the same kind of creature. A flurry of data and polysyllabic detail shouldn’t obscure the fact that such a thesis defies human experience and devalues the noblest human endeavors (including science, by the way).
Wolfe joins a small and hardy band of writers and other high-brows who take joy in staring down the bullies of scientism: Marilynne Robinson, David Berlinski, Wendell Berry, Thomas Nagel, a few others. But Wolfe is the best of them.
Comment: The debate continues. Chomsky appears to be losing. Humans are exceptional and the reason it happened in evolution is not explained at all by Darwin.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
QUOTE: Evolutionary theory is no closer than it was in Darwin’s day to explaining in materialist terms how traits like self-consciousness and language came to be.
It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them. We have already discussed the physical adaptations necessary for human speech, but that relates to the mystery of how ALL adaptations and especially innovations take place. The process whereby cell structures change in order to fulfil needs is not unique to humans, as illustrated by the giraffe’s neck (thank you for that post as well)and a zillion other adaptations, innovations and natural wonders.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Sunday, October 23, 2016, 20:36 (2951 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: Evolutionary theory is no closer than it was in Darwin’s day to explaining in materialist terms how traits like self-consciousness and language came to be.
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
I agree, but would include God's actions.
>dhw:We have already discussed the physical adaptations necessary for human speech, but that relates to the mystery of how ALL adaptations and especially innovations take place. The process whereby cell structures change in order to fulfil needs is not unique to humans, as illustrated by the giraffe’s neck (thank you for that post as well)and a zillion other adaptations, innovations and natural wonders.
Besides the circulatory difficulties in evolving the long neck of giraffes there is the sexual theory of male combat, using the head on a long neck to batter one's opponent:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160629-giraffes-did-not-evolve-long-necks-to-reach-tal...
"The skull of the male giraffe appears to be highly specialised for its peculiar mode of intra-specific fighting," researchers noted in a study published in 1968.
In an extreme case, reported in the 1960s, one male punctured his opponent's neck just below the ear. The impact splintered a vertebra and a shard of bone entered the luckless giraffe's spinal column, killing him.
"The largest males usually win these battles and do most of the breeding, says zoologist Anne Innis Dagg of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, who has been studying giraffes since the 1950s. "The other giraffes don't get much breeding opportunity."
"There is also evidence that females are more receptive to advances from larger males.
"However, in the last 10 years evidence has emerged that weakens the necks-for-sex hypothesis.
"In particular, a 2013 investigation found no evidence that males have longer necks for their body mass than do females.
"In other words, there is no obvious sexual dimorphism in neck length. As a result, the authors concluded that the "competing browsers" hypothesis "is the more likely explanation for tallness in giraffes".
"Meanwhile, other researchers have found direct evidence for the competing browsers hypothesis. By erecting fences around Acacia trees in South Africa, Elissa Cameron and Johan du Toit were able to reveal the impact that smaller competitors like steenbok, impala and kudu have on food availability.
"'Giraffes gain a foraging advantage by browsing above the reach of smaller browsers," they wrote in The American Naturalist in 2007. This was "the first experimental evidence that the giraffe's extremely elongated body form is naturally selected in response to competition from smaller browsing species."
"These studies suggest that Darwin was right all along. But the necks-for-sex supporters have not given up, and it may turn out that there is some merit in both explanations. Either way, there could well be further twists to this story."
Comment: Let the research continue. No clear answer yet for such a complicated animal.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
QUOTE: Evolutionary theory is no closer than it was in Darwin’s day to explaining in materialist terms how traits like self-consciousness and language came to be.
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
DAVID: I agree, but would include God's actions.
You include God’s actions in your explanation of every single innovation and natural wonder. That is why there seems little point in isolating human self-consciousness and language, when according to you evolutionary theory explains none of the developments from bacteria to humans. They ALL require your God's planning or intervention.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Monday, October 24, 2016, 15:50 (2950 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
DAVID: I agree, but would include God's actions.
dhw: You include God’s actions in your explanation of every single innovation and natural wonder. That is why there seems little point in isolating human self-consciousness and language, when according to you evolutionary theory explains none of the developments from bacteria to humans. They ALL require your God's planning or intervention.
The only way evolution could have proceeded. Chance doesn't work.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
DAVID: I agree, but would include God's actions.
dhw: You include God’s actions in your explanation of every single innovation and natural wonder. That is why there seems little point in isolating human self-consciousness and language, when according to you evolutionary theory explains none of the developments from bacteria to humans. They ALL require your God's planning or intervention.
DAVID: The only way evolution could have proceeded. Chance doesn't work.
Who said chance was the only alternative to divine preprogramming and dabbling? And once again, if God specially planned every single innovation and natural wonder, there is not much point in isolating human self-consciousness and language.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 25, 2016, 15:24 (2950 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The only way evolution could have proceeded. Chance doesn't work.dhw: Who said chance was the only alternative to divine preprogramming and dabbling? And once again, if God specially planned every single innovation and natural wonder, there is not much point in isolating human self-consciousness and language.
Please explain your meaning: "isolating human self-consciousness" in this context. I find it obscure.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: You include God’s actions in your explanation of every single innovation and natural wonder. That is why there seems little point in isolating human self-consciousness and language, when according to you evolutionary theory explains none of the developments from bacteria to humans. They ALL require your God's planning or intervention.
DAVID: The only way evolution could have proceeded. Chance doesn't work.
dhw: Who said chance was the only alternative to divine preprogramming and dabbling? And once again, if God specially planned every single innovation and natural wonder, there is not much point in isolating human self-consciousness and language.
DAVID: Please explain your meaning: "isolating human self-consciousness" in this context. I find it obscure.
The starting point of this discussion was the review of Wolfe’s book, focusing on human self-consciousness and language:
QUOTE: Evolutionary theory is no closer than it was in Darwin’s day to explaining in materialist terms how traits like self-consciousness and language came to be.
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
DAVID: I agree, but would include God's actions.
Since you include God’s actions to explain EVERY innovation and natural wonder, I was simply asking what is the point in singling out (“isolating”) human self-consciousness and language? They are apparently no more demanding of your God's attention than the weaverbird's nest. And ALL consciousness - not just human self-consciousness - is a mystery. As for human language, I think it is perfectly explicable by evolutionary theory, as I have indicated.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 15:15 (2949 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
DAVID: I agree, but would include God's actions.dhw: Since you include God’s actions to explain EVERY innovation and natural wonder, I was simply asking what is the point in singling out (“isolating”) human self-consciousness and language? They are apparently no more demanding of your God's attention than the weaverbird's nest. And ALL consciousness - not just human self-consciousness - is a mystery. As for human language, I think it is perfectly explicable by evolutionary theory, as I have indicated.
Your statement is correct but skips the issue. Evolution does not explain the appearance of consciousness as you state, but the advanced language we have is a byproduct of consciousness, and so we would not have language if consciousness had not appeared.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: It is not just self-consciousness but consciousness itself that is unexplained. Self-consciousness is an extension of consciousness, and I do not put human language in the same category of inexplicability. Once you have enhanced consciousness, it seems to me inevitable that you should need enhanced modes of expression, since all organisms need to communicate what matters to them.
DAVID: I agree, but would include God's actions.
dhw: Since you include God’s actions to explain EVERY innovation and natural wonder, I was simply asking what is the point in singling out (“isolating”) human self-consciousness and language? They are apparently no more demanding of your God's attention than the weaverbird's nest. And ALL consciousness - not just human self-consciousness - is a mystery. As for human language, I think it is perfectly explicable by evolutionary theory, as I have indicated.
DAVID: Your statement is correct but skips the issue. Evolution does not explain the appearance of consciousness as you state, but the advanced language we have is a byproduct of consciousness, and so we would not have language if consciousness had not appeared.
There is no skipping of issues. All forms of communication are a byproduct of consciousness. What on earth would be the point of developing means of communication if there was nothing to communicate? I do not believe for a second that our pre-human ancestors were zombies who had nothing to communicate; nor do I think chimps, dogs, birds, ants go through life as automatons and merely grunt, bark, sing and send out chemical signals for no purpose at all. I would even go so far as to say that bacteria are conscious and use chemicals to communicate. No form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Thursday, October 27, 2016, 19:20 (2947 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I would even go so far as to say that bacteria are conscious and use chemicals to communicate. No form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared.
Back to panpsychism.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Evolution does not explain the appearance of consciousness as you state, but the advanced language we have is a byproduct of consciousness, and so we would not have language if consciousness had not appeared.
dhw: All forms of communication are a byproduct of consciousness. What on earth would be the point of developing means of communication if there was nothing to communicate? I do not believe for a second that our pre-human ancestors were zombies who had nothing to communicate; nor do I think chimps, dogs, birds, ants go through life as automatons and merely grunt, bark, sing and send out chemical signals for no purpose at all. I would even go so far as to say that bacteria are conscious and use chemicals to communicate. No form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared.
DAVID: Back to panpsychism.
It has nothing to do with panpsychism, which in its true sense entails all matter having a mental aspect. Forget bacteria. Do you or do you not agree that pre-humans, chimps, dogs, birds and ants had/have languages of their own which enable them to communicate information provided by their particular forms of consciousness, and that no form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Friday, October 28, 2016, 14:41 (2947 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Back to panpsychism.dhw:It has nothing to do with panpsychism, which in its true sense entails all matter having a mental aspect. Forget bacteria. Do you or do you not agree that pre-humans, chimps, dogs, birds and ants had/have languages of their own which enable them to communicate information provided by their particular forms of consciousness, and that no form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared?
The animals above are conscious, but do not have self-aware consciousness at the human level. Our horses nicker 'hello' and otherwise communicate by body language, pinning their ears, wrinkling their nose, the look in their eye, baring teeth, kicking. Not much verbiage it seems.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Back to panpsychism.
dhw:It has nothing to do with panpsychism, which in its true sense entails all matter having a mental aspect. Forget bacteria. Do you or do you not agree that pre-humans, chimps, dogs, birds and ants had/have languages of their own which enable them to communicate information provided by their particular forms of consciousness, and that no form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared?
DAVID: The animals above are conscious, but do not have self-aware consciousness at the human level. Our horses nicker 'hello' and otherwise communicate by body language, pinning their ears, wrinkling their nose, the look in their eye, baring teeth, kicking. Not much verbiage it seems.
I did not say that animals had a human form of consciousness, but I referred to their “particular forms of consciousness”. I did not say they used “verbiage” but I referred to “languages of their own”. You have agreed that they are all conscious. Are you now trying to tell us that animals do not communicate with one another? If you agree that they do, perhaps you will also agree that their form of communication (= their language), advanced or rudimentary, would not exist if consciousness had not appeared.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Sunday, October 30, 2016, 00:37 (2945 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Back to panpsychism.
dhw:It has nothing to do with panpsychism, which in its true sense entails all matter having a mental aspect. Forget bacteria. Do you or do you not agree that pre-humans, chimps, dogs, birds and ants had/have languages of their own which enable them to communicate information provided by their particular forms of consciousness, and that no form of language, advanced or rudimentary, would exist if consciousness had not appeared?
DAVID: The animals above are conscious, but do not have self-aware consciousness at the human level. Our horses nicker 'hello' and otherwise communicate by body language, pinning their ears, wrinkling their nose, the look in their eye, baring teeth, kicking. Not much verbiage it seems.
dhw: I did not say that animals had a human form of consciousness, but I referred to their “particular forms of consciousness”. I did not say they used “verbiage” but I referred to “languages of their own”. You have agreed that they are all conscious. Are you now trying to tell us that animals do not communicate with one another?
I have just described how horses communicate with themselves and with us.
dhw: If you agree that they do, perhaps you will also agree that their form of communication (= their language), advanced or rudimentary, would not exist if consciousness had not appeared.
Using your definition of consciousness you are correct.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: I did not say that animals had a human form of consciousness, but I referred to their “particular forms of consciousness”. I did not say they used “verbiage” but I referred to “languages of their own”. You have agreed that they are all conscious. Are you now trying to tell us that animals do not communicate with one another?
DAVID: I have just described how horses communicate with themselves and with us.
dhw: If you agree that they do, perhaps you will also agree that their form of communication (= their language), advanced or rudimentary, would not exist if consciousness had not appeared.
DAVID: Using your definition of consciousness you are correct.
Thank you. Our starting point was Wolfe’s attempt to single out human self-consciousness and human language as being inexplicable through evolution. I commented that all levels of consciousness are inexplicable through evolution, but human language is not. You told me I had “skipped the issue” because “the advanced language we have is a byproduct of consciousness, and so we would not have language if consciousness had not appeared.” I agree, but have simply pointed out that this applies to all forms of language, not just human.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Sunday, October 30, 2016, 14:10 (2945 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Thank you. Our starting point was Wolfe’s attempt to single out human self-consciousness and human language as being inexplicable through evolution. I commented that all levels of consciousness are inexplicable through evolution, but human language is not. You told me I had “skipped the issue” because “the advanced language we have is a byproduct of consciousness, and so we would not have language if consciousness had not appeared.” I agree, but have simply pointed out that this applies to all forms of language, not just human.
And what a difference there is. Animals make noises with small brief meaning, and use body language for the rest of their communications. We speak, read and write esoteric thoughts. No comparison. Different in kind.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: Our starting point was Wolfe’s attempt to single out human self-consciousness and human language as being inexplicable through evolution. I commented that all levels of consciousness are inexplicable through evolution, but human language is not. You told me I had “skipped the issue” because “the advanced language we have is a byproduct of consciousness, and so we would not have language if consciousness had not appeared.” I agree, but have simply pointed out that this applies to all forms of language, not just human.
DAVID: And what a difference there is. Animals make noises with small brief meaning, and use body language for the rest of their communications. We speak, read and write esoteric thoughts. No comparison. Different in kind.
Of course our language is different in kind. And infinitely more advanced. And it is a product of our advanced consciousness, just as chimp, chicken, dolphin and ant languages are different in kind and are products of their less advanced consciousnesses. We seem to be in agreement.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Monday, October 31, 2016, 17:03 (2943 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: And what a difference there is. Animals make noises with small brief meaning, and use body language for the rest of their communications. We speak, read and write esoteric thoughts. No comparison. Different in kind.dhw: Of course our language is different in kind. And infinitely more advanced. And it is a product of our advanced consciousness, just as chimp, chicken, dolphin and ant languages are different in kind and are products of their less advanced consciousnesses. We seem to be in agreement.
Yes human consciousness different in kind. Thank you.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: And what a difference there is. Animals make noises with small brief meaning, and use body language for the rest of their communications. We speak, read and write esoteric thoughts. No comparison. Different in kind.
dhw: Of course our language is different in kind. And infinitely more advanced. And it is a product of our advanced consciousness, just as chimp, chicken, dolphin and ant languages are different in kind and are products of their less advanced consciousnesses. We seem to be in agreement.
DAVID: Yes human consciousness different in kind. Thank you.
I was talking about languages, but I agree that chimps, chickens, dolphins, ants and humans are likely to think like chimps, chickens, dolphins, ants and humans and not like one another. We are indeed all different in kind. But I also agree that like our language, our consciousness has evolved to be infinitely more advanced and more complex than that of all the other different kinds of animals.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 01, 2016, 17:53 (2942 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes human consciousness different in kind. Thank you.
dhw: I was talking about languages, but I agree that chimps, chickens, dolphins, ants and humans are likely to think like chimps, chickens, dolphins, ants and humans and not like one another. We are indeed all different in kind. But I also agree that like our language, our consciousness has evolved to be infinitely more advanced and more complex than that of all the other different kinds of animals.
Thank you. Human are different in kind, not degree.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Thank you. Human are different in kinds, not degree.
I always feel a bit guilty when you raise this issue, because it is so central to your concept of evolution and it is so unimportant in my own. Forget kind versus degree just for a moment. I acknowledge the vast mental gap between us and all other species, and in my evolutionary hypothesis (theistic version), I can even allow for divine dabbling. What I cannot allow for is the claim that your God specially designed all other forms of life and natural wonders extant and extinct for no other purpose than to pave the way for humans. That seems to be the only reason for your preoccupation with the distinction, and that is our sticking point.
My more direct answer would have to be: humans, chimps, chickens, dolphins and ants are all different in kind. So are their languages, and so are their consciousnesses, unless you believe a chimp thinks like a chicken like a dolphin etc. etc. However, although all of these are conscious in their own different ways, I believe humans have additional degrees of consciousness which make them almost incalculably more aware of themselves and of the world around them than any other organism. Similarly a dog’s sense of smell is vastly more sensitive than a human’s. “More aware”, “more sensitive” are terms that denote degree, but the degree can be part of the difference in kind that distinguishes all species (broad sense). In materialist terms, if the human brain is different in kind from the dog’s brain, the dog’s nose is different in kind from the human nose. For me, your (Adler’s) attempted distinction between degree and kind leads nowhere.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 02, 2016, 19:57 (2941 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Thank you. Human are different in kinds, not degree.
dhw:I always feel a bit guilty when you raise this issue, because it is so central to your concept of evolution and it is so unimportant in my own. Forget kind versus degree just for a moment. I acknowledge the vast mental gap between us and all other species, and in my evolutionary hypothesis (theistic version), I can even allow for divine dabbling. What I cannot allow for is the claim that your God specially designed all other forms of life and natural wonders extant and extinct for no other purpose than to pave the way for humans. That seems to be the only reason for your preoccupation with the distinction, and that is our sticking point.
My more direct answer would have to be: humans, chimps, chickens, dolphins and ants are all different in kind. So are their languages, and so are their consciousnesses, unless you believe a chimp thinks like a chicken like a dolphin etc. etc. However, although all of these are conscious in their own different ways, I believe humans have additional degrees of consciousness which make them almost incalculably more aware of themselves and of the world around them than any other organism. Similarly a dog’s sense of smell is vastly more sensitive than a human’s. “More aware”, “more sensitive” are terms that denote degree, but the degree can be part of the difference in kind that distinguishes all species (broad sense). In materialist terms, if the human brain is different in kind from the dog’s brain, the dog’s nose is different in kind from the human nose. For me, your (Adler’s) attempted distinction between degree and kind leads nowhere.
That is not my point at all. Adler's book The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes assumes Evolution is true and that evolution always shows differences in small degree as it advances toward the more complex, except in the case of humans. It is a long philosophic, not a theological argument taken from scientific findings as of 1966, that humans are uniquely different, not by degree, but totally different in kind, with introspective and conceptual consciousness, a jump not explained by evolution. Adler, born Jewish, died a Catholic and was a philosophic advisor to the Church. My comments about degree and kind are either not understood by you or you are trying to use the word 'kind' in a different context than in which I use it. I suggest you read his book. It has a powerful argument that we are very, very special, and allows one to conclude we are special creation.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
Dhw: I acknowledge the vast mental gap between us and all other species, and in my evolutionary hypothesis (theistic version), I can even allow for divine dabbling. What I cannot allow for is the claim that your God specially designed all other forms of life and natural wonders extant and extinct for no other purpose than to pave the way for humans. That seems to be the only reason for your preoccupation with the distinction, and that is our sticking point.
My more direct answer would have to be: humans, chimps, chickens, dolphins and ants are all different in kind. So are their languages, and so are their consciousnesses, unless you believe a chimp thinks like a chicken like a dolphin etc. etc. However, although all of these are conscious in their own different ways, I believe humans have additional degrees of consciousness which make them almost incalculably more aware of themselves and of the world around them than any other organism. Similarly a dog’s sense of smell is vastly more sensitive than a human’s. “More aware”, “more sensitive” are terms that denote degree, but the degree can be part of the difference in kind that distinguishes all species (broad sense). In materialist terms, if the human brain is different in kind from the dog’s brain, the dog’s nose is different in kind from the human nose. For me, your (Adler’s) attempted distinction between degree and kind leads nowhere.
DAVID: That is not my point at all. Adler's book The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes assumes Evolution is true and that evolution always shows differences in small degree as it advances toward the more complex, except in the case of humans.
You and I have long since agreed that evolution proceeds by saltations and not by Darwin’s “small degrees”, the Cambrian Explosion being an obvious example. So we both disagree with Adler on this point.
DAVID: It is a long philosophic, not a theological argument taken from scientific findings as of 1966, that humans are uniquely different, not by degree, but totally different in kind, with introspective and conceptual consciousness, a jump not explained by evolution.
I agree with you that human consciousness is special (see my bold in the passages you have quoted.) But as we have already agreed, evolution does not explain consciousness at ANY level. Nor does it explain saltations. ANY saltations, not just that from narrow thinker to broad thinker. But since you and I believe evolution happened, we continue to search for the inventive mechanism that enabled ALL species to evolve through countless saltatory innovations from the common ancestor.
DAVID: Adler, born Jewish, died a Catholic and was a philosophic advisor to the Church. My comments about degree and kind are either not understood by you or you are trying to use the word 'kind' in a different context than in which I use it. I suggest you read his book. It has a powerful argument that we are very, very special, and allows one to conclude we are special creation.
That is the nub of the whole argument. I do not dispute that our vastly superior consciousness makes us very, very special. In my theistic version of evolution, I have even allowed for the possibility of dabbling. But – let me repeat – that does not mean God geared every innovation and natural wonder extant and extinct to the production of humans. And although I have allowed for dabbling, “special creation” loses all significance when you insist that every other innovation and natural wonder was also “special creation”.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Thursday, November 03, 2016, 18:01 (2940 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Adler, born Jewish, died a Catholic and was a philosophic advisor to the Church. My comments about degree and kind are either not understood by you or you are trying to use the word 'kind' in a different context than in which I use it. I suggest you read his book. It has a powerful argument that we are very, very special, and allows one to conclude we are special creation.dhw: That is the nub of the whole argument. I do not dispute that our vastly superior consciousness makes us very, very special. In my theistic version of evolution, I have even allowed for the possibility of dabbling. But – let me repeat – that does not mean God geared every innovation and natural wonder extant and extinct to the production of humans. And although I have allowed for dabbling, “special creation” loses all significance when you insist that every other innovation and natural wonder was also “special creation”.
If the universe is God's creation, if life is God's creation, and humans are (wonderful for us) God's creation, these are all special creations, which do not reduce the magnificence of what we have been given as very special organisms, not required by the stresses presented to all organisms by changes in the environment. We have taken control of our own life's conditions as well as the future. No other organism has that control.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Adler, born Jewish, died a Catholic and was a philosophic advisor to the Church. My comments about degree and kind are either not understood by you or you are trying to use the word 'kind' in a different context than in which I use it. I suggest you read his book. It has a powerful argument that we are very, very special, and allows one to conclude we are special creation.
dhw: That is the nub of the whole argument. I do not dispute that our vastly superior consciousness makes us very, very special. In my theistic version of evolution, I have even allowed for the possibility of dabbling. But – let me repeat – that does not mean God geared every innovation and natural wonder extant and extinct to the production of humans. And although I have allowed for dabbling, “special creation” loses all significance when you insist that every other innovation and natural wonder was also “special creation”.
DAVID: If the universe is God's creation, if life is God's creation, and humans are (wonderful for us) God's creation, these are all special creations, which do not reduce the magnificence of what we have been given as very special organisms, not required by the stresses presented to all organisms by changes in the environment. We have taken control of our own life's conditions as well as the future. No other organism has that control.
Nothing here that I disagree with. Our disagreement is not over the special nature of humans but over your interpretation of how evolution has worked throughout its history. How does our specialness come to mean that God geared every innovation and natural wonder, extant and extinct, to the production of humans (as opposed to giving organisms free rein, apart from the occasional dabble, which might include humans)? And you still haven’t told me what aspects of my OWN hypotheses fail to fit in with the history of life as we know it.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Friday, November 04, 2016, 17:31 (2939 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Nothing here that I disagree with. Our disagreement is not over the special nature of humans but over your interpretation of how evolution has worked throughout its history. How does our specialness come to mean that God geared every innovation and natural wonder, extant and extinct, to the production of humans (as opposed to giving organisms free rein, apart from the occasional dabble, which might include humans)? And you still haven’t told me what aspects of my OWN hypotheses fail to fit in with the history of life as we know it.
From your point of view, not accepting God, your hypothesis can fit the facts as we see them, sort of.. But leaving out the factor of God to drive evolution, your hypothesis becomes untenable for me.
As for our specialness, you cannot explain it. We are not necessary from the standpoint of natural evolution. We are an extension beyond need. So is multicellularity. A drive for 'improvement or survivorship' is not required by bacteria. They have proven that point.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: And you still haven’t told me what aspects of my OWN hypotheses fail to fit in with the history of life as we know it.
DAVID: From your point of view, not accepting God, your hypothesis can fit the facts as we see them, sort of.. But leaving out the factor of God to drive evolution, your hypothesis becomes untenable for me.
My cellular intelligence hypothesis does not leave out the factor of God. Over and over and over again, I have inserted the qualification “perhaps God-given”. Since that seems to be your only objection, clearly you regard my hypothesis as fitting the facts. Thank you.
DAVID: As for our specialness, you cannot explain it. We are not necessary from the standpoint of natural evolution. We are an extension beyond need. So is multicellularity. A drive for 'improvement or survivorship' is not required by bacteria. They have proven that point.
You have cancelled out the “unnecessary” specialness of humans as a factor by pointing out that multicellularity was not necessary either. On the "multicellularity" thread I gave you an explanation for bacteria remaining the same despite multicellularity:
dhw: It only takes two to tango. Any species that is successful will stay as it is, but it only requires the odd individual exception to start something new. Some – not ALL - single cells merged to begin the process of multicellularity. It was successful. Some – not ALL - individual fish left the water and set off a process leading to land animals. If you believe in common descent, EVERY innovation took place in some – not ALL – existing individuals and led to new species.
DAVID: What you stated is true. Innovation happened, but that still doesn't tell us why multicellularity was necessary for continuously successful bacteria, which are still here everywhere, even seemingly impossible environments.
It wasn’t necessary. That’s why bacteria stayed the same. Once again: Evolution does not progress by every single member of a species suddenly changing into something else. Innovation – if common descent is true – takes place in individuals, and if it is successful, it survives while the rest remain the same. Hence diversification. Not NECESSARY, but unless you consider the senses, sex, brains etc. to be a backward step, in each case an improvement.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Saturday, November 05, 2016, 14:11 (2939 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What you stated is true. Innovation happened, but that still doesn't tell us why multicellularity was necessary for continuously successful bacteria, which are still here everywhere, even seemingly impossible environments.
dhw: It wasn’t necessary. That’s why bacteria stayed the same. Once again: Evolution does not progress by every single member of a species suddenly changing into something else. Innovation – if common descent is true – takes place in individuals, and if it is successful, it survives while the rest remain the same. Hence diversification. Not NECESSARY, but unless you consider the senses, sex, brains etc. to be a backward step, in each case an improvement.
Note, you are again quoting Darwin. We do not see small individual changes. We only see the sudden appearance of new species. Even the transitional forms have large gaps before and after their appearance. Of course as evolution advances from simple to complex, which involves innovations, new species appear. Improvement, however, is in the eye of the beholder, an interpretation. This is why I stick to 'complexity' as an obvious drive. 99% of all 'new' species are gone. How much improvement is that? Bacteria are still bacteria, but most everything else is lots more complex.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: What you stated is true. Innovation happened, but that still doesn't tell us why multicellularity was necessary for continuously successful bacteria, which are still here everywhere, even seemingly impossible environments.
dhw: It wasn’t necessary. That’s why bacteria stayed the same. Once again: Evolution does not progress by every single member of a species suddenly changing into something else. Innovation – if common descent is true – takes place in individuals, and if it is successful, it survives while the rest remain the same. Hence diversification. Not NECESSARY, but unless you consider the senses, sex, brains etc. to be a backward step, in each case an improvement.
DAVID: Note, you are again quoting Darwin. We do not see small individual changes. We only see the sudden appearance of new species. Even the transitional forms have large gaps before and after their appearance.
I have made no reference whatsoever to Darwin’s gradualism! I was explaining that improvement was not NECESSARY, and bacteria remained the same because innovation does not take place in whole species but in individuals, and so successful multicellularity did not REPLACE successful unicellularity but diversified from it. The same applies to all species (broad sense): fish did not disappear just because some fish went ashore.
DAVID: Of course as evolution advances from simple to complex, which involves innovations, new species appear. Improvement, however, is in the eye of the beholder, an interpretation.
All these discussions centre on interpretation! It’s OK for you to say humans are special by comparison with all other organisms, but it’s not OK for me to say that a brain is an improvement over a non-brain. Without interpretation there can be no discussion of ANY of the issues we tackle on this website!
DAVID: This is why I stick to 'complexity' as an obvious drive. 99% of all 'new' species are gone. How much improvement is that? Bacteria are still bacteria, but most everything else is lots more complex.
Of course multicellular organisms are more complex than unicellular organisms! I interpret that as a quest for improvement, and you interpret it as a quest for complexity which is part of God’s careful planning to pave the way for humans, who are God’s purpose. You don’t accept my hypothesis because it’s an interpretation. What is your hypothesis if it's not an interpretation?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Sunday, November 06, 2016, 14:57 (2937 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Note, you are again quoting Darwin. We do not see small individual changes. We only see the sudden appearance of new species. Even the transitional forms have large gaps before and after their appearance.
dhw; I have made no reference whatsoever to Darwin’s gradualism! I was explaining that improvement was not NECESSARY, and bacteria remained the same because innovation does not take place in whole species but in individuals, and so successful multicellularity did not REPLACE successful unicellularity but diversified from it.
You are speaking Darwin: Let me explain our difference in interpretation: I don't believe in the idea that a new set of a tiny number of newly mutated individuals starts a new species. The huge gaps in phenotype in the fossils suggests that a new species appear with the new individuals in large number by saltation. I completely
remove Darwin's gradual concept taken from an example of breeding. New species appear suddenly.
dhw: All these discussions centre on interpretation! It’s OK for you to say humans are special by comparison with all other organisms, but it’s not OK for me to say that a brain is an improvement over a non-brain. Without interpretation there can be no discussion of ANY of the issues we tackle on this website!
Of course your interpretation about a brain is correct. But I have a different emphasis about the concept of complexity, which of course will bring improvement. Only an emphasis on complexity can bring about humans, the most complex of all results of evolution. You petulantly sound like I am trying to censor you. We just illustrate disagreement.
dhw: Of course multicellular organisms are more complex than unicellular organisms! I interpret that as a quest for improvement, and you interpret it as a quest for complexity which is part of God’s careful planning to pave the way for humans, who are God’s purpose. You don’t accept my hypothesis because it’s an interpretation. What is your hypothesis if it's not an interpretation?
Again, we are allowed to exhibit how we disagree. I am not obligated to agree with your interpretations.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Note, you are again quoting Darwin. We do not see small individual changes. We only see the sudden appearance of new species. Even the transitional forms have large gaps before and after their appearance.
dhw; I have made no reference whatsoever to Darwin’s gradualism! I was explaining that improvement was not NECESSARY, and bacteria remained the same because innovation does not take place in whole species but in individuals, and so successful multicellularity did not REPLACE successful unicellularity but diversified from it.
DAVID: You are speaking Darwin: Let me explain our difference in interpretation: I don't believe in the idea that a new set of a tiny number of newly mutated individuals starts a new species. The huge gaps in phenotype in the fossils suggests that a new species appear with the new individuals in large number by saltation. I completely remove Darwin's gradual concept taken from an example of breeding. New species appear suddenly.
In total contrast to Darwin I accept saltation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your brand new contention that new species appear immediately in large numbers. How can you possibly know that? A saltation can take place in a single individual. As I envisage the process, a successful innovation will be passed on by individuals and within a few generations will have created large numbers. Do you expect to find a fossil labelled: “I was the first”?
dhw: All these discussions centre on interpretation! It’s OK for you to say humans are special by comparison with all other organisms, but it’s not OK for me to say that a brain is an improvement over a non-brain. Without interpretation there can be no discussion of ANY of the issues we tackle on this website!
DAVID: Of course your interpretation about a brain is correct. But I have a different emphasis about the concept of complexity, which of course will bring improvement. Only an emphasis on complexity can bring about humans, the most complex of all results of evolution. You petulantly sound like I am trying to censor you. We just illustrate disagreement.
No, you are not trying to censor me, but you are trying to invalidate my hypotheses for reasons that apply equally to your own. You challenge me on the subject of God’s purpose, and when I offer an alternative to your own, you dismiss it as “humanizing” God, which is precisely what you do yourself with your own version of his purpose. In the context of evolution I keep explaining that need is not the only driving force, but improvement is another. Your response: “Of course as evolution advances from simple to complex, which involves innovations, new species appear. Improvement, however, is in the eye of the beholder, an interpretation.” Complexification for the sake of complexity and ultimately for the sake of humans is also an interpretation. These are non-answers to my proposals. I want to know why you cannot conceive of God creating a mechanism that will produce all the different forms of life as a spectacle he can enjoy, and why you consider complexity for its own sake a more rational driving force than complexity for the sake of improvement.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Monday, November 07, 2016, 17:26 (2936 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, November 07, 2016, 17:35
DAVID: You are speaking Darwin: Let me explain our difference in interpretation: I don't believe in the idea that a new set of a tiny number of newly mutated individuals starts a new species. The huge gaps in phenotype in the fossils suggests that a new species appear with the new individuals in large number by saltation. I completely remove Darwin's gradual concept taken from an example of breeding. New species appear suddenly.dhw: In total contrast to Darwin I accept saltation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your brand new contention that new species appear immediately in large numbers. How can you possibly know that? A saltation can take place in a single individual. As I envisage the process, a successful innovation will be passed on by individuals and within a few generations will have created large numbers.
You are still using Darwin, whether you recognize it or not.. A saltation in a single individual is a new mutation, nothing more. You have forgotten the Wistar Institute math conference in 1966 (quoted in my first book) on the mathematical impossibility of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. J.B.S. Haldane ten years previous, a famous math/geneticist/Darwinist had published a paper with the same conclusion, now called 'Haldane's Dilemma', not enough time. Now it is known that it is not a single mutation but a series of cooperative mutations are required for a new species, further making the time intervals too short. A true saltation in a new species involves body plans and new biologic processes. Look at the whale series as an example. Those gaps are huge. The human species have huge gaps with long maturity cycles that average 20 years a generation. That is the saltation issue I see.
dhw: No, you are not trying to censor me, but you are trying to invalidate my hypotheses for reasons that apply equally to your own. You challenge me on the subject of God’s purpose, and when I offer an alternative to your own, you dismiss it as “humanizing” God, which is precisely what you do yourself with your own version of his purpose.
God as 'a person like no other person' can have a goal without being humanized. His goal is obviously producing humans, since they are here against all need or reason. Enjoyment is a human emotion, and certainly does not have to be His thought!
dhw: I want to know why you cannot conceive of God creating a mechanism that will produce all the different forms of life as a spectacle he can enjoy, and why you consider complexity for its own sake a more rational driving force than complexity for the sake of improvement.
I think God maintains full control without the human emotion of enjoyment. And complexity is the key in order to reach the most complex organisms of all, humans! Improvement, of course, comes with complexity, but evolution proves complexity is not needed as shown by bacteria. Very obvous.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: In total contrast to Darwin I accept saltation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your brand new contention that new species appear immediately in large numbers. How can you possibly know that? A saltation can take place in a single individual. As I envisage the process, a successful innovation will be passed on by individuals and within a few generations will have created large numbers.
DAVID: You are still using Darwin, whether you recognize it or not. A saltation in a single individual is a new mutation, nothing more.
A saltation is a saltation, whether it takes place in an individual or a large number of individuals, and of course it’s a mutation. That simply means it’s a change.
DAVID: You have forgotten the Wistar Institute math conference in 1966 (quoted in my first book) on the mathematical impossibility of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. J.B.S. Haldane ten years previous, a famous math/geneticist/Darwinist had published a paper with the same conclusion, now called 'Haldane's Dilemma', not enough time.
Not enough time for Darwin’s randomness. But substitute intelligence for randomness and there is ample time. The intelligence you substitute is God’s. The intelligence I substitute is that (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities. What does that have to do with your claim that innovations must have taken place in large numbers all at the same time?
DAVID: Now it is known that it is not a single mutation but a series of cooperative mutations are required for a new species, further making the time intervals too short.
Of course the mutation involves cooperation between the cell communities. And successful mutations (= saltatory changes to an organism) will be passed on to subsequent generations, even if they only start with one or a few individuals.
DAVID: A true saltation in a new species involves body plans and new biologic processes. Look at the whale series as an example. Those gaps are huge. The human species have huge gaps with long maturity cycles that average 20 years a generation. That is the saltation issue I see.
None of this means that saltations have to take place in large numbers of organisms all at the same time, as opposed to one or just a few individuals, and there is no issue between us on the subject of gaps. A saltation is a jump, and we agree that Darwin was wrong when he said that nature does not jump.
dhw: You challenge me on the subject of God’s purpose, and when I offer an alternative to your own, you dismiss it as “humanizing” God, which is precisely what you do yourself with your own version of his purpose.
DAVID: God as 'a person like no other person' can have a goal without being humanized. His goal is obviously producing humans, since they are here against all need or reason. Enjoyment is a human emotion, and certainly does not have to be His thought!
Nothing “has to be his thought”. We can only speculate on his thought. All multicellular forms of life are here against all need. Improvement is a possible reason. If God created life he must have had a purpose. You say humans. If God produced humans, he must have had a purpose. So what was his purpose in producing humans? Try and answer without “humanizing” God. You tried: to have direct relations with him; I think you once mentioned to have them study and understand his works. We can only speculate in human terms, and why shouldn’t we? If, as you believe, we are in his image, why should that NOT mean that we have some of his attributes? Your speculation that he is without emotion has no more evidence than mine that he could have emotion.
dhw: I want to know why you cannot conceive of God creating a mechanism that will produce all the different forms of life as a spectacle he can enjoy, and why you consider complexity for its own sake a more rational driving force than complexity for the sake of improvement.
DAVID: I think God maintains full control without the human emotion of enjoyment. And complexity is the key in order to reach the most complex organisms of all, humans! Improvement, of course, comes with complexity, but evolution proves complexity is not needed as shown by bacteria. Very obvious.
And many people think God loves them. Why is your emotionless God more likely for you than theirs or mine, and why do you think God wants relations with us?
We know that neither complexity nor improvement was needed. But if you claim that the purpose of complexity was to produce humans, you might just as well say that the purpose of improvement was to produce humans. I cannot see the point of complexity for its own sake, and I cannot see how ALL the complexities of life’s history can be related to the production of humans. The motivation for complexity has to explain all the millions of innovations and natural wonders, extant and extinct, which mark that history. That is why the weaverbird’s nest is so important. I argue that each organism designs what suits it best (= an improvement for them). You argue that God designs them all for the sake of humans. I can’t see the relevance of the weaverbird’s nest to the production of humans.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 08, 2016, 14:41 (2936 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Not enough time for Darwin’s randomness. But substitute intelligence for randomness and there is ample time. The intelligence you substitute is God’s. The intelligence I substitute is that (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities. What does that have to do with your claim that innovations must have taken place in large numbers all at the same time?
You are proposing a magical kind of intelligence in your cell communities which is God-like. News species require very involved mental planning. Hard to avoid the need for intense planning for a new species, isn't it. Your argument sounds like a struggle to escape God.
DAVID: Now it is known that it is not a single mutation but a series of cooperative mutations are required for a new species, further making the time intervals too short.dhw: Of course the mutation involves cooperation between the cell communities. And successful mutations (= saltatory changes to an organism) will be passed on to subsequent generations, even if they only start with one or a few individuals.
A few individuals is refuted in the Wistar Institute conference.
DAVID: A true saltation in a new species involves body plans and new biologic processes. Look at the whale series as an example. Those gaps are huge. The human species have huge gaps with long maturity cycles that average 20 years a generation. That is the saltation issue I see.dhw: None of this means that saltations have to take place in large numbers of organisms all at the same time, as opposed to one or just a few individuals, and there is no issue between us on the subject of gaps. A saltation is a jump, and we agree that Darwin was wrong when he said that nature does not jump.
Refuted in Wistar.
DAVID: God as 'a person like no other person' can have a goal without being humanized. His goal is obviously producing humans, since they are here against all need or reason. Enjoyment is a human emotion, and certainly does not have to be His thought!
dhw: Nothing “has to be his thought”. We can only speculate on his thought. ..So what was his purpose in producing humans? Try and answer without “humanizing” God. You tried: to have direct relations with him; I think you once mentioned to have them study and understand his works. We can only speculate in human terms, and why shouldn’t we? If, as you believe, we are in his image, why should that NOT mean that we have some of his attributes? Your speculation that he is without emotion has no more evidence than mine that he could have emotion.
As a person like no other person, we can only speculate on His reasons by looking at his works.
dhw: And many people think God loves them. Why is your emotionless God more likely for you than theirs or mine, and why do you think God wants relations with us?
All of our conclusions can only be speculations. Relationship involves His consciousness and our consciousness.
dhw: We know that neither complexity nor improvement was needed. But if you claim that the purpose of complexity was to produce humans, you might just as well say that the purpose of improvement was to produce humans. I cannot see the point of complexity for its own sake, and I cannot see how ALL the complexities of life’s history can be related to the production of humans. The motivation for complexity has to explain all the millions of innovations and natural wonders, extant and extinct, which mark that history. That is why the weaverbird’s nest is so important. I argue that each organism designs what suits it best (= an improvement for them). You argue that God designs them all for the sake of humans. I can’t see the relevance of the weaverbird’s nest to the production of humans.
I've explained balance of nature is necessary for all to eat. It is obvious humans are the pinnacle of complexity and the end point for evolution. We communicate with God. I don't know why you cannot see that it all fits together. Can I prove it, as you want. No. Is it a reasonable construction, based on reality. Yes
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: Not enough time for Darwin’s randomness. But substitute intelligence for randomness and there is ample time. The intelligence you substitute is God’s. The intelligence I substitute is that (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities.
DAVID: You are proposing a magical kind of intelligence in your cell communities which is God-like. News species require very involved mental planning. Hard to avoid the need for intense planning for a new species, isn't it. Your argument sounds like a struggle to escape God.
I do not believe your God designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going for the sake of humans. Multiply that by a few million other natural wonders plus all the innovations. I offer an alternative. You agree that organisms have the ability to adapt and that some are intelligent (though not humanly intelligent). Some scientists tell us that microorganisms are also intelligent. My hypothesis that innovations are designed by the organisms themselves is therefore not based on faith in magic, acknowledges involved planning and the possibility of God as the inventor of their special forms of intelligence, and fits all the facts that we know about the history of life.
dhw: None of this means that saltations have to take place in large numbers of organisms all at the same time, as opposed to one or just a few individuals, and there is no issue between us on the subject of gaps. A saltation is a jump, and we agree that Darwin was wrong when he said that nature does not jump.
DAVID: Refuted in Wistar.
I can only find a refutation of random mutations (chance) as the producer of life’s complexities – which you and I have also long since agreed on. Please give me a reference to Wistar refuting the idea that speciation occurred through a few individuals who passed on their innovations to future generations. (In any case, what possible evidence could you and they have?)
dhw: We can only speculate in human terms, and why shouldn’t we? If, as you believe, we are in his image, why should that NOT mean that we have some of his attributes? Your speculation that he is without emotion has no more evidence than mine that he could have emotion.
DAVID: As a person like no other person, we can only speculate on His reasons by looking at his works.
I agree. And it is not unreasonable to assume that his works would in some way reflect his nature. How would any creator be able to create something he knew nothing about? Can you imagine your God observing his human creations and saying to himself in his native language: “Ugh, what’s enjoyment? What’s love? What’s laughter? What’s sorrow?” You say “we communicate with God”. How, if he hasn’t a clue what we’re talking about?
dhw: And many people think God loves them. Why is your emotionless God more likely for you than theirs or mine, and why do you think God wants relations with us?
DAVID: All of our conclusions can only be speculations. Relationship involves His consciousness and our consciousness.
Obviously you can’t have a relationship without consciousness meeting consciousness. Why does that make your view of an emotionless God more likely than any other?
dhw: I argue that each organism designs what suits it best (= an improvement for them). You argue that God designs them all for the sake of humans. I can’t see the relevance of the weaverbird’s nest to the production of humans.
DAVID: I've explained balance of nature is necessary for all to eat. It is obvious humans are the pinnacle of complexity and the end point for evolution. We communicate with God. I don't know why you cannot see that it all fits together. Can I prove it, as you want. No. Is it a reasonable construction, based on reality. Yes.
To answer each point in turn: I’ve explained that the balance of nature keeps shifting, and it certainly doesn’t enable all to eat, because over 90% of all go extinct. Whether humans are the end point is open to question, but if we meet up a billion years from now, perhaps you’ll be able to say, “I told you so.” Do you have access to God even though he is hidden? You tell me that it fits together, but when I analyse the contradictions, you tell me I am humanizing God, only interpreting or, best of all, God’s logic is not the same as ours. I do not expect you to prove it – nothing can be proved in this field of our existence, which is why we can go on discussing it endlessly. (And I should add at this point how much I appreciate these discussions and especially the enormous range of educational material you provide to accompany them.) Is yours a reasonable construction, based on reality? I think your arguments for believing in a God are indeed reasonable. But I find your interpretation of evolution’s history impossible to square with the history of life as we know it. In a nutshell, I do not believe for one second that God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest, let alone specially designed it in order to balance nature so that organisms could be fed in order for humans to appear.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 09, 2016, 14:42 (2935 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are proposing a magical kind of intelligence in your cell communities which is God-like. News species require very involved mental planning. Hard to avoid the need for intense planning for a new species, isn't it. Your argument sounds like a struggle to escape God.dhw: I offer an alternative. You agree that organisms have the ability to adapt and that some are intelligent (though not humanly intelligent). Some scientists tell us that microorganisms are also intelligent.
Invoking the word 'intelligent' doesn't support any portion of your argument. The degree of intelligence shown by Shapiro is limited to the ability to recode their DNA to alter their adaptations to variable stress, no more. Epigenetics has been explored in larger animals like Reznick's guppies showing once again adaptability, not speciation. Let's explore this article:
https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories?utm_...
"One problem with Darwin’s theory is that, while species do evolve more adaptive traits (called phenotypes by biologists), the rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed. Scientists, well-aware of the issue, have proposed a variety of genetic mechanisms to compensate: genetic drift, in which small groups of individuals undergo dramatic genetic change; or epistasis, in which one set of genes suppress another, to name just two.
"Yet even with such mechanisms in play, genetic mutation rates for complex organisms such as humans are dramatically lower than the frequency of change for a host of traits, from adjustments in metabolism to resistance to disease. The rapid emergence of trait variety is difficult to explain just through classic genetics and neo-Darwinian theory. To quote the prominent evolutionary biologist Jonathan B L Bard, who was paraphrasing T S Eliot: ‘Between the phenotype and genotype falls the shadow.’" (my bold)
Comment: the whole article describes epigenetic research and is worth reading. But it never answers the question of how speciation works. No one knows!
dhw: None of this means that saltations have to take place in large numbers of organisms all at the same time, as opposed to one or just a few individuals, and there is no issue between us on the subject of gaps. A saltation is a jump, and we agree that Darwin was wrong when he said that nature does not jump.
DAVID: Refuted in Wistar.
dhw: Please give me a reference to Wistar refuting the idea that speciation occurred through a few individuals who passed on their innovations to future generations. (In any case, what possible evidence could you and they have?)
Wistar is entirely a mathematical look at generational time scales and mutation rates and concludes Darwin style evolution is impossible. Never refuted! Note the quote above.
[/i]
DAVID: All of our conclusions can only be speculations. Relationship involves His consciousness and our consciousness.
dhw: Obviously you can’t have a relationship without consciousness meeting consciousness. Why does that make your view of an emotionless God more likely than any other?
It doesn't. I treat God as emotionless, because it is not fair for me to try to imagine his emotions
dhw: In a nutshell, I do not believe for one second that God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest, let alone specially designed it in order to balance nature so that organisms could be fed in order for humans to appear.
My only answer is lots of believers think exactly that. The profusion of life forms needs an explanation which you do not offer. God MUST have a reason. Not weirdness for the sake of weirdness. Balance makes perfect sense.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: You are proposing a magical kind of intelligence in your cell communities which is God-like. News species require very involved mental planning. Hard to avoid the need for intense planning for a new species, isn't it. Your argument sounds like a struggle to escape God.
dhw: I offer an alternative. You agree that organisms have the ability to adapt and that some are intelligent (though not humanly intelligent). Some scientists tell us that microorganisms are also intelligent.
DAVID: Invoking the word 'intelligent' doesn't support any portion of your argument. The degree of intelligence shown by Shapiro is limited to the ability to recode their DNA to alter their adaptations to variable stress, no more. Epigenetics has been explored in larger animals like Reznick's guppies showing once again adaptability, not speciation.
Over and over and over again, we have agreed that NOBODY has yet explained speciation and that is why we theorize. It’s fair enough for you to disagree with Shapiro, but not fair that you totally ignore the quotes I have offered you in the past to show his unequivocal view that bacteria are intelligent in their own right:
Exeter meeting: "...we have a great deal to learn about chemistry, physics and evolution from our small, but very intelligent, prokaryotic relatives."
Shapiro: Evolution: A view from the 21st century (p. 143): “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities.”
You could hardly have a clearer rejection of your theory that bacteria are automatons, and when asked why people reject his view, he responded “Large organisms chauvinism”. He may be wrong, but please don’t make out that he is not a proponent of cellular intelligence.
DAVID: Let's explore this article:
https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories?utm_...
QUOTE: "One problem with Darwin’s theory is that, while species do evolve more adaptive traits (called phenotypes by biologists), the rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed.
DAVID’S comment: ...the whole article describes epigenetic research and is worth reading. But it never answers the question of how speciation works. No one knows!
Over and over and over again, we have agreed that NOBODY has yet explained speciation and that is why we theorize. (Haven’t I said that before?) And rejecting random mutations (which we have done over and over and over again) has absolutely nothing to do with the hypothesis that organisms might be intelligent enough to design their own genetic engineering.
dhw: None of this means that saltations have to take place in large numbers of organisms all at the same time, as opposed to one or just a few individuals.
DAVID: Refuted in Wistar.
dhw: Please give me a reference to Wistar refuting the idea that speciation occurred through a few individuals who passed on their innovations to future generations. (In any case, what possible evidence could you and they have?)
DAVID: Wistar is entirely a mathematical look at generational time scales and mutation rates and concludes Darwin style evolution is impossible. Never refuted! Note the quote above.
Thank you. Absolutely nothing to do with your claim that speciation must take place in large numbers right from the start. Simply the same old attack on gradualism and chance, agreed on over and over and over again.
DAVID: All of our conclusions can only be speculations. Relationship involves His consciousness and our consciousness.
dhw: Obviously you can’t have a relationship without consciousness meeting consciousness. Why does that make your view of an emotionless God more likely than any other?
DAVID: It doesn't. I treat God as emotionless, because it is not fair for me to try to imagine his emotions.
Not fair? On whom? Speculating on God’s purpose means attempting to read his mind. Your reading is that he wants relations with us, mine is that maybe he enjoys watching us. I really can’t see why yours is “fair” and mine is “unfair”.
dhw: In a nutshell, I do not believe for one second that God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest, let alone specially designed it in order to balance nature so that organisms could be fed in order for humans to appear.
DAVID: My only answer is lots of believers think exactly that. The profusion of life forms needs an explanation which you do not offer. God MUST have a reason. Not weirdness for the sake of weirdness. Balance makes perfect sense.
I have offered you a very clear hypothesis explaining the profusion of life forms: namely that organisms have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to pursue their own course of life. That accounts for every weirdness, since they all have different ways of using the environment. Balance makes no sense when 90%+ organisms disappear and the balance never stays the same.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Thursday, November 10, 2016, 21:16 (2933 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It’s fair enough for you to disagree with Shapiro, but not fair that you totally ignore the quotes I have offered you in the past to show his unequivocal view that bacteria are intelligent in their own right:
Exeter meeting: "...we have a great deal to learn about chemistry, physics and evolution from our small, but very intelligent, prokaryotic relatives."
Shapiro: Evolution: A view from the 21st century (p. 143): “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities.”
It is still my impression from reading Shapiro's book that he has shown that bacteria have the ability to modify DNA, based on the stimuli they receive. These are purposeful modifications, and do fit the definition of clever intelligent planning, which can be interpreted by me as clever implanted automatic responses, just as reasonably interpreted by Shapiro as an active process.
dhw: You could hardly have a clearer rejection of your theory that bacteria are automatons, and when asked why people reject his view, he responded “Large organisms chauvinism”. He may be wrong, but please don’t make out that he is not a proponent of cellular intelligence.
Of course he is. He has shown the cells' abilities.
dhw: Please give me a reference to Wistar refuting the idea that speciation occurred through a few individuals who passed on their innovations to future generations. (In any case, what possible evidence could you and they have?)DAVID: Wistar is entirely a mathematical look at generational time scales and mutation rates and concludes Darwin style evolution is impossible. Never refuted! Note the quote above.
dhw: Thank you. Absolutely nothing to do with your claim that speciation must take place in large numbers right from the start. Simply the same old attack on gradualism and chance, agreed on over and over and over again.
Of course it refutes, if the math never works. It shows a few similar new mutations can't do it.
DAVID: I treat God as emotionless, because it is not fair for me to try to imagine his emotions.
dhw: Not fair? On whom? Speculating on God’s purpose means attempting to read his mind. Your reading is that he wants relations with us, mine is that maybe he enjoys watching us. I really can’t see why yours is “fair” and mine is “unfair”.
I did not imply your view is unfair. I use the word fair to confer my feeling that His emotional state is not a fair consideration, since He is such a different personage.
dhw: I have offered you a very clear hypothesis explaining the profusion of life forms: namely that organisms have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to pursue their own course of life. That accounts for every weirdness, since they all have different ways of using the environment. Balance makes no sense when 90%+ organisms disappear and the balance never stays the same.
99% of all species are gone, and balance is always present. Balance must be important.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: The degree of intelligence shown by Shapiro is limited to the ability to recode their DNA to alter their adaptations to variable stress, no more……
I offered two quotes in which Shapiro explicitly describes cellular intelligence.
dhw: ….You could hardly have a clearer rejection of your theory that bacteria are automatons, and when asked why people reject his view, he responded “Large organisms chauvinism”. He may be wrong, but please don’t make out that he is not a proponent of cellular intelligence.
DAVID: Of course he is. He has shown the cells' abilities.
And I keep calling upon his conclusions, along with those of other experts such as McClintock and Margulis and Albrecht-Bühler, in support of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence. I know you disagree, but please bear those quotes in mind next time you try to downplay Shapiro's commitment to this hypothesis.
dhw: Please give me a reference to Wistar refuting the idea that speciation occurred through a few individuals who passed on their innovations to future generations. (In any case, what possible evidence could you and they have?)DAVID: Wistar is entirely a mathematical look at generational time scales and mutation rates and concludes Darwin style evolution is impossible. Never refuted! Note the quote above.
dhw: Thank you. Absolutely nothing to do with your claim that speciation must take place in large numbers right from the start. Simply the same old attack on gradualism and chance, agreed on over and over and over again.
DAVID: Of course it refutes, if the math never works. It shows a few similar new mutations can't do it.
Can’t do what? Wistar refutes the claim that random mutations can cause speciation in the time available. It says nothing about a large number of individual organisms being needed to start a new species. If it does, please give me the reference (and the evidence).
DAVID: I treat God as emotionless, because it is not fair for me to try to imagine his emotions.
dhw: Not fair? On whom? Speculating on God’s purpose means attempting to read his mind. Your reading is that he wants relations with us, mine is that maybe he enjoys watching us. I really can’t see why yours is “fair” and mine is “unfair”.
DAVID: I did not imply your view is unfair. I use the word fair to confer my feeling that His emotional state is not a fair consideration, since He is such a different personage.
Fair on whom? You keep demanding “purpose” from me, which is impossible to do without attributing some human-type thought to God, and in this respect I see no difference between wanting a relationship and enjoying the spectacle. And once again: I think it is not unreasonable to assume that your God is unlikely to have created something he knew absolutely nothing about, e.g. emotion, let alone to want relations with beings whose nature is totally unfamiliar to him.
dhw: I have offered you a very clear hypothesis explaining the profusion of life forms: namely that organisms have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to pursue their own course of life. That accounts for every weirdness, since they all have different ways of using the environment. Balance makes no sense when 90%+ organisms disappear and the balance never stays the same.
DAVID: 99% of all species are gone, and balance is always present. Balance must be important.
What kind of balance is always present? You have complained on another thread about ”Man making a bad balance”. What is the criterion for good versus bad? Continued existence, maybe? Your God (the version in which he is in tight control) apparently designs and destroys 99% of species, so the balance is bad for 99% of species and good for the surviving 1%. The balance keeps changing. If the human race is wiped out and only bacteria are left on Planet Earth, you will still have a balance. And if Planet Earth disappears, the universe will still have a balance, because it will still exist. The argument is meaningless!
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Friday, November 11, 2016, 15:30 (2932 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course it refutes, if the math never works. It shows a few similar new mutations can't do it.dhw: Can’t do what? Wistar refutes the claim that random mutations can cause speciation in the time available. It says nothing about a large number of individual organisms being needed to start a new species. If it does, please give me the reference (and the evidence).
Look again at the references in my book. Look up Walter Remine and his discussions of Haldane's dilemma. Math logic: If there is not enough time with some chance mutations, the answer is multiple mutations in many individuals.
DAVID: I did not imply your view is unfair. I use the word fair to confer my feeling that His emotional state is not a fair consideration, since He is such a different personage.
dhw: And once again: I think it is not unreasonable to assume that your God is unlikely to have created something he knew absolutely nothing about, e.g. emotion, let alone to want relations with beings whose nature is totally unfamiliar to him.
dhw: What kind of balance is always present? ... The balance keeps changing. If the human race is wiped out and only bacteria are left on Planet Earth, you will still have a balance. And if Planet Earth disappears, the universe will still have a balance, because it will still exist. The argument is meaningless!
We agree. Balance is always present. We disagree that it is required for life.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Of course it refutes, if the math never works. It shows a few similar new mutations can't do it.
dhw: Can’t do what? Wistar refutes the claim that random mutations can cause speciation in the time available. It says nothing about a large number of individual organisms being needed to start a new species. If it does, please give me the reference (and the evidence).
DAVID: Look again at the references in my book. Look up Walter Remine and his discussions of Haldane's dilemma. Math logic: If there is not enough time with some chance mutations, the answer is multiple mutations in many individuals.
Is it? Each innovation requires the cooperative adjustment of all the cell communities within each organism (whether preprogrammed or not). Let’s call the changes within the organism “mutations” (but not random). For an innovation to work, all the mutations must take place at the same time within each organism. You can’t have one bit of the innovation in one organism and another bit in another organism! Math logic refutes the claim that random mutations can cause speciation in the time available. I cannot see any math logic behind the claim that you need large numbers of different organisms to produce the same innovation that leads to speciation. If God dabbled, couldn’t he do so with just a few and then leave them to reproduce? Does he have to dabble a great big herd right from the start? What evidence is there that the very first generation of new species always arrived in large numbers? I would appreciate a direct answer rather than instructions to embark on a hunt (but a very swift dig among the brilliant sections refuting chance has not unearthed any such argument in either of your books).
dhw: What kind of balance is always present? ... The balance keeps changing. If the human race is wiped out and only bacteria are left on Planet Earth, you will still have a balance. And if Planet Earth disappears, the universe will still have a balance, because it will still exist. The argument is meaningless!
DAVID: We agree. Balance is always present. We disagree that it is required for life.
Different balances of life will always be present so long as life is present. Whatever balance exists at the time enables the survivors to survive. That does not explain why your God had to design and then destroy 99% of species, or why he had to design the weaverbird’s nest, so that humans could appear. And if humans disappeared but bacteria lived on, you would still have your balance “required for life”. Balance explains nothing.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Saturday, November 12, 2016, 15:40 (2931 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For an innovation to work, all the mutations must take place at the same time within each organism. You can’t have one bit of the innovation in one organism and another bit in another organism! Math logic refutes the claim that random mutations can cause speciation in the time available. I cannot see any math logic behind the claim that you need large numbers of different organisms to produce the same innovation that leads to speciation. If God dabbled, couldn’t he do so with just a few and then leave them to reproduce?
You still have to guarantee adequate reproduction which was Haldane's point. And the other issue is the number of mutations required for complex innovations as seen in new species, as shown in this recent entry of mine:
Friday, November 11, 2016, 22:59
"Comment: this is another example of the many layers of the genome, showing how complex the genome really is. Further note the bolded area that described how many genes are needed to control this process of dormancy. Recognize that when this system developed in bacteria it required multiple genes, and strongly suggests it developed by saltation. The other takeaway is that when a new process is developed, just as when a new species develops, large families of cooperating genes must be developed simultaneously."
Just think about the logic here. We see huge gaps in phenotype in new species. Think of the thousands of mutations that must be present. Does the new animal only breed with other new animals, or breed with old animals forming hybrids. We don't see hybrid forms in the gap fossils! Therefore new animals breed with new animals, therefore new species start with a large population as the gaps suggest.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: For an innovation to work, all the mutations must take place at the same time within each organism. You can’t have one bit of the innovation in one organism and another bit in another organism! Math logic refutes the claim that random mutations can cause speciation in the time available. I cannot see any math logic behind the claim that you need large numbers of different organisms to produce the same innovation that leads to speciation. If God dabbled, couldn’t he do so with just a few and then leave them to reproduce?
DAVID: You still have to guarantee adequate reproduction which was Haldane's point. And the other issue is the number of mutations required for complex innovations as seen in new species, as shown in this recent entry of mine:
Friday, November 11, 2016, 22:59
"Comment: this is another example of the many layers of the genome, showing how complex the genome really is. Further note the bolded area that described how many genes are needed to control this process of dormancy. Recognize that when this system developed in bacteria it required multiple genes, and strongly suggests it developed by saltation. The other takeaway is that when a new process is developed, just as when a new species develops, large families of cooperating genes must be developed simultaneously."
Just think about the logic here. We see huge gaps in phenotype in new species. Think of the thousands of mutations that must be present. Does the new animal only breed with other new animals, or breed with old animals forming hybrids. We don't see hybrid forms in the gap fossils! Therefore new animals breed with new animals, therefore new species start with a large population as the gaps suggest.
There are two distinct points here: 1) that any innovation requires the cooperation of all the cell communities (= large families of cooperating genes) within the individual organism. Absolutely no disagreement; 2) that a large population of the new species is required right from the beginning in order for it to survive. How can gaps suggest a large population? Gaps suggest saltation, and that’s all. Every innovation must take place in individuals, and even allowing for convergent evolution, each one will take place in a particular location. It is self-evident that there must be enough of these individuals to guarantee reproduction. Does Haldane tell us how many? According to the Bible, two were enough, but we are not great believers in that story, so give us a clue. What do the mathematicians regard as a viable number to start a new species?
And while on the subject of maths, according to you God provided the first living cells with programmes for every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution (apart from those he dabbled). Mathematically, how many cells do you reckon he would have needed at the very beginning to “guarantee” the survival of all these millions of programmes through the three point something billion years till they ended up (so far) with the weaverbird’s nest, the duckbilled platypus and us human beings?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Sunday, November 13, 2016, 19:40 (2930 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, November 13, 2016, 19:56
Just think about the logic here. We see huge gaps in phenotype in new species. Think of the thousands of mutations that must be present. Does the new animal only breed with other new animals, or breed with old animals forming hybrids. We don't see hybrid forms in the gap fossils! Therefore new animals breed with new animals, therefore new species start with a large population as the gaps suggest.[/i]
dhw: There are two distinct points here: 1) that any innovation requires the cooperation of all the cell communities (= large families of cooperating genes) within the individual organism. Absolutely no disagreement; 2) that a large population of the new species is required right from the beginning in order for it to survive. How can gaps suggest a large population? Gaps suggest saltation, and that’s all.
And I know how saltation occurs. God. I've told you logically there must be new numbers of a new species all of whom need multiple similar new organized mutations. And you think cells can conjure that up. Totally unreasonable to me.
dhw: Every innovation must take place in individuals, and even allowing for convergent evolution, each one will take place in a particular location. It is self-evident that there must be enough of these individuals to guarantee reproduction.
Yes it is self evident. How do all the different individual chose the same DNA changes?
dhw: Does Haldane tell us how many? According to the Bible, two were enough, but we are not great believers in that story, so give us a clue. What do the mathematicians regard as a viable number to start a new species?
Haldane didn't tell us. He calculated not enough time.
dhw: And while on the subject of maths, according to you God provided the first living cells with programmes for every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution (apart from those he dabbled). Mathematically, how many cells do you reckon he would have needed at the very beginning to “guarantee” the survival of all these millions of programmes through the three point something billion years till they ended up (so far) with the weaverbird’s nest, the duckbilled platypus and us human beings?
It just takes a few dividing every 20 minutes with all the survival mechanisms on board. That is obvious math to the power of two.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Just think about the logic here. We see huge gaps in phenotype in new species. Think of the thousands of mutations that must be present. Does the new animal only breed with other new animals, or breed with old animals forming hybrids. We don't see hybrid forms in the gap fossils! Therefore new animals breed with new animals, therefore new species start with a large population as the gaps suggest.
dhw: There are two distinct points here: 1) that any innovation requires the cooperation of all the cell communities (= large families of cooperating genes) within the individual organism. Absolutely no disagreement; 2) that a large population of the new species is required right from the beginning in order for it to survive. How can gaps suggest a large population? Gaps suggest saltation, and that’s all.
DAVID: And I know how saltation occurs. God. I've told you logically there must be new numbers of a new species all of whom need multiple similar new organized mutations. And you think cells can conjure that up. Totally unreasonable to me.
There is no disagreement between us on the fact that a new species requires multiple new organized mutations. “New numbers” is the point at issue, since you insist the numbers must be large. I don’t see why.
dhw: Every innovation must take place in individuals, and even allowing for convergent evolution, each one will take place in a particular location. It is self-evident that there must be enough of these individuals to guarantee reproduction.
DAVID: Yes it is self evident. How do all the different individual chose the same DNA changes?
Because the cell communities are coping with or exploiting the same environment.
dhw: Does Haldane tell us how many? According to the Bible, two were enough, but we are not great believers in that story, so give us a clue. What do the mathematicians regard as a viable number to start a new species?
DAVID: Haldane didn't tell us. He calculated not enough time.
Of course he didn’t tell us. Nobody knows how many individuals are needed to start a new species, and your claim that large numbers are required is pure speculation. Haldane presumably calculated not enough time for random mutations to create new species – a different issue altogether.
dhw: And while on the subject of maths, according to you God provided the first living cells with programmes for every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution (apart from those he dabbled). Mathematically, how many cells do you reckon he would have needed at the very beginning to “guarantee” the survival of all these millions of programmes through the three point something billion years till they ended up (so far) with the weaverbird’s nest, the duckbilled platypus and us human beings?
DAVID: It just takes a few dividing every 20 minutes with all the survival mechanisms on board. That is obvious math to the power of two.
Good to hear that just a few cells are needed to pass on millions and millions of programmes. May I suggest that just a few organisms might be needed to pass on ONE programme, as individuals come up with the innovations that lead to new species? With these “just a few” reproducing, within “just a few” generations numbers will increase exponentially until you have lots and lots of them. Obvious math.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Monday, November 14, 2016, 17:44 (2929 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, November 14, 2016, 17:49
DAVID: Just think about the logic here. We see huge gaps in phenotype in new species. Think of the thousands of mutations that must be present. Does the new animal only breed with other new animals, or breed with old animals forming hybrids. We don't see hybrid forms in the gap fossils! Therefore new animals breed with new animals, therefore new species start with a large population as the gaps suggest.
dhw: There are two distinct points here: 1) that any innovation requires the cooperation of all the cell communities (= large families of cooperating genes) within the individual organism. Absolutely no disagreement; 2) that a large population of the new species is required right from the beginning in order for it to survive. How can gaps suggest a large population? Gaps suggest saltation, and that’s all.
DAVID: And I know how saltation occurs. God. I've told you logically there must be new numbers of a new species all of whom need multiple similar new organized mutations. And you think cells can conjure that up. Totally unreasonable to me.dhw: There is no disagreement between us on the fact that a new species requires multiple new organized mutations. “New numbers” is the point at issue, since you insist the numbers must be large. I don’t see why.
Just read my first statement above about hybrids (old phenotype combined with new phenotype). The gaps don't show them. In a new sexual species there must be males and females to tango together to create a stable population of new forms. This means the new large population of newly integrated mutations has to appear at the same time in both male and female. Not by chance. And don't tell me your favored cell populations (whatever that means)cross talk between male and female!
dhw: Does Haldane tell us how many? According to the Bible, two were enough, but we are not great believers in that story, so give us a clue. What do the mathematicians regard as a viable number to start a new species?
DAVID: Haldane didn't tell us. He calculated not enough time.dhw: Of course he didn’t tell us. Nobody knows how many individuals are needed to start a new species, and your claim that large numbers are required is pure speculation. Haldane presumably calculated not enough time for random mutations to create new species – a different issue altogether.
Population genetics math must involve starting numbers of new species!
DAVID: It just takes a few dividing every 20 minutes with all the survival mechanisms on board. That is obvious math to the power of two.
dhw: Good to hear that just a few cells are needed to pass on millions and millions of programmes. May I suggest that just a few organisms might be needed to pass on ONE programme, as individuals come up with the innovations that lead to new species? With these “just a few” reproducing, within “just a few” generations numbers will increase exponentially until you have lots and lots of them. Obvious math.
Remember we are discussing single celled organisms which pass every code onboard. Doesn't answer my 'hybrid' approach.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: There is no disagreement between us on the fact that a new species requires multiple new organized mutations. “New numbers” is the point at issue, since you insist the numbers must be large. I don’t see why.
DAVID: Just read my first statement above about hybrids (old phenotype combined with new phenotype). The gaps don't show them. In a new sexual species there must be males and females to tango together to create a stable population of new forms. This means the new large population of newly integrated mutations has to appear at the same time in both male and female. Not by chance. And don't tell me your favored cell populations (whatever that means)cross talk between male and female!
You asked earlier how individuals choose the same DNA changes, and I answered: “Because the cell communities [not "populations"] are coping with or exploiting the same environment”. If you have a group of individuals in a particular location where there is a particular change in environmental conditions, it stands to reason that the members of that group will make the same adjustments. We see the same phenomenon in convergent evolution: where similar conditions exist, organisms make similar changes to themselves. You won’t get hybrids if "just a few" fish stay ashore and the rest stay in the water.
dhw: What do the mathematicians regard as a viable number to start a new species? […]
DAVID: Population genetics math must involve starting numbers of new species!
You don’t need math to tell you that any new species needs at least two to tango. “Starting numbers” does not mean large numbers.
DAVID: It just takes a few dividing every 20 minutes with all the survival mechanisms on board. That is obvious math to the power of two.
dhw: Good to hear that just a few cells are needed to pass on millions and millions of programmes. May I suggest that just a few organisms might be needed to pass on ONE programme, as individuals come up with the innovations that lead to new species? With these “just a few” reproducing, within “just a few” generations numbers will increase exponentially until you have lots and lots of them. Obvious math.
DAVID: Remember we are discussing single celled organisms which pass every code onboard.
I have questioned the likelihood of the first cells having on board every single code that led to every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of life, let alone the likelihood of their descendants also being able to pass them all on through the next 3.8 billion years. If you consider it possible that “just a few” unicellular organisms could contain and pass on millions of programmes for multicellular organisms, why do you consider it impossible that a few multicelluilar organisms can pass on ONE new programme?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 15, 2016, 20:12 (2928 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You asked earlier how individuals choose the same DNA changes, and I answered: “Because the cell communities [not "populations"] are coping with or exploiting the same environment”. If you have a group of individuals in a particular location where there is a particular change in environmental conditions, it stands to reason that the members of that group will make the same adjustments.
The word adjustment means adaptation or modification. I'm discussing speciation, which means much more change than that
dhw We see the same phenomenon in convergent evolution: where similar conditions exist, organisms make similar changes to themselves. You won’t get hybrids if "just a few" fish stay ashore and the rest stay in the water. Convergent evolution is a similar process seen in different species. Those instructions could be built into the inventive mechanisms. The lack of hybridization means both male and female landed fish have the same DNA to start with. My point is: How is that arranged?
dhw: You don’t need math to tell you that any new species needs at least two to tango. “Starting numbers” does not mean large numbers.
I understand that. Just a small number of surviving males and females with matched DNA will do.
DAVID: Remember we are discussing single celled organisms which pass every code onboard.dhw: I have questioned the likelihood of the first cells having on board every single code that led to every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of life, let alone the likelihood of their descendants also being able to pass them all on through the next 3.8 billion years.
Cell division means that what is present is passed onto daughter cells, unless an error is made. Modifications of DNA occur between cell division.
dhw: If you consider it possible that “just a few” unicellular organisms could contain and pass on millions of programmes for multicellular organisms, why do you consider it impossible that a few multicelluilar organisms can pass on ONE new programme?
Because sex requires both partners have the same new DNA modifications. There is not enough time for the dominant recessive gene play to work according to the math folks and evolution math folks. One new program is modification and I'm theorizing about speciation.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: You asked earlier how individuals choose the same DNA changes, and I answered: “Because the cell communities [not "populations"] are coping with or exploiting the same environment”. If you have a group of individuals in a particular location where there is a particular change in environmental conditions, it stands to reason that the members of that group will make the same adjustments.
DAVID: The word adjustment means adaptation or modification. I'm discussing speciation, which means much more change than that.
I use the terms “coping with” to indicate adaptation, and “exploiting” to indicate innovation. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, but we know that adaptation happens, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism works for both. Your objection does not remove the logic of my argument explaining how individuals come to choose the same DNA changes, whether it’s adaptation or innovation.
dhw: You don’t need math to tell you that any new species needs at least two to tango. “Starting numbers” does not mean large numbers.
DAVID: I understand that. Just a small number of surviving males and females with matched DNA will do.
Thank you. Goodbye to the red herring of large numbers.
dhw: I have questioned the likelihood of the first cells having on board every single code that led to every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of life, let alone the likelihood of their descendants also being able to pass them all on through the next 3.8 billion years.
DAVID: Cell division means that what is present is passed onto daughter cells, unless an error is made. Modifications of DNA occur between cell division.
How does that support the hypothesis that the first cells contained and passed on millions and millions of programmes?
dhw: If you consider it possible that “just a few” unicellular organisms could contain and pass on millions of programmes for multicellular organisms, why do you consider it impossible that a few multicelluilar organisms can pass on ONE new programme?
DAVID: Because sex requires both partners have the same new DNA modifications.
Explained above, and you have now agreed that you only need a few individuals, so why continue the argument?
DAVID: There is not enough time for the dominant recessive gene play to work according to the math folks and evolution math folks. One new program is modification and I'm theorizing about speciation.
If you believe in common descent, both adaptation and innovation entail modifications in existing organisms, but innovations bring something new, whereas adaptations enable the organism to remain itself. There may not be enough time for chance to create speciation, but if God’s programmes can do it, so can intelligent organisms. The only rational objection you have raised so far to my hypothesis is that, although some experts believe in cellular intelligence, nobody has yet come up with evidence that cell communities are intelligent enough to do the inventing. Fair enough. And similarly, nobody has yet come up with evidence that chance can do the inventing, or that God preprogrammed the first cells with every innovation and natural wonder, or God dabbled. We are all theorizing.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2016, 20:04 (2927 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I use the terms “coping with” to indicate adaptation, and “exploiting” to indicate innovation. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, but we know that adaptation happens, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism works for both.
You've said in the past that Darwin theory does not explain speciation, but your statement says Darwin does explain it! Speciation involves large changes in organisms, not adaptations but large innovations.
dhw: You don’t need math to tell you that any new species needs at least two to tango. “Starting numbers” does not mean large numbers.
DAVID: I understand that. Just a small number of surviving males and females with matched DNA will do.dhw: Thank you. Goodbye to the red herring of large numbers.
I never said very large numbers, just more than two.
DAVID: Cell division means that what is present is passed onto daughter cells, unless an error is made. Modifications of DNA occur between cell division.
dhw: How does that support the hypothesis that the first cells contained and passed on millions and millions of programmes?
Quite clear. Since cell division is straight replication of DNA, not changed by sex reproduction, it all could be present from the beginning and unchanged except by error copies, which are rare.
DAVID: There is not enough time for the dominant recessive gene play to work according to the math folks and evolution math folks. One new program is modification and I'm theorizing about speciation.
dhw: If you believe in common descent, both adaptation and innovation entail modifications in existing organisms, but innovations bring something new, whereas adaptations enable the organism to remain itself. There may not be enough time for chance to create speciation, but if God’s programmes can do it, so can intelligent organisms. The only rational objection you have raised so far to my hypothesis is that, although some experts believe in cellular intelligence, nobody has yet come up with evidence that cell communities are intelligent enough to do the inventing. Fair enough. And similarly, nobody has yet come up with evidence that chance can do the inventing, or that God preprogrammed the first cells with every innovation and natural wonder, or God dabbled. We are all theorizing.
Of course we are theorizing. But logically since the massive complexity requires complex planning. Non-mental somatic cells don't have much planning ability except minor modification, which is proven.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: I use the terms “coping with” to indicate adaptation, and “exploiting” to indicate innovation. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, but we know that adaptation happens, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism works for both.DAVID: You've said in the past that Darwin theory does not explain speciation, but your statement says Darwin does explain it! Speciation involves large changes in organisms, not adaptations but large innovations.
Where on earth do you find Darwin’s random mutations and gradualism in my statement??? Over and over again, I have explained my hypothesis: that just as cell communities use their intelligence to adapt to new conditions and remain themselves, they may also use it to create the innovations that lead to speciation. (These would have to be saltations in order to work and survive.) What is Darwinian about that? But it’s a HYPOTHESIS. Just like your preprogramming and dabbling are HYPOTHESES. Because nobody knows how speciation takes place. We are theorizing.
DAVID: (in response to a similar point later in my post): Of course we are theorizing. But logically since the massive complexity requires complex planning. Non-mental somatic cells don't have much planning ability except minor modification, which is proven.
That is the point at issue. Yes, we know they are capable of minor modifications. We don’t know how far minor modifications can extend to major modifications, all the way through to innovation. We don’t know. It’s a hypothesis.
DAVID: Cell division means that what is present is passed onto daughter cells, unless an error is made. Modifications of DNA occur between cell division.
dhw: How does that support the hypothesis that the first cells contained and passed on millions and millions of programmes?
DAVID: Quite clear. Since cell division is straight replication of DNA, not changed by sex reproduction, it all could be present from the beginning and unchanged except by error copies, which are rare.
Single cells don’t have sex, and therefore remain unchanged, and that supports the hypothesis that they contained millions and millions of programmes? (And these were then passed on through millions and millions of multicellular organisms which do have sex and do not remain unchanged.) Why could it not support the hypothesis that the first cells contained a (perhaps God-given) form of intelligence that could devise programmes of its own?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Thursday, November 17, 2016, 19:51 (2926 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Where on earth do you find Darwin’s random mutations and gradualism in my statement??? Over and over again, I have explained my hypothesis: that just as cell communities use their intelligence to adapt to new conditions and remain themselves, they may also use it to create the innovations that lead to speciation. (These would have to be saltations in order to work and survive.) What is Darwinian about that? We are theorizing.
My point is that I don't believe intelligent cell communities can figure out how to jump the speciation gaps we see. You have extended Shapiro's conclusion far beyond what he claims. There is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species. That is a pure extension of Darwin's view of human animal breeding practices.
DAVID: (in response to a similar point later in my post): Of course we are theorizing. But logically since the massive complexity requires complex planning. Non-mental somatic cells don't have much planning ability except minor modification, which is proven.dhw: That is the point at issue. Yes, we know they are capable of minor modifications. We don’t know how far minor modifications can extend to major modifications, all the way through to innovation. We don’t know. It’s a hypothesis.
We are arguing about speciation, not innovations within the same species. I look at gap size in phenotype to guide my thinking. Do you?
DAVID: Cell division means that what is present is passed onto daughter cells, unless an error is made. Modifications of DNA occur between cell division.
dhw: How does that support the hypothesis that the first cells contained and passed on millions and millions of programmes?
DAVID: Quite clear. Since cell division is straight replication of DNA, not changed by sex reproduction, it all could be present from the beginning and unchanged except by error copies, which are rare.dhw: Single cells don’t have sex, and therefore remain unchanged, and that supports the hypothesis that they contained millions and millions of programmes? (And these were then passed on through millions and millions of multicellular organisms which do have sex and do not remain unchanged.) Why could it not support the hypothesis that the first cells contained a (perhaps God-given) form of intelligence that could devise programmes of its own?
Because so far we have no evidence of that kind of intelligence, only minor necessary adaptations.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: Where on earth do you find Darwin’s random mutations and gradualism in my statement??? Over and over again, I have explained my hypothesis: that just as cell communities use their intelligence to adapt to new conditions and remain themselves, they may also use it to create the innovations that lead to speciation. (These would have to be saltations in order to work and survive.) What is Darwinian about that? We are theorizing.
DAVID: My point is that I don't believe intelligent cell communities can figure out how to jump the speciation gaps we see. You have extended Shapiro's conclusion far beyond what he claims.
According to Wikipedia, referring to an article Shapiro wrote for the Boston Review (1997): “ Within the context of the article in particular and Shapiro's work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the "guiding intelligence" is to be found within the cell.”
Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering
Since he regards cells as sentient, cognitive, intelligent, decision-making etc. beings, I can’t see much difference between his concept of “natural genetic engineering” and my own hypothesis. But you have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe in cellular intelligence, so it makes no difference how far Shapiro and/or I extend his belief in it.
DAVID: There is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species. That is a pure extension of Darwin's view of human animal breeding practices
If you believe in common descent, how else can one species descend from another if not through innovations? And these can only take place in existing organisms. A few species (a) organisms give rise to species (b) through an innovation. Species (b) later diversifies into species (c) through another innovation. Existing organisms spread to different environments, or existing environments change, and existing organisms not only adapt (they remain the same species) but they also innovate and become new species. If you believe in common descent, this is exactly the same process as your God preprogramming or dabbling: each new programme has to take place in existing organisms. Your alternative is separate creation.
DAVID: Since cell division is straight replication of DNA, not changed by sex reproduction, it all could be present from the beginning and unchanged except by error copies, which are rare.
dhw: Single cells don’t have sex, and therefore remain unchanged, and that supports the hypothesis that they contained millions and millions of programmes? (And these were then passed on through millions and millions of multicellular organisms which do have sex and do not remain unchanged.) Why could it not support the hypothesis that the first cells contained a (perhaps God-given) form of intelligence that could devise programmes of its own?
DAVID: Because so far we have no evidence of that kind of intelligence, only minor necessary adaptations.
Yes, it’s a hypothesis, because nobody can explain speciation. What is the evidence that the first cells contained a programme for the building of the weaverbird’s nest plus umpteen million other innovations and natural wonders (apart from those that your God dabbled)?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Friday, November 18, 2016, 14:54 (2925 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Since he regards cells as sentient, cognitive, intelligent, decision-making etc. beings, I can’t see much difference between his concept of “natural genetic engineering” and my own hypothesis. But you have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe in cellular intelligence, so it makes no difference how far Shapiro and/or I extend his belief in it.
You and he do extend beyond all recognition (from WWII G.I. expression FUBAR). What I see in Shapiro's work is the cellular ability to slightly modify DNA for adaptations within species, nothing more.
DAVID: There is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species. That is a pure extension of Darwin's view of human animal breeding practicesdhw: If you believe in common descent, how else can one species descend from another if not through innovations? And these can only take place in existing organisms. A few species (a) organisms give rise to species (b) through an innovation. Species (b) later diversifies into species (c) through another innovation. Existing organisms spread to different environments, or existing environments change, and existing organisms not only adapt (they remain the same species) but they also innovate and become new species. If you believe in common descent, this is exactly the same process as your God preprogramming or dabbling: each new programme has to take place in existing organisms. Your alternative is separate creation.
And that is my alternative! New species involve saltation directed by God. God used an evolution method. Your entire argument is pure Darwin: step-by-step improvement leading to new species. Organisms cannot 'innovate' the gaps we see between old modified species to new species. There is too much complex planning involved which your hypothesis blithely skips over and assumes.
DAVID: Because so far we have no evidence of that kind of intelligence, only minor necessary adaptations.
dhw: Yes, it’s a hypothesis, because nobody can explain speciation. What is the evidence that the first cells contained a programme for the building of the weaverbird’s nest plus umpteen million other innovations and natural wonders (apart from those that your God dabbled)?
Because all those things happened after the first cells appeared. We must accept cause and effect. The appearance of a neuron from all other cells is completely unexplained except as a saltation from God. A neuron is like no other cell that exists with special attributes involving the use of charged ions.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: Since he regards cells as sentient, cognitive, intelligent, decision-making etc. beings, I can’t see much difference between his concept of “natural genetic engineering” and my own hypothesis. But you have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe in cellular intelligence, so it makes no difference how far Shapiro and/or I extend his belief in it.
DAVID: You and he do extend beyond all recognition (from WWII G.I. expression FUBAR). What I see in Shapiro's work is the cellular ability to slightly modify DNA for adaptations within species, nothing more.
And David’s comment re “Shapiro on epigenetics”: this is an exact instance of what Shapiro has shown. Necessary adaptation to environmental challenges, no change in species.
If Shapiro (or I) could prove that cellular intelligence has caused the innovations that drive evolution, our discussions on this subject would be at an end, and he (or I) would be off to Stockholm to collect his (my) Nobel Prize. If you could prove that God had preprogrammed or dabbled the innovations that drive evolution, our discussions on this subject would be at an end, and you would be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. NOBODY knows how speciation occurred. We are all extending what we do know to form hypotheses to explain what we don’t know.
DAVID: There is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species.dhw: If you believe in common descent, how else can one species descend from another if not through innovations? And these can only take place in existing organisms. A few species (a) organisms give rise to species (b) through an innovation. Species (b) later diversifies into species (c) through another innovation. Existing organisms spread to different environments, or existing environments change, and existing organisms not only adapt (they remain the same species) but they also innovate and become new species. If you believe in common descent, this is exactly the same process as your God preprogramming or dabbling: each new programme has to take place in existing organisms. Your alternative is separate creation.
DAVID: And that is my alternative! New species involve saltation directed by God. God used an evolution method.
This is a whole new ball game. You simply cannot believe in separate creation AND common descent! Either each new programme takes place in existing organisms, as described above, or God starts each species from scratch. Saltations in biology as you well know mean a sudden change in an existing organism.
DAVID: Your entire argument is pure Darwin: step-by-step improvement leading to new species. Organisms cannot 'innovate' the gaps we see between old modified species to new species. There is too much complex planning involved which your hypothesis blithely skips over and assumes.
A hypothesis is a suggestion, not an assumption. However a statement like “organisms cannot innovate the gaps” is an assumption. The innovatory improvements are not step by step. They would only survive if they functioned. New species through innovations in existing species HAS to be the process if you believe in common descent, whether through cellular intelligence or through your divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. But now apparently you are opting out of common descent. That’s fine with me, except that under “Speech and Fox P2” you are back with Darwin again:
QUOTE: "As Dr. Jarvis observes, "We believe that FOXP2 already had a pre-existing role in regulating vocal communication before human language evolved.'"
DAVID’s comment: Not surprising if we believe in common descent. Humans just developed much further in anatomic and brain changes.
So away with separate creation. But a very welcome acknowledgement that “humans just developed much further”. Same process, greater degree.
dhw: What is the evidence that the first cells contained a programme for the building of the weaverbird’s nest plus umpteen million other innovations and natural wonders (apart from those that your God dabbled)?
DAVID: Because all those things happened after the first cells appeared. We must accept cause and effect. The appearance of a neuron from all other cells is completely unexplained except as a saltation from God. A neuron is like no other cell that exists with special attributes involving the use of charged ions.
Every innovation is unexplained. That is why we theorize. Yes, we must accept cause and effect, and obviously all these things happened after the first cells appeared. If we believe in common descent, there has to be an ongoing link between the first cells and all subsequent changes. We don’t know what the link is, but cellular intelligence would fit the bill. However, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, this does not preclude the existence of your God (who would have designed it), or of your God dabbling. What it does preclude is your God having to specially design the weaverbird’s nest and every innovation and natural wonder throughout the history of life.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Saturday, November 19, 2016, 19:16 (2924 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: And that is my alternative! New species involve saltation directed by God. God used an evolution method.dhw: This is a whole new ball game. You simply cannot believe in separate creation AND common descent! Either each new programme takes place in existing organisms, as described above, or God starts each species from scratch. Saltations in biology as you well know mean a sudden change in an existing organism.
Of course I can believe in evolution and God's control. Have you forgotten our discussions about pre-planning or dabbling? I do see common descent, but managed by God, the third way to understand evolution. Chance cannot work. Direct organismal control is not reasonable. They don't have the smarts to plan it. I do accept inventive mechanisms under organismal control but under guidelines. This is all old discussion.
dhw: QUOTE: "As Dr. Jarvis observes, "We believe that FOXP2 already had a pre-existing role in regulating vocal communication before human language evolved.'"
DAVID’s comment: Not surprising if we believe in common descent. Humans just developed much further in anatomic and brain changes.
dhw: So away with separate creation. But a very welcome acknowledgement that “humans just developed much further”. Same process, greater degree.
Yes, under God's guidance.
dhw: What is the evidence that the first cells contained a programme for the building of the weaverbird’s nest plus umpteen million other innovations and natural wonders (apart from those that your God dabbled)?
DAVID: Because all those things happened after the first cells appeared. We must accept cause and effect. The appearance of a neuron from all other cells is completely unexplained except as a saltation from God. A neuron is like no other cell that exists with special attributes involving the use of charged ions.
dhw: Every innovation is unexplained. That is why we theorize. Yes, we must accept cause and effect, and obviously all these things happened after the first cells appeared. If we believe in common descent, there has to be an ongoing link between the first cells and all subsequent changes. We don’t know what the link is, but cellular intelligence would fit the bill. However, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, this does not preclude the existence of your God (who would have designed it), or of your God dabbling. What it does preclude is your God having to specially design the weaverbird’s nest and every innovation and natural wonder throughout the history of life.
If God dabbles, it precludes nothing.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
Dhw: …If you believe in common descent, this is exactly the same process as your God preprogramming or dabbling: each new programme has to take place in existing organisms. Your alternative is separate creation.
DAVID: And that is my alternative! New species involve saltation directed by God. God used an evolution method.
dhw: This is a whole new ball game. You simply cannot believe in separate creation AND common descent! Either each new programme takes place in existing organisms, as described above, or God starts each species from scratch. Saltations in biology as you well know mean a sudden change in an existing organism.
DAVID: Of course I can believe in evolution and God's control. Have you forgotten our discussions about pre-planning or dabbling?
Hey, hey, stop! Please read the sentences in bold. “Control” is not separate creation! Separate creation is the exact opposite of common descent. You wrote: “there is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species.” Let me repeat: How else can new species arise? Even if God preprogrammes or dabbles the innovations, they must take place in existing organisms unless you believe in separate creation. Please clarify: do you or do you not think that innovations take place within existing organisms, and innovations lead to new species?
dhw: Every innovation is unexplained. That is why we theorize. […] If we believe in common descent, there has to be an ongoing link between the first cells and all subsequent changes. We don’t know what the link is, but cellular intelligence would fit the bill. However, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, this does not preclude the existence of your God (who would have designed it), or of your God dabbling. What it does preclude is your God having to specially design the weaverbird’s nest and every innovation and natural wonder throughout the history of life.
DAVID: If God dabbles, it precludes nothing.
If God dabbled every innovation and every natural wonder, cellular intelligence would have no part to play in any innovations or natural wonders. There would be no point in your God giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing if he did it all for them! Therefore my hypothetical cellular intelligence would preclude God having to do all the designing.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Sunday, November 20, 2016, 15:10 (2923 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course I can believe in evolution and God's control. Have you forgotten our discussions about pre-planning or dabbling?
dhw: Hey, hey, stop! Please read the sentences in bold. “Control” is not separate creation! Separate creation is the exact opposite of common descent. You wrote: “there is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species.” Let me repeat: How else can new species arise? Even if God preprogrammes or dabbles the innovations, they must take place in existing organisms unless you believe in separate creation. Please clarify: do you or do you not think that innovations take place within existing organisms, and innovations lead to new species?
We are having semantic problems, or at least I am. By 'innovations', I meant adaptive modifications, epigenetic changes orchestrated by the organisms themselves. But that cannot reach the level of speciation by itself. New species are too complexly different for that to work. Of course, as God uses evolution as His mechanism for creation. He uses the original organismal form as the basis to create the newer form/species. I actually view this as stepwise creation. Of course this is dabbling. My other thought is preplanning for the series of creation and finally an onboard guided inventive mechanism. All this comes from a judgment that God runs evolution to reach a final human form.
dhw: If God dabbled every innovation and every natural wonder, cellular intelligence would have no part to play in any innovations or natural wonders. There would be no point in your God giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing if he did it all for them! Therefore my hypothetical cellular intelligence would preclude God having to do all the designing.
You have expanded the concept of cellular intelligence beyond anything shown so far. Of course you can claim anything in hypothesis, but you should try and base your proposals on some reasonable evidence to start with, and in my view you haven't.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Of course I can believe in evolution and God's control. Have you forgotten our discussions about pre-planning or dabbling?
dhw: Hey, hey, stop! Please read the sentences in bold. “Control” is not separate creation! Separate creation is the exact opposite of common descent. You wrote: “there is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species.” Let me repeat: How else can new species arise? Even if God preprogrammes or dabbles the innovations, they must take place in existing organisms unless you believe in separate creation. Please clarify: do you or do you not think that innovations take place within existing organisms, and innovations lead to new species?
DAVID: We are having semantic problems, or at least I am. By 'innovations', I meant adaptive modifications, epigenetic changes orchestrated by the organisms themselves. But that cannot reach the level of speciation by itself. New species are too complexly different for that to work. Of course, as God uses evolution as His mechanism for creation. He uses the original organismal form as the basis to create the newer form/species. I actually view this as stepwise creation. Of course this is dabbling. My other thought is preplanning for the series of creation and finally an onboard guided inventive mechanism. All this comes from a judgment that God runs evolution to reach a final human form.
You certainly are having semantic problems if you take innovation to be synonymous with adaptation. However, let’s make the best of a bad job and do a recap. By innovation in the context of evolutionary development we mean something new, i.e. that did not exist before. New species must entail innovation(s) of some kind. If you believe in common descent, each innovation must take place in an existing organism. This must be true, whether your God has a) preprogrammed the innovation(s) or b) dabbled the innovation(s), or c) cell communities have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to design their own innovation(s), or d) chance created the innovation(s). There is no proof for any of these hypotheses. You do not believe in cellular intelligence, and so you reject c), and both of us reject d).
If you believe in common descent, humans have also evolved from earlier organisms. Theoretically, their evolution can have resulted from any of these processes, but d) is out for both of us. I do not believe the higgledy-piggledy history of life denotes that all innovations were geared to the production of humans, or that the first cells were programmed with every single "non-dabbled" innovation and natural wonder for the last 3.8 billion years. However, if God exists, I can believe in the occasional dabble (perhaps in the case of human consciousness). I therefore reject a), and am inclined to favour c) with a possible dash of b). (But please remember that rejection of one thing does not mean acceptance of another - that is the essence of agnosticism.)
DAVID: If God dabbles, it precludes nothing.
dhw: If God dabbled every innovation and every natural wonder, cellular intelligence would have no part to play in any innovations or natural wonders. There would be no point in your God giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing if he did it all for them! Therefore my hypothetical cellular intelligence would preclude God having to do all the designing.
DAVID: You have expanded the concept of cellular intelligence beyond anything shown so far.
Agreed, but my point was that cellular intelligence would have to preclude your God’s designing every innovation and natural wonder.
DAVID: Of course you can claim anything in hypothesis, but you should try and base your proposals on some reasonable evidence to start with, and in my view you haven't.
What constitutes “reasonable” is of course subjective, but I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting a possible solution to the mystery of speciation, based on what we know about life’s history and on what some scientists tell us about the behaviour of cells. In my subjective view, your own hypothesis of first cells preprogrammed with every “non-dabbled” innovation and natural wonder in the history of life - as epitomized by the weaverbird's nest - all geared to the “final” production of humans, is unreasonable.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2016, 15:35 (2922 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You certainly are having semantic problems if you take innovation to be synonymous with adaptation.However, let’s make the best of a bad job and do a recap. By innovation in the context of evolutionary development we mean something new, i.e. that did not exist before.
Thank you for sorting out your meaning of 'innovation'. To me the word connotes any adaptation or improvement that solves a current problem.
dhw: New species must entail innovation(s) of some kind. If you believe in common descent, each innovation must take place in an existing organism. This must be true, whether your God has a) preprogrammed the innovation(s) or b) dabbled the innovation(s), or c) cell communities have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to design their own innovation(s), or d) chance created the innovation(s). There is no proof for any of these hypotheses. You do not believe in cellular intelligence, and so you reject c), and both of us reject d).
Excellent summary. If you reject chance (d) as I do, I do not see how you can implant intelligence into the first cells from their beginning (c), from which all other cells come. Were the first cells dumb but somehow learned from experience? That is trial and error and comes back to chance (d). If they are intelligent from the beginning of life, where did that intelligence come from? Intelligence always implies teaching or experience or both.
dhw: If you believe in common descent, humans have also evolved from earlier organisms. Theoretically, their evolution can have resulted from any of these processes, but d) is out for both of us. I do not believe the higgledy-piggledy history of life denotes that all innovations were geared to the production of humans, or that the first cells were programmed with every single "non-dabbled" innovation and natural wonder for the last 3.8 billion years. However, if God exists, I can believe in the occasional dabble (perhaps in the case of human consciousness). I therefore reject a), and am inclined to favour c) with a possible dash of b). (But please remember that rejection of one thing does not mean acceptance of another - that is the essence of agnosticism.)
Again, an excellent summary of your position on the picket fence, which means always looking for answers but finding none.
DAVID: You have expanded the concept of cellular intelligence beyond anything shown so far.
dhw: Agreed, but my point was that cellular intelligence would have to preclude your God’s designing every innovation and natural wonder.
Of course, if 'simple' cells are intelligent. To be certain, we have shown that they are very complexly designed to function as they do. But that does not say they are innately intelligent.
DAVID: Of course you can claim anything in hypothesis, but you should try and base your proposals on some reasonable evidence to start with, and in my view you haven't.dhw: What constitutes “reasonable” is of course subjective, but I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting a possible solution to the mystery of speciation, based on what we know about life’s history and on what some scientists tell us about the behaviour of cells.
Your use of the phrase 'some scientists' clearly implies a valid difference of opinion exists. Shapiro wrote his book to try to change a tide of differing opinion. Darwinists don't like it and ID folks love it.
dhw: In my subjective view, your own hypothesis of first cells preprogrammed with every “non-dabbled” innovation and natural wonder in the history of life - as epitomized by the weaverbird's nest - all geared to the “final” production of humans, is unreasonable.
The history of life includes the arrival of a fantastically unusual animal form with a giant brain, an extremely unreasonable result when judged by the stresses of the environment from which it came. Davies is incredulous that an organism evolved that can try to explain the universe. Do you feel incredulity?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
dhw: New species must entail innovation(s) of some kind. If you believe in common descent, each innovation must take place in an existing organism. This must be true, whether your God has a) preprogrammed the innovation(s) or b) dabbled the innovation(s), or c) cell communities have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to design their own innovation(s), or d) chance created the innovation(s). There is no proof for any of these hypotheses. You do not believe in cellular intelligence, and so you reject c), and both of us reject d).
DAVID: Excellent summary. If you reject chance (d) as I do, I do not see how you can implant intelligence into the first cells from their beginning (c), from which all other cells come. Were the first cells dumb but somehow learned from experience? That is trial and error and comes back to chance (d). If they are intelligent from the beginning of life, where did that intelligence come from? Intelligence always implies teaching or experience or both.
As usual, when we are discussing the different ways in which evolution might have worked, you scurry back to origins in order to skate over the problems of your own hypothesis. Here, as always, I have specified that the initial intelligence may have come from God. That is what I mean by “perhaps God-given”.
dhw: If you believe in common descent, humans have also evolved from earlier organisms. Theoretically, their evolution can have resulted from any of these processes, but d) is out for both of us. I do not believe the higgledy-piggledy history of life denotes that all innovations were geared to the production of humans, or that the first cells were programmed with every single "non-dabbled" innovation and natural wonder for the last 3.8 billion years. However, if God exists, I can believe in the occasional dabble (perhaps in the case of human consciousness). I therefore reject a), and am inclined to favour c) with a possible dash of b). (But please remember that rejection of one thing does not mean acceptance of another - that is the essence of agnosticism.)
DAVID: Again, an excellent summary of your position on the picket fence, which means always looking for answers but finding none.
You can only find an answer if you shut your brain and take a leap of faith. You have always acknowledged this, and I have complete respect not only for your faith but also for the reasoning that has led to it. However, the reasoning inevitably contains huge gaps (otherwise you wouldn’t need faith), and it is these that fuel our discussions.
DAVID: You have expanded the concept of cellular intelligence beyond anything shown so far.
dhw: Agreed, but my point was that cellular intelligence would have to preclude your God’s designing every innovation and natural wonder.
DAVID: Of course, if 'simple' cells are intelligent.
Thank you.
DAVID: To be certain, we have shown that they are very complexly designed to function as they do. But that does not say they are innately intelligent.
No, it doesn’t. That is a hypothesis.
Dhw: I am suggesting a possible solution to the mystery of speciation, based on what we know about life’s history and on what some scientists tell us about the behaviour of cells.
DAVID: Your use of the phrase 'some scientists' clearly implies a valid difference of opinion exists. Shapiro wrote his book to try to change a tide of differing opinion. Darwinists don't like it and ID folks love it.
Of course a valid difference of opinion exists. If there was complete consensus, we wouldn’t have anything to discuss. You seize on any scientific opinions that support your own, and dismiss any that don’t. And you often go against the establishment. Good for you. So does Shapiro. Good for Shapiro. And apparently so do I. Good for me.
dhw: In my subjective view, your own hypothesis of first cells preprogrammed with every “non-dabbled” innovation and natural wonder in the history of life - as epitomized by the weaverbird's nest - all geared to the “final” production of humans, is unreasonable.
DAVID: The history of life includes the arrival of a fantastically unusual animal form with a giant brain, an extremely unreasonable result when judged by the stresses of the environment from which it came. Davies is incredulous that an organism evolved that can try to explain the universe. Do you feel incredulity?
Yes, I do. That doesn’t mean I have to believe that your God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest and every other natural wonder and innovation, or that he did so for the sake of humans.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 22, 2016, 14:16 (2922 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Excellent summary. If you reject chance (d) as I do, I do not see how you can implant intelligence into the first cells from their beginning (c), from which all other cells come. Were the first cells dumb but somehow learned from experience? That is trial and error and comes back to chance (d). If they are intelligent from the beginning of life, where did that intelligence come from? Intelligence always implies teaching or experience or both.dhw: As usual, when we are discussing the different ways in which evolution might have worked, you scurry back to origins in order to skate over the problems of your own hypothesis. Here, as always, I have specified that the initial intelligence may have come from God. That is what I mean by “perhaps God-given”.
And you always scurry back to complaining about my insistence on including the original cells in a continuum to present life. There is no gap between the first cells and all subsequent cells. The only gaps are between species forms and processes. We don't know how life originated, but whatever caused life to appear as the first cell included all the organizational basis for life we see in subsequent cells present today. Just because Darwin threw away 'origin' in his theory, doesn't mean you can continue to ignore the continuum from the beginning in our current debate. Note I have left out God, as not needed for the concept of life's continuum.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Excellent summary. If you reject chance (d) as I do, I do not see how you can implant intelligence into the first cells from their beginning (c), from which all other cells come. Were the first cells dumb but somehow learned from experience? That is trial and error and comes back to chance (d). If they are intelligent from the beginning of life, where did that intelligence come from? Intelligence always implies teaching or experience or both.
dhw: As usual, when we are discussing the different ways in which evolution might have worked, you scurry back to origins in order to skate over the problems of your own hypothesis. Here, as always, I have specified that the initial intelligence may have come from God. That is what I mean by “perhaps God-given”.
DAVID: And you always scurry back to complaining about my insistence on including the original cells in a continuum to present life. There is no gap between the first cells and all subsequent cells. The only gaps are between species forms and processes. We don't know how life originated, but whatever caused life to appear as the first cell included all the organizational basis for life we see in subsequent cells present today. Just because Darwin threw away 'origin' in his theory, doesn't mean you can continue to ignore the continuum from the beginning in our current debate. Note I have left out God, as not needed for the concept of life's continuum.
No such complaint from me. I have already included the original cells as the start of the continuum. You have accurately summarized the principle of common descent, as opposed to separate creation, echoing my own insistence that every innovation must take place in existing organisms. That is the continuum of common descent. Your hypothesis is that the first cells were preprogrammed with every non-dabbled innovation and natural wonder throughout the history of life, whereas mine is that innovations and natural wonders are the products of cellular intelligence. Since I explicitly accept the theory of common descent (life's continuum), and since you explicitly “do not see how you can implant intelligence into the first cells from their beginning”, and since I explicitly point out – as I have done all the way through this discussion – that “the initial intelligence may have come from God” (“initial” means “happening at the beginning”), I don’t know how you can possibly accuse me of ignoring the continuum from the beginning. Nice try, though.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 23, 2016, 14:13 (2921 days ago) @ dhw
David: Just because Darwin threw away 'origin' in his theory, doesn't mean you can continue to ignore the continuum from the beginning in our current debate. Note I have left out God, as not needed for the concept of life's continuum[/i].
dhw: No such complaint from me. I have already included the original cells as the start of the continuum. ... Your hypothesis is that the first cells were preprogrammed with every non-dabbled innovation and natural wonder throughout the history of life, whereas mine is that innovations and natural wonders are the products of cellular intelligence. Since I explicitly accept the theory of common descent (life's continuum), and since you explicitly “do not see how you can implant intelligence into the first cells from their beginning”, and since I explicitly point out – as I have done all the way through this discussion – that “the initial intelligence may have come from God” (“initial” means “happening at the beginning”), I don’t know how you can possibly accuse me of ignoring the continuum from the beginning. Nice try, though.
Well, we now agree on continuum. That is a change from your past comments which admonished me to remember Darwin didn't cover origins. Neat skip over: cells have their own intelligence somehow, or perhaps God did it. Either/or? Intelligence is gained by experience that is integrated, or by being taught. Does cellular DNA show any evidence of that ability beyond the minor epigenetic adaptations we see? No. Can't shake you from the tips of the picket fence.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
DAVID: Well, we now agree on continuum. That is a change from your past comments which admonished me to remember Darwin didn't cover origins.
We have never disagreed on the continuum, since we have always agreed on common descent and I have always allowed for the possibility that “the initial intelligence may have come from God”. The admonishment comes when you try and emulate some ID-ers by dismissing Darwin en bloc instead of examining his hypotheses individually. One does not disprove common descent or natural selection by disproving random mutations and gradualism, or by demanding to know the origin of the evolutionary mechanism.
DAVID: Neat skip over: cells have their own intelligence somehow, or perhaps God did it. Either/or? Intelligence is gained by experience that is integrated, or by being taught. Does cellular DNA show any evidence of that ability beyond the minor epigenetic adaptations we see?
Already agreed a hundred times over. Nobody knows how speciation takes place, and so cellular intelligence is a HYPOTHESIS, extending the findings of scientists you happen to disagree with – just as your own hypothesis extends your imaginings of what your God might have had in mind when starting the whole shebang.
DAVID: No. Can't shake you from the tips of the picket fence.
I’m sitting on comfortable cushions of reason. However, when it comes to the question of God’s existence, I can’t win, because reason falls way short. Fence-sitting makes me wrong whatever the answer. You may be right and you may be wrong. Pascal’s wager?
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Thursday, November 24, 2016, 15:09 (2919 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: No. Can't shake you from the tips of the picket fence.dhw: I’m sitting on comfortable cushions of reason. However, when it comes to the question of God’s existence, I can’t win, because reason falls way short. Fence-sitting makes me wrong whatever the answer. You may be right and you may be wrong. Pascal’s wager?
Pascal admitted to 50/50. Adler accepted evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm with Adler.
How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe
by David Turell , Saturday, November 12, 2016, 18:27 (2931 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We agree. Balance is always present. We disagree that it is required for life.
dhw: Different balances of life will always be present so long as life is present. Whatever balance exists at the time enables the survivors to survive. That does not explain why your God had to design and then destroy 99% of species, or why he had to design the weaverbird’s nest, so that humans could appear. And if humans disappeared but bacteria lived on, you would still have your balance “required for life”. Balance explains nothing.
After 3.8 billion years of evolution, balance provided the energy for life to proceed to evolve us.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 22:42 (2913 days ago) @ David Turell
Another article with an interview of Steven Pinker:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-chomskys-theory-of-language-wrong-p...
"I asked psychologist Steven Pinker what he thinks about the recent criticism of Chomsky. Pinker has written several acclaimed books on language, notably The Language Instinct (1994) and The Stuff of Thought (2007). In his emailed response, Pinker defends Chomsky, sort of. None of Chomsky’s critics have created a language-acquisition model that entirely dispenses with “innate structure,” Pinker contends.
***
"The misconception that Chomsky represents the dominant view comes from the fact that the opposition is divided into many approaches and factions, so there’s no single figure that can be identified with an alternative. Also, he’s famous and charismatic, and people outside the field have heard of him, but haven’t heard of anyone else, and confuse his fame with professional dominance.
***
"So for 50 years Chomsky has been a piñata, where anyone who finds some evidence that some aspect of language is learned (and there are plenty), or some grammatical phenomenon varies from language to language, claims to have slain the king. It has not been a scientifically productive debate, unfortunately.
"My own view is that we need to create precise computational models of the language acquisition process – sentences in, grammar out – and see if they succeed in mastering the structure of any language whose sentences are fed into it, in a way that resembles the way children do it. Then whatever is in that model is the best theory of the child’s innate learning abilities. Every now and again someone will try to do that (I did in my first book, Language Learnability and Language Development, in 1984.) Failing that, it’s all too easy to claim that children don’t need any innate priors or assumptions or representations, only to sneak them back in when it comes to get serious and implement a model. That was the trick in a lot of the neural-network models of language that were popular in the 80s and 90s – when the rubber met the road, they always built in innate structure without calling attention to it. That’s what I suspect will be true of models based on the current ideas." –Steven Pinker
"If I may paraphrase: Pinker is saying that Chomsky’s fundamental claim--that language is innate—will endure in one form or another. Chomsky himself recently dismissed criticism of his innate-language theory, telling The New York Times that Tom Wolfe’s attack “hardly rises to the level of meeting a laugh test.'”
Comment: So the question of how children develop language still revolves around an innate mechanism, not yet proven.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
David's comment: So the question of how children develop language still revolves around an innate mechanism, not yet proven.
I find the whole discussion deeply unsatisfactory. Disregarding instincts – which may be the products of cell memory – how do any organisms learn? By experience and by copying, and by remembering what they have experienced and copied. In learning human language, the child copies the human sounds it hears, just as the cub and the calf and all other offspring will copy their particular animal sounds, gestures and other forms of behaviour, and the feral child will copy the language of the animal foster parent. We know that human language is vastly more complex than the grunts and gestures of our ancestors. So what? The process of learning is the same. What is innate is the ability, not just to learn language but simply to learn. And what is universal is not some mysterious grammar but the fact that every human society has created its own mass of sounds/words/structures to communicate whatever information becomes available to our enhanced consciousness. Hence the many different, often totally unrelated languages. “Innate structure”? Well, every human language consists of words strung together in a meaningful fashion. And every child that learns a particular language will learn the particular words and the particular ways they are strung together. And every child that learns this will have done so by copying and remembering. It’s a process of learning that is common practice throughout the animal world!
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
by David Turell , Thursday, December 01, 2016, 19:21 (2912 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: David's comment: So the question of how children develop language still revolves around an innate mechanism, not yet proven.
I find the whole discussion deeply unsatisfactory. Disregarding instincts – which may be the products of cell memory – how do any organisms learn? By experience and by copying, and by remembering what they have experienced and copied. In learning human language, the child copies the human sounds it hears, just as the cub and the calf and all other offspring will copy their particular animal sounds, gestures and other forms of behaviour, and the feral child will copy the language of the animal foster parent. We know that human language is vastly more complex than the grunts and gestures of our ancestors. So what? The process of learning is the same. What is innate is the ability, not just to learn language but simply to learn. And what is universal is not some mysterious grammar but the fact that every human society has created its own mass of sounds/words/structures to communicate whatever information becomes available to our enhanced consciousness. Hence the many different, often totally unrelated languages. “Innate structure”? Well, every human language consists of words strung together in a meaningful fashion. And every child that learns a particular language will learn the particular words and the particular ways they are strung together. And every child that learns this will have done so by copying and remembering. It’s a process of learning that is common practice throughout the animal world!
I agree about learning ability.The argument revolves about the fact that close to 99% of all languages have the same structural grammar with recursive sentences and only a very few don't. And children can learn any one, two or three languages quickly up until age eight and then lose the ability. Why? Questions raised and not answered.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
dhw: David's comment: So the question of how children develop language still revolves around an innate mechanism, not yet proven.
dhw: I find the whole discussion deeply unsatisfactory. Disregarding instincts – which may be the products of cell memory – how do any organisms learn? By experience and by copying, and by remembering what they have experienced and copied. In learning human language, the child copies the human sounds it hears, just as the cub and the calf and all other offspring will copy their particular animal sounds, gestures and other forms of behaviour, and the feral child will copy the language of the animal foster parent. We know that human language is vastly more complex than the grunts and gestures of our ancestors. So what? The process of learning is the same. What is innate is the ability, not just to learn language but simply to learn. And what is universal is not some mysterious grammar but the fact that every human society has created its own mass of sounds/words/structures to communicate whatever information becomes available to our enhanced consciousness. Hence the many different, often totally unrelated languages. “Innate structure”? Well, every human language consists of words strung together in a meaningful fashion. And every child that learns a particular language will learn the particular words and the particular ways they are strung together. And every child that learns this will have done so by copying and remembering. It’s a process of learning that is common practice throughout the animal world!
DAVID: I agree about learning ability.The argument revolves about the fact that close to 99% of all languages have the same structural grammar with recursive sentences and only a very few don't.
What do you mean by “the same structural grammar” and “recursive sentences”? I repeat: “every human language consists of words strung together in a meaningful fashion. And every child that learns a particular language will learn the particular words and the particular ways they are strung together.” That is the nub of “grammar” and “recursion”, as they have evolved since different sets of humans first invented different sets of new sounds and created different ways of linking those sounds together. Human language is not a collective unit. It is a mass of individual details. And having spent a lifetime explaining the rules of English grammar to people who are used to a different grammar (and in many cases also to native speakers who don’t have a clue about grammar), I regard the very idea of a universal grammar as a joke, even down to the use of the word “grammar”. Yes, most languages have nouns and verbs and adjectives. That’s about it.
DAVID: And children can learn any one, two or three languages quickly up until age eight and then lose the ability. Why? Questions raised and not answered.
My suggestion: the more you learn of one language, the more it will interfere with learning another. If a child begins by learning that its toy can be called a “Spielzeug” or a “jouet”, depending on the addressee, he/she has not yet learned that a toy is called a toy and nothing else. The older you get, the more channelled you become, because the restricted information has become embedded. But even with small children, the amount that can be learned depends on the degree of receptive and imitative intelligence. Some children can grow up bilingual, but others can get confused. The ability to learn is just as individual in children as in adults.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
by David Turell , Saturday, December 03, 2016, 00:48 (2911 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: “Innate structure”? Well, every human language consists of words strung together in a meaningful fashion. And every child that learns a particular language will learn the particular words and the particular ways they are strung together. And every child that learns this will have done so by copying and remembering. It’s a process of learning that is common practice throughout the animal world!
I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate this. All some of the experts show is that most languages have the same structure, but I do have a comment below about bilingual kids.
DAVID: I agree about learning ability.The argument revolves about the fact that close to 99% of all languages have the same structural grammar with recursive sentences and only a very few don't.dhw: What do you mean by “the same structural grammar” and “recursive sentences”.
Recursive sentences are common in most languages and they include a secondary thought mixed into the flow of the sentence, the point of Chomsky's theory. I'm just stating the arguments in the articles. I agree we learn our language, but is there an underling built-in grammar is the question, not settled..
DAVID: And children can learn any one, two or three languages quickly up until age eight and then lose the ability. Why? Questions raised and not answered.dhw:Some children can grow up bilingual, but others can get confused. The ability to learn is just as individual in children as in adults.
I live in a bilingual state, and I see all little Latin kids speaking beautiful English and Spanish without accents if they start young enough, and I've met a few with three languages that way if they have a bilingual parent who uses the third language with them from the beginning, and they differentiate the languages without difficulty as they learn them together, described in articles I've read. This suggests an underlying language structure of some sort.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
DAVID: And children can learn any one, two or three languages quickly up until age eight and then lose the ability. Why? Questions raised and not answered.
My suggestion: the more you learn of one language, the more it will interfere with learning another. If a child begins by learning that its toy can be called a “Spielzeug” or a “jouet”, depending on the addressee, he/she has not yet learned that a toy is called a toy and nothing else. The older you get, the more channelled you become, because the restricted information has become embedded. But even with small children, the amount that can be learned depends on the degree of receptive and imitative intelligence. Some children can grow up bilingual, but others can get confused. The ability to learn is just as individual in children as in adults.
You have quoted the last part of my comment, but I should not have made it. It is not relevant to the discussion we are having, as it applies to all subjects and not just language. Your own comment below is much more to the point.
DAVID: I live in a bilingual state, and I see all little Latin kids speaking beautiful English and Spanish without accents if they start young enough, and I've met a few with three languages that way if they have a bilingual parent who uses the third language with them from the beginning, and they differentiate the languages without difficulty as they learn them together, described in articles I've read. This suggests an underlying language structure of some sort.
Thank you. This is a good example of what I mean (and my eight-and-a-half-year-old grandson in New Mexico is another): if the environment is natural, the process I’ve described works perfectly – the languages are accepted and mastered because right from the start there is no interference. The child knows that a toy is a jouet is a Spielzeug, depending on who he/she is talking to. You had asked why children lose the ability from about the age of eight, and I have offered you a reason why. If they have only been brought up with one language, the more they learn of that language, the less quickly they will be able to adopt another. (This is a major problem for the millions of refugees now moving into countries with a different language from their own.) The younger the child, the more chance he/she will have of becoming bilingual, because learning requires less “re-learning” of what has already been fixed, and the older you are, the more fixed information you have. I don’t see any mystery in this. And I certainly don’t see any evidence for a universal grammar or an innate structure beyond the fact that all human languages use words strung together.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
by David Turell , Saturday, December 03, 2016, 14:40 (2911 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I live in a bilingual state, and I see all little Latin kids speaking beautiful English and Spanish without accents if they start young enough, and I've met a few with three languages that way if they have a bilingual parent who uses the third language with them from the beginning, and they differentiate the languages without difficulty as they learn them together, described in articles I've read. This suggests an underlying language structure of some sort.
dhw: Thank you. This is a good example of what I mean (and my eight-and-a-half-year-old grandson in New Mexico is another): if the environment is natural, the process I’ve described works perfectly – the languages are accepted and mastered because right from the start there is no interference. The child knows that a toy is a jouet is a Spielzeug, depending on who he/she is talking to. You had asked why children lose the ability from about the age of eight, and I have offered you a reason why. If they have only been brought up with one language, the more they learn of that language, the less quickly they will be able to adopt another. (This is a major problem for the millions of refugees now moving into countries with a different language from their own.) The younger the child, the more chance he/she will have of becoming bilingual, because learning requires less “re-learning” of what has already been fixed, and the older you are, the more fixed information you have. I don’t see any mystery in this. And I certainly don’t see any evidence for a universal grammar or an innate structure beyond the fact that all human languages use words strung together.
I've read all the different theories, you are multilingual, and yours is as good as any I've reviewed.
How children pick up a language: Pinker's view
DAVID: I live in a bilingual state, and I see all little Latin kids speaking beautiful English and Spanish without accents if they start young enough, and I've met a few with three languages that way if they have a bilingual parent who uses the third language with them from the beginning, and they differentiate the languages without difficulty as they learn them together, described in articles I've read. This suggests an underlying language structure of some sort.
dhw: Thank you. This is a good example of what I mean (and my eight-and-a-half-year-old grandson in New Mexico is another): if the environment is natural, the process I’ve described works perfectly – the languages are accepted and mastered because right from the start there is no interference. The child knows that a toy is a jouet is a Spielzeug, depending on who he/she is talking to. You had asked why children lose the ability from about the age of eight, and I have offered you a reason why. If they have only been brought up with one language, the more they learn of that language, the less quickly they will be able to adopt another. (This is a major problem for the millions of refugees now moving into countries with a different language from their own.) The younger the child, the more chance he/she will have of becoming bilingual, because learning requires less “re-learning” of what has already been fixed, and the older you are, the more fixed information you have. I don’t see any mystery in this. And I certainly don’t see any evidence for a universal grammar or an innate structure beyond the fact that all human languages use words strung together.>
DAVID: I've read all the different theories, you are multilingual, and yours is as good as any I've reviewed.
Thank you.
How children pick up a language: Everett's view
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 14:49 (2873 days ago) @ dhw
This is the linguist who feels Chomsky is wrong in this essay:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-language-is-not-everything-that-noam-chomsky-said-it-is?utm_...
"In 2005, I published a paper in the journal Current Anthropology, arguing that Pirahã – an Amazonian language unrelated to any living language – lacked several kinds of words and grammatical constructions that many researchers would have expected to find in all languages. I made it clear that this absence was not due to any inherent cognitive limitation on the part of its speakers, but due to cultural values, one in particular that I termed the ‘immediacy of experience principle’.
***
"my actual conclusion in that paper was not primarily about recursion, but about the connection between culture and grammar. In fact, the word ‘recursion’ hardly appears in that paper. I addressed the lack of quantifier words, such as ‘all’, ‘each’, and ‘every’; the lack of colour words; the lack of numbers; the lack of creation myths; the lack of religion; the fact that the people have remained monolingual after centuries of contact; that the Pirahãs possessed the simplest kinship ever documented; and so on. What I concluded was almost innocuous:
"For advocates of universal grammar the arguments here present a challenge – defending an autonomous linguistic module that can be affected in many of its core components by the culture in which it ‘grows’. If the form or absence of things such as recursion, sound structure, word structure, quantification, numerals, number, and so on is tightly constrained by a specific culture, as I have argued, then the case for an autonomous, biologically determined module of language is seriously weakened.
***
"If I am correct, then I have shown that the sentential grammars of human languages don’t need to be constructed recursively. People might all think recursively but lack recursion in their grammars. What I have shown is that for the very reason that the Pirahãs can think recursively, then if their language lacks recursion, recursion is not fundamental to human language but is rather a component of human cognition more generally. To claim otherwise, again, is to claim that all languages of the world can lack recursion but recursion is still alone the narrow faculty of language. And that is empirically vacuous gibberish. If there is anything innate and specific to the human capacity for language, the Pirahã data shows that recursion is not part of it."
***
"Recursion is not the basis of human language. One language shows that. Language does not seem to be innate. There seems to be no narrow faculty of language nor any universal grammar. Language is ancient and emerges from general human intelligence, the need to build communities and cultures."
Comment: A very long essay, which deserves reading, but Everett makes reasonable points that our giant brain has enough capacity to create language without an underlying universal grammar.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Sunday, March 05, 2017, 00:09 (2819 days ago) @ David Turell
This author agrees with Chomsky:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kingdom-of-speech-everett-is-wrong-ab...
"Noel Rude, a specialist in native American languages,wrote to offer some thoughts on Tom Wolfe’s takedown of Noam Chomsky’s language theories in The Kingdom of Speech. Chomsky’s theories dominated linguistics for decades. His progressive politics, which were, strictly speaking, irrelevant to his work are often considered to play a role in his prominence.
"Along the way, he clashed with linguist Daniel Everett who had, with an inexcusable lack of political correctness, found an apparent exception to Chomsky’s theories in a remote Brazilian language, Piraha.
"Wolfe chronicles the conflict from both sides, making clear that current theories about the origin of human language are not useful.
Here is the perspective of Noel Rude, an ID-friendly linguist (a specialist in native American languages):
***
"One of the impressions, I’m afraid, that Wolfe’s book might leave is that Everett is right about language. Pirahã really is a primitive language lacking recursion, and if one language out of thousands lacks recursion then Chomsky must have been wrong. Language is not innate–it’s just another human invention. Nothing to see here. Linguistics is of no interest to ID.
"I checked with an Amazonian linguist, one well within the Darwinian “cog-ling” camp and no supporter of Chomsky. He says that Everett is wrong about Pirahã.
Pirahã has more phonemes than Hawaiian. Unlike Hawaiian, it also has complex lexical tones some of which may be grammatical. The grammar is already complex:
There are, yes, primitive cultures lacking vocabulary we consider essential. Sometimes even numbers are unnamed (though these cultures generally count on their fingers). A few decades ago R. M. W. Dixon (1972, 1977, etc.) introduced linguists to such languages and their exotic grammars. We were all impressed.
"There is no language that cannot distinguish cause from effect, temporal relationships, volitional agents, consciousness, intention and purpose–even though elite materialists demean all this as merely “subjective” and not part of the reality they envision.
"One might conclude from Wolfe’s book that linguistics has failed to discover much at all. Chomsky strove for a theory of universal syntax that did not appeal to function, but other than acknowledging the fact that all languages are structured hierarchically, many now think the enterprise failed. But this does not mean there are no universals of grammar. There are many.
"There are absolute universals, implicational universals, universal tendencies, and so on. Linguistics is like biology. There is no comprehensive “theory” of biology. Biology is more observational than theoretical. And structure is linked to function much as in the typological-functional (now called “cognitive”) school of linguistics.
Nevertheless, Chomsky was right that grammar is instinctive. Children seem programmed to learn it. It is, in fact, children who create grammar.
"In learning a language, adults typically focus on words and miss the grammar. Little children do not parrot what they hear. They say, “Daddy goed store.” They grasp for grammatical regularities and learn later to incorporate irregularities. We are programmed to speak just as we are programmed to walk. We are empowered to invent and create and advance technology. We are not programmed to invent and create—hence “primitive” cultures with sophisticated grammars.
"Whence then this language facility? Likely, let me suggest, all the following:
1. Grammar is biologically innate
2. Grammar adapts to reality
3. Grammar is Platonic
"The study of stroke victims proves that the brain is involved. Cross-language studies reveal how grammar adapts to the environment. And if you are a mathematical realist, then why wouldn’t the mind of a child be attuned to logic that is “out there”? Maybe Michael Denton,’s “laws of biology?” Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphic resonances” perhaps also play a role. Adults have conscious access to vocabulary, and know when a foreigner gets pronunciation and grammar wrong, but adults mostly do not have conscious access to their grammars. Only little children have that.
"Language is not the mind–it is the principle code the mind uses. It is a window into the soul."
Comment: this authoritative comment seals the discussion for me. Chomsky is correct if Paraha is as expressive as this author describes it. God would want humans to have this language ability.
How children pick up a language: new comment
QUOTE: "Language is not the mind–it is the principle code the mind uses. It is a window into the soul."
David’s comment: this authoritative comment seals the discussion for me. Chomsky is correct if Paraha is as expressive as this author describes it. God would want humans to have this language ability.
I’m pressed for time, but in any case have expressed my own views on several occasions. Briefly, all organisms need to communicate. Humans with their enhanced consciousness need enhanced forms of communication. I have never heard of anybody saying that language “is the mind”: it is the principle code the mind uses in order to communicate. “Window into the soul” is nice and poetic – but it’s usually used of the eyes, which might be a much better guide. You only have to listen to our politicians to know that language can be used to hide as much as it reveals. There are said to be about 7000 different languages in the world, all serving the same purpose, which means inevitably they will have certain features in common, such as sounds that denote different objects or actions, but there is no universal “grammar”, and children learn to use the particular sounds, structures, “grammars” they hear in their particular environment. Feral children learn the language of the animals that have brought them up. All organisms must have an innate ability to learn the language of their species, using whatever means are available to them. If God exists and created life, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he gave all organisms the ability to communicate in their own particular ways. One might ask why he gave humans different languages to communicate in, but my guess would be that he didn’t: mine would be that different sets of humans worked out their own sounds, structures, “grammars”.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Sunday, March 05, 2017, 18:18 (2818 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Language is not the mind–it is the principle code the mind uses. It is a window into the soul."
David’s comment: this authoritative comment seals the discussion for me. Chomsky is correct if Paraha is as expressive as this author describes it. God would want humans to have this language ability.
dhw: One might ask why he gave humans different languages to communicate in, but my guess would be that he didn’t: mine would be that different sets of humans worked out their own sounds, structures, “grammars”.
You are in disagreement with most linguists who think there is a universal grammar.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 05, 2017, 21:33 (2818 days ago) @ David Turell
From a biblical perspective, universal grammar makes sense, as all root languages have the same origin.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Monday, March 06, 2017, 00:45 (2818 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: From a biblical perspective, universal grammar makes sense, as all root languages have the same origin.
Glad top hear from you. Hope you have time to stay.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 06, 2017, 01:23 (2818 days ago) @ David Turell
Unfortunately my only internet is via cell phone at the moment :(
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Monday, July 17, 2017, 19:47 (2684 days ago) @ David Turell
Linguistics is a poor theoretical science:
https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-study-of-language-a-science?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&am...
"In Wolfe’s breathless re-telling, the dominant scientific theory is Noam Chomsky’s concept of a ‘universal grammar’ – the idea that all languages share a deep underlying structure that’s almost certainly baked into our biology by evolution. The crucial hypothesis is that its core, essential feature is recursion, the capacity to embed phrases within phrases ad infinitum, and so express complex relations between ideas (such as ‘Tom says that Dan claims that Noam believes that…’). And the challenging fact is the discovery of an Amazonian language, Pirahã, that does not have recursion. The scientific debate plays out as a classic David-and-Goliath story, with Chomsky as a famous, ivory-tower intellectual whose grand armchair proclamations are challenged by a rugged, lowly field linguist and former Christian missionary named Daniel Everett.
***
"Linguistics therefore requires you to look beyond what you think you know, and start looking instead at what you don’t know that you know. This implicit knowledge has been the object of study in linguistics since the 1950s. Back then, Chomsky revolutionised the field when he observed that grammar is a generative system. That is, a language is not a big set of all the words and sentences people say in that language; rather, it’s a mental system of rules for generating acceptable sentences. We have the ability to create sentences we’ve never heard that conform to norms we’ve never explicitly learned. From the limited, finite exposure we get while learning our native language, we somehow acquire an unlimited, infinitely productive system of rules.
"Trying to pinpoint those rules depends on a rather counterintuitive practice: not collecting examples of what people actually say, but carefully crafting sentences that no one would ever say.
***
"Determining the nature of those structures has been the project of linguistics for decades now. The linguist forms a hypothesis about the configuration of words (Mary [believed [the rumour [that Bill was eating spaghetti.]]]); formulates a rule referring to that structure, which is violated by the unacceptable sentence (you can’t move the object of a verb out to the what position if it has to cross over a noun-phrase level – ‘the rumour’ – to get there) and tests the hypotheses by coming up with more good and bad sentences.
"This is an incredibly counterintuitive way to think about language, which after all is a thing we intuitively know how to use. But it’s still science, an effort to discover the nature of something by forming hypotheses and testing them against evidence. Sentence 3 is evidence that the hypothesis mentioned above it – about the distance of what from the place it traces to – is incorrect. It’s just that the evidence here is not language as spoken ‘out there’ in the world, but an idealised set of consciously contrived sentences.
***
"However, for Chomskyans there is a standing commitment to this idea. Universal grammar is not a hypothesis to be tested, but a foundational assumption. Plenty of people take issue with that assumption, but all types of linguists generally agree that there are indeed constraints on what a human language can be, that languages don’t do absolutely anything. They differ on where those restrictions come from.
***
"The phrase ‘universal grammar’ gives the impression that it’s going to be a list of features common to all languages, statements such as ‘all languages have nouns’ or ‘all languages mark verbs for tense’. But there are very few features shared by all known languages, possibly none. The word ‘universal’ is misleading here too. It seems like it should mean ‘found in all languages’ but in this case it means something like ‘found in all humans’ (because otherwise they would not be able to learn language as they do.)
***
"The years-long immersion in Pirahã culture and the struggle to understand it had a profound personal effect on Everett. His encounter with their concept of truth made him rethink his belief in God and eventually become an atheist. His renunciation of universal grammar involved a similar disillusionment, since he had worked within the framework for the first 25 years of his career. Yet Everett’s study of the Pirahã falsifies neither Christianity nor universal grammar, since they are not designed for falsification in the first place. They are both a way to try to get a handle on reality. The first asks that you take a set of assumptions on faith because they are the truth. The second provides a set of assumptions for generating a line of enquiry that might at some point lead to the truth.
"I’m not sure whether you can call yourself a Christian if you reject the foundational tenets of Christianity – but you can certainly reject the assumptions of universal grammar and still call yourself a linguist. In fact, a drive to debunk Chomsky’s assumptions has led to a flourishing of empirical work in the field. Even as a foil, villain or edifice to be crumbled, the theory of universal grammar offers a framework for discovery, a place to aim the magnifying glass, chisel or wrecking ball, as the case may be."
Comment: The battle goes on.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 01, 2017, 22:41 (2669 days ago) @ David Turell
Another review of Thomas Wolfe's book:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/reviews-of-tom-wolfes-kingdom-of-speech-actually-...
"The Kingdom of Speech is an extraordinary display of intellectual independence.[1] This is a book that treats Charles Darwin as a toplofty prig and Noam Chomsky as a haughty fake—which is to say it aims to harpoon two of the biggest whales of modern secular thought.
***
"But there is a gap between “capacity to speak” and actual speech, and it is a gap that has proven devilishly hard to bridge.
***
"The gap between mere vocal expression and human language differs in profound ways from the gaps filled by all the micro-adaptations that shaped the human foot, knee, pelvis, or hand. The jump from “woof woof” to “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” is not just larger than the switch from tree-climbing to walking upright; it is different in nature.
"Wolfe, who knows a thing or two about expressive language, dives into this subject. He writes not so much as an anti-evolutionist than as a scourge of intellectual arrogance. His starting point is a sentence in a psychology journal to the effect that the experts can’t really explain the origins of human language.
"Why not? Didn’t Charles Darwin settle this long ago? And suddenly we are off on a clever retelling of how Darwin stole credit for the idea of evolution by natural selection from the itinerant South Seas bug collector, Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace had come up with natural selection independently and confided his discovery to Darwin in the hope of getting the older man’s help in publishing it. Darwin did help, but artfully announced it as coincident with his own version of the idea, long mulled but never announced.
"Darwin was comfortable and socially connected: precisely the kind of person that Wolfe has made a career of skewering in his essays and novels. Darwin, of course, treated Wallace with patronizing generosity, and poor Wallace never realized he had been had.
***
" Language, however, presented that chasm of difference that natural selection even augmented by sexual selection could not seem to bridge. Darwin’s last attempt to make human speech conform to his model was to treat human speech as just an elaboration of animal vocalization. Wolfe has a pleasant time recounting the disdain with which linguists treated the “bow wow” hypothesis.
"Wolfe’s takedown of Chomsky involves an elaborate parallel of Darwin’s patronizing and sometimes dismissive treatment of Wallace. The Wallace figure in Chomsky’s life is itinerant South American ethnographer Daniel L. Everett, who found a human language that differs in fundamental ways from what Chomsky claims to be the unalterable basics of human speech. A key issue is that the language of the Amazonian Pirahã (the name is pronounced something like PEE-da-HA) lacks a feature called “recursion”—the embedding of sentences within sentences. Everett’s analysis has been met with skepticism by Chomsky loyalists, but Wolfe is convinced that the skepticism is merely a power play. The skeptics set out “to carpet bomb, obliterate, every syllable Everett had to say about this miserable little tribe.”[3] But wonderful to say, Everett outmaneuvered them both in scholarship and appeal to the general public.
***
" Wolfe has no inhibitions on that score, nor need he. The Kingdom of Speech is a can opener, not a treatise; a harpoon, not a nail file. Some reviewers have been aghast at his temerity, and nearly all have gasped at the bravado of his closing sentences: “To say that animals evolved into man is like saying that Carrara marble evolved into Michelangelo’s David. Speech is what man pays homage to in every moment he can imagine.”
"The light that illuminates Wolfe’s book is the idea that humans invented speech, the way we invented so many other things. Evolution doesn’t explain the invention any more than it explains kaleidoscopes or microprocessors. That we can and do invent tools, luxuries, games, and cultures testifies to capacities that set us apart from animals. Where those capacities came from is a question still worth asking." (my bold)
Comment: The sentences in bold raise an issue that fits my theory about human brains. We were given the capacity in our large complex brain to invent language, which is immaterial. As such it is our invention, not a product of evolution which deals in the material. It is a product of time. We had to learn to use our giant brain from its time of appearance 300,000 years ago until the time language theoretically appeared 50-70,000 years ago. Language then speeded up the further development and use of the brain.
There are two other reviews at the website along with other commentaries. All worth reading.
How children pick up a language: new comment
QUOTE: "The light that illuminates Wolfe’s book is the idea that humans invented speech, the way we invented so many other things. Evolution doesn’t explain the invention any more than it explains kaleidoscopes or microprocessors. That we can and do invent tools, luxuries, games, and cultures testifies to capacities that set us apart from animals. Where those capacities came from is a question still worth asking." (DAVID's bold)
DAVID's comment: The sentences in bold raise an issue that fits my theory about human brains. We were given the capacity in our large complex brain to invent language, which is immaterial. As such it is our invention, not a product of evolution which deals in the material.
Under "dualism verses materialism", in your capacity as a dualist, you finally agreed that our large complex brain does not invent anything: the brain supplies information and IMPLEMENTS the ideas provided/invented by the “soul”. But of course it is our invention, just as the weaverbird’s nest is the bird’s invention, the anthill is the ants’ invention, and whale language is the whale’s invention. That does not mean that it did not come about through a process of evolution. The problem as always is the unknown source of consciousness, and in the case of humans, the reason for our hugely enhanced degree of consciousness. But our ancestors must have had their own means of expression (one definition of language), just as modern apes do, and my proposal – as you well know – is that our enhanced consciousness resulted in the need for a more complex form of expression. And just like the efforts of land animals to adapt to life in the water, or fish to adapt to life on the land, or Little Billy to transform himself into Big Billy by exercising his body, pre-Sapiens’ efforts to create new sounds resulted in the necessary changes to the brain and the anatomy. I find this hypothesis more convincing than the proposal that your God made all the changes before pre-whales swam, fish walked, and humans talked. But we have now agreed to disagree on this.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 02, 2017, 19:50 (2668 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "The light that illuminates Wolfe’s book is the idea that humans invented speech, the way we invented so many other things. Evolution doesn’t explain the invention any more than it explains kaleidoscopes or microprocessors. That we can and do invent tools, luxuries, games, and cultures testifies to capacities that set us apart from animals. Where those capacities came from is a question still worth asking." (DAVID's bold)
DAVID's comment: The sentences in bold raise an issue that fits my theory about human brains. We were given the capacity in our large complex brain to invent language, which is immaterial. As such it is our invention, not a product of evolution which deals in the material.
dhw: Under "dualism verses materialism", in your capacity as a dualist, you finally agreed that our large complex brain does not invent anything: the brain supplies information and IMPLEMENTS the ideas provided/invented by the “soul”. But of course it is our invention, just as the weaverbird’s nest is the bird’s invention, the anthill is the ants’ invention, and whale language is the whale’s invention. That does not mean that it did not come about through a process of evolution. The problem as always is the unknown source of consciousness, and in the case of humans, the reason for our hugely enhanced degree of consciousness. But our ancestors must have had their own means of expression (one definition of language), just as modern apes do, and my proposal – as you well know – is that our enhanced consciousness resulted in the need for a more complex form of expression. And just like the efforts of land animals to adapt to life in the water, or fish to adapt to life on the land, or Little Billy to transform himself into Big Billy by exercising his body, pre-Sapiens’ efforts to create new sounds resulted in the necessary changes to the brain and the anatomy. I find this hypothesis more convincing than the proposal that your God made all the changes before pre-whales swam, fish walked, and humans talked. But we have now agreed to disagree on this.
You forget that our larynx dropped to the proper position for speech at the time sapiens arrived, but it took over 200,000 years to learn how to use it. Form first, use second.
How children pick up a language: new comment
DAVID's comment: The sentences in bold raise an issue that fits my theory about human brains. We were given the capacity in our large complex brain to invent language, which is immaterial. As such it is our invention, not a product of evolution which deals in the material.
dhw: Under "dualism verses materialism", in your capacity as a dualist, you finally agreed that our large complex brain does not invent anything: the brain supplies information and IMPLEMENTS the ideas provided/invented by the “soul”. But of course it is our invention, just as the weaverbird’s nest is the bird’s invention, the anthill is the ants’ invention, and whale language is the whale’s invention. That does not mean that it did not come about through a process of evolution. The problem as always is the unknown source of consciousness, and in the case of humans, the reason for our hugely enhanced degree of consciousness. But our ancestors must have had their own means of expression (one definition of language), just as modern apes do, and my proposal – as you well know – is that our enhanced consciousness resulted in the need for a more complex form of expression. And just like the efforts of land animals to adapt to life in the water, or fish to adapt to life on the land, or Little Billy to transform himself into Big Billy by exercising his body, pre-Sapiens’ efforts to create new sounds resulted in the necessary changes to the brain and the anatomy. I find this hypothesis more convincing than the proposal that your God made all the changes before pre-whales swam, fish walked, and humans talked. But we have now agreed to disagree on this.
DAVID: You forget that our larynx dropped to the proper position for speech at the time sapiens arrived, but it took over 200,000 years to learn how to use it. Form first, use second.
Nobody has a clue when humans first started to use human language, so I don’t know where you get your 200,000 years from. Do you think pre-sapiens and early sapiens had no means of communication? And have you heard recordings of the sounds they made? None of this provides any evidence that your God changed human anatomy before humans could come up with words, as opposed to humans seeking to make new sounds and thereby changing their anatomy. This is what we have agreed to disagree on.
How children pick up a language: new comment
by David Turell , Thursday, August 03, 2017, 14:59 (2668 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: The sentences in bold raise an issue that fits my theory about human brains. We were given the capacity in our large complex brain to invent language, which is immaterial. As such it is our invention, not a product of evolution which deals in the material.
dhw: Under "dualism verses materialism", in your capacity as a dualist, you finally agreed that our large complex brain does not invent anything: the brain supplies information and IMPLEMENTS the ideas provided/invented by the “soul”. But of course it is our invention, just as the weaverbird’s nest is the bird’s invention, the anthill is the ants’ invention, and whale language is the whale’s invention. That does not mean that it did not come about through a process of evolution. The problem as always is the unknown source of consciousness, and in the case of humans, the reason for our hugely enhanced degree of consciousness. But our ancestors must have had their own means of expression (one definition of language), just as modern apes do, and my proposal – as you well know – is that our enhanced consciousness resulted in the need for a more complex form of expression. And just like the efforts of land animals to adapt to life in the water, or fish to adapt to life on the land, or Little Billy to transform himself into Big Billy by exercising his body, pre-Sapiens’ efforts to create new sounds resulted in the necessary changes to the brain and the anatomy. I find this hypothesis more convincing than the proposal that your God made all the changes before pre-whales swam, fish walked, and humans talked. But we have now agreed to disagree on this.
DAVID: You forget that our larynx dropped to the proper position for speech at the time sapiens arrived, but it took over 200,000 years to learn how to use it. Form first, use second.
dhw: Nobody has a clue when humans first started to use human language, so I don’t know where you get your 200,000 years from. Do you think pre-sapiens and early sapiens had no means of communication? And have you heard recordings of the sounds they made? None of this provides any evidence that your God changed human anatomy before humans could come up with words, as opposed to humans seeking to make new sounds and thereby changing their anatomy. This is what we have agreed to disagree on.
OK
How children pick up a language: new study re words
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 30, 2019, 23:03 (2122 days ago) @ David Turell
Very young babies are shown to pick out words very early in life:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/newborns-can-isolate-words-from-speech
"Babies are born with the ability to pick out distinct words from continuous speech, according to a study published in the journal Developmental Science.
"Picking out individual words is a necessary first step for language development, but it’s challenging because speech lacks clear boundaries.
“Language is incredibly complicated,” says lead author Ana Flò, from the Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit at NeuroSpin, France. “We often think of language as being made up of words, but words often blur together when we talk.”
"Infants appear to have worked out how to detect words by the middle of their first year. But it’s not clear whether they have these “segmentation abilities” from birth or develop them through language exposure and/or brain development.
***
"In both experiments, babies were exposed to a three-minute familiarisation phase involving a stream of syllables that gave either statistical distribution or prosody cues.
"The researchers used a non-invasive brain imaging technique, Near-Infrared Spectroscopy, during a subsequent test phase to show if infants could identify word boundaries.
"They found that the newborns were able to detect distinct words in both conditions. That means they can use both mechanisms, independently from each other.
“'Our study showed that at just three days old, without understanding what it means, they are able to pick out individual words from speech,” Flò says.
"The findings also suggest that “newborns have remarkable short-term memory capacities”, the authors write.
“'We think this study highlights how sentient newborn babies really are and how much information they are absorbing,” says co-investigator Alissa Ferry from the University of Manchester, UK."
Comment: This appears to be an innate ability and humans are definitely programmed to have speech and language.
How children pick up a language: eight month old baby study
by David Turell , Friday, March 13, 2020, 14:55 (1714 days ago) @ David Turell
By that time they are understanding basic grammar:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200312142254.htm
"Even before uttering their first words, babies master the grammar basics of their mother tongue. Thus eight-month-old French infants can distinguish function words, or functors -- e.g. articles (the), personal pronouns (she), or prepositions (on) -- from content words -- e.g. nouns (rainbow), verbs (to drive), or adjectives (green). Functors are frequently encountered because there are fewer of them, and they are placed before content words in languages such as English and French.
"In contrast, there is a much greater diversity of content words, which are also longer. Experiments conducted by three researchers from the Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center (CNRS/Université de Paris) with 175 eight-month-old babies, using a simple artificial language, demonstrated that these infants understood functors were more frequent and came before content words in their mother tongue (French).
"The young participants quickly adapted to new content words but showed little interest for newly introduced functors -- as though already aware there were only a limited number of prepositions, determiners, and other words in this category. Babies' preferences were evaluated by observing how long they looked at visual displays associated with the grammar words. "
Comment: Obviously the ability to quickly pick up a language in built into the brain. What is not obvious is that the history of complex grammatical language being 50,000-70,000 years old does not fully tell us how much language capacity was present at that time, and how much was contemporaneously developed with use. When H. sapiens appeared 315,000 years ago, how much language ability was present in the brain is not known.
How children pick up a language: both sides used early
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 08, 2020, 00:51 (1536 days ago) @ David Turell
A study in very young children shows, while they use the left side as in adults, they also used the right side early on:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/childrens-brains-hear-language-differently/?...
"Young children use both brain hemispheres to understand language, neuroscientists say, which may explain why they appear to recover from neural injury more easily than adults.
"Previous brain scanning research and the clinical findings of language loss in patients who suffered a left hemisphere stroke have shown that, in almost all adults, sentence processing is possible only in the left hemisphere.
"However, this pattern is not established in young children, according to a team led by Elissa L Newport, from Georgetown University, US. Brain networks that localise specific tasks to one hemisphere start during childhood but are not complete until a child is about 10 or 11.
***
"The findings show that at the group level even young children showed left-lateralised language activation, they say, but a large proportion of the youngest children also showed significant activation in the corresponding right-hemisphere areas.
"In adults, the corresponding area in the right hemisphere is activated in different tasks, such as, processing emotions expressed with the voice. In young children, both hemispheres are engaged in comprehending the meaning of sentences and recognising the emotional affect."
Comment: Language development in young children is a carefully choreographed process, and it is protective of early brain injury. A carefully thought out plan to protect very young humans before civilization made life less violent. I explain this as God setting up useful protections.
How children pick up a language: Danish is difficult
by David Turell , Monday, June 28, 2021, 17:43 (1242 days ago) @ David Turell
Lots of vowels and slurring words together:
https://theconversation.com/danish-children-struggle-to-learn-their-vowel-filled-langua...
"...surprisingly, Danish children have trouble learning their mother tongue. Compared to Norwegian children, who are learning a very similar language, Danish kids on average know 30% fewer words at 15 months and take nearly two years longer to learn the past tense.
***
"There are three main reasons why Danish is so complicated. First, with about 40 different vowel sounds – compared to between 13 and 15 vowels in English depending on dialect – Danish has one of the largest vowel inventories in the world. On top of that, Danes often turn consonants into vowel-like sounds when they speak. And finally, Danes also like to “swallow” the ends of words and omit, on average, about a quarter of all syllables. They do this not only in casual speech but also when reading aloud from written text.
"Other languages might incorporate one of these factors, but it seems that Danish may be unique in combining all three. The result is that Danish ends up with an abundance of sound sequences with few consonants. Because consonants play an important role in helping listeners figure out where words begin and end, the preponderance of vowel-like sounds in Danish appears to make it difficult to understand and learn. It isn’t clear why or how Danish ended up with these strange quirks, but the upshot seems to be, as the German author Kurt Tucholsky quipped, that “the Danish language is not suitable for speaking … everything sounds like a single word.”
***
"Danish children do, of course, eventually learn their native tongue. However, our group has found that the effects of the opaque Danish sound structure don’t go away when children grow up: Instead, they seem to shape the way adult Danes process their language. Denmark and Norway are closely related historically, culturally, economically and educationally. The two languages also have similar grammars, past tense systems and vocabulary. Unlike Danes, though, Norwegians actually pronounce their consonants.
***
"We found that because Danish speech is so ambiguous, Danes rely much more on context – including what was said in the conversation before, what people know about each other and general background knowledge – to figure out what somebody is saying compared to adult Norwegians.
***
"Our discovery about Danish challenges the idea that all native languages are equally easy to learn and use. Indeed, learning different languages from birth may lead to distinct and separate ways of processing those languages."
Comment: This still doesn't negate the theory of a universal syntax The Hawaiian language has lots of vowels all of which are pronounced. I doubt their kids have a problem.
How children pick up a language: Chomsky supported
by David Turell , Saturday, August 28, 2021, 15:05 (1182 days ago) @ David Turell
A full supporter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/science/lila-gleitman-dead.html?campaign_id=2&em...
"Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work.
“'The study of language acquisition, her primary scientific concern, was her field in a special sense,” Dr. Chomsky said in a statement. “She virtually created the field in its modern form and led in its impressive development ever since.”
"Dr. Chomsky, who like Dr. Gleitman received his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania, devised the theory. But it was Dr. Gleitman who figured out elegant ways to test it in the real world, starting with her own children.
***
"With Barbara Landau, who teaches at Johns Hopkins University, she showed how even blind children were able to learn “sighted” words like “look” and “see” — not by experiencing them in the world, but by inferring their meaning from their syntactic and semantic contexts. She conducted similar research on deaf students with another former student, Susan Goldin-Meadow, now at the University of Chicago.
***
"Working with a colleague, John Trueswell, Dr. Gleitman studied first how children learn “hard” words — verbs, conceptual nouns — and then turned around and looked at how they learn concrete nouns and other “easy” words, which she argued were not as easy as they might seem."
Comment: Hard-wired syntax seems correct. Even obituaries teach us.
How children pick up a language: fetal speech
by David Turell , Thursday, July 25, 2024, 19:16 (119 days ago) @ David Turell
Picking up Mother's language in womb:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-fetuses-learn-to-talk-while-theyre-still-in-the-womb?utm_sou...
"Some restless infants don’t wait for birth to let out their first cry. They cry in the womb, a rare but well-documented phenomenon called vagitus uterinus...The obstetrician Malcolm McLane described an incident that occurred in a hospital in the United States in 1897. He was prepping a patient for a c-section, when her unborn baby began to wail, and kept going for several minutes....In 1973, doctors in Belgium recorded the vitals of three wailing fetuses and concluded that vagitus uterinus is not a sign of distress.
***
"Vagitus uterinus occurs – always in the last trimester – when there’s a tear in the uterine membrane. The tear lets air into the uterine cavity, thus enabling the fetus to vocalise. Vagitus uterinus provided scientists with some of the earliest insights into the fetus’s vocal apparatus, showing that the body parts and neural systems involved in the act of crying are fully functional before birth.
***
"...babies aren’t just crying for attention. While crying, they are practising the melodies of speech. In fact, newborns cry in the accent of their mother tongue. They make vowel-like sounds, growl and squeal – these are protophones, sounds that eventually turn into speech.
"Babies communicate as soon as they are born. Rigorous analyses of the developmental origins of these behaviours reveal that, contrary to popular belief – even among scientists – they are not hardwired into our brain structures or preordained by our genes. Instead, the latest research – including my own – shows that these behaviours self-organise in utero through the continuous dance between brain, body and environment.
***
Recent studies of prematurely born infants...have brought to light that fetuses born as young as 32 weeks (eight weeks before the usual date) do more than cry. They produce protophones, the infant sounds that eventually turn into speech. Meaning that a fetus in the last trimester of pregnancy can make all the sounds of a newborn infant.
***
My work with Ghazanfar and Takahashi established – for the first time in a primate – that the ability to vocalise at birth is not ‘innate’. Rather, it undergoes a lengthy period of prenatal development, even before sound can be produced.
***
While individual speech sounds are suppressed in the womb, what remains prominent are the variations in pitch, intensity and duration – what linguists refer to as the prosody of speech.
Prosody is what gives speech its musical quality. When we listen to someone speak, prosody helps us interpret their emotions, intentions and the overall meaning of their message. Different languages have different prosodic patterns... They found that the infants had learned the prosodic patterns – duration contrast versus pitch contrast – of their mother tongue.
Language learning begins in the womb, and it begins with prosody. Exposure to speech in the womb leads to lasting changes in the brain, increasing the newborns’ sensitivity to previously heard languages. The mother’s voice is the most dominant and consistent sound in the womb, so the person carrying the fetus gets first dibs on influencing the fetus. If the mother speaks two languages, her infant will show equal preference and discrimination for both languages.
***
The newborns had not just memorised the prosody of their native languages; they were actively moving air through their vocal cords and controlling the movements of their mouth to mimic this prosody in their own vocalisations. Babies are communicating as soon as they are born, and these abilities are developing in the nine months before birth.
There is no genetic blueprint, programme or watchmaker who knows how it must turn out in the end. The reality of how these behaviours come to be is far more sophisticated and elegant. They develop through continuous interactions across multiple levels of causation – from genes to culture.
"...which of these factors are the primary drivers of vocal development – our genes or brain? – and which ones are merely supporting – the body? How much of their communication do babies owe to nature versus nurture? Is it more nature or nurture? I guarantee you, there are no scientifically defensible answers to these questions.
Comment: our ability to speak with real words is obviously a built-in process affected by all of the influences the author lists. Every one is of equal importance. Picking up syntax seems a built-in attribute of the brain. We were evolved to have language.
How children pick up a language: latest review
by David Turell , Thursday, August 22, 2024, 19:01 (91 days ago) @ David Turell
Different cultures have different ways of exposing language to infants:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2024/07/10/humans_are_changing_how_we_learn_langu...
"The societal gulf raises two questions. Is frequent adult-to-child direct speech really the single, optimal pathway to language development? And could it be that children raised in Western settings learn language differently from how our ancestors did?
"Western scientists have previously visited indigenous communities like the Yucatec Maya in southeastern Mexico and the Rossel Islanders in Papua New Guinea. These academic visitors found that, in contrast to Western infants, infants in these societies primarily hear speech directed to others, rather than directed to them. And these youngsters develop their native language skills just as ably.
***
"Tseltal infants are rarely spoken to, “yet have the opportunity to overhear a great deal […] by virtue of being carried on their mothers’ backs,” the authors described.
“'They are also almost never put down, or even passed to siblings, ensuring that they are witness to practically the entirety of their mothers’ social interactions,” they added.
***
"The results show that human infants are clearly capable of learning language through observation, suggesting that talking directly to young children is not a requirement. Rather, as an international team of scientists wrote in an article published in 2022 to PLoS Biology, WEIRD societies might be the weird ones when it comes to language learning.
***
"Could there be further ramifications of altering the way we’ve historically learned language?
“'Children raised in child-centered contexts may come to expect their attention to be managed by their caregivers and learn to ignore interactions around them,” Foushee and Srinivasan wrote in their paper. “Conversely, children raised in contexts in which child-directed language is rare and other-directed language is common may develop a keen ability to attend to and learn from interactions around them.”
“'One of the ramifications of this general idea is that children from different language environments might excel at different forms of learning and assessment,” they added in an interview.
***
"Perhaps, above all, the latest results showcase the truly amazing ability of the youngest minds to learn their native tongues, Foushee and Srinivasan said.
“'Language development is often admired for its robustness and resilience… Our findings invite the perspective that children successfully acquire their native languages across variable environments in part because they are flexible in how they learn.'”
Comment: that infants sop up language easily is obvious. The theory that syntax is built in seems correct. I wonder why it is a lost process after about age eight.