Human evolution; our complex speech mechanism (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, May 17, 2019, 08:39 (319 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I said McCrone did describe them talking at five, six words per minute, remember?

dhw: And how does he know that? Anyway, the argument now is that the mechanisms for modern language were already in place and were already being used before H. sapiens. There is therefore no gulf between pre-sapiens and sapiens, but simply an onward development of sounds as pre-sapiens and sapiens built on the linguistic achievements of their predecessors. Please explain what you think this proves.

DAVID: The physical changes advanced with each homo stage including humans, but really functional language appeared 50,000 years ago perv theory. Form appeared before true function. That is what it proves. Design first.

What do you mean by “really functional language” and “true function”? Do you honestly think that communication between pre-sapiens and between early sapiens didn’t function? Nobody can possibly know how simple/complex early language was unless they were standing around with a tape recorder. Language must have evolved from simple beginnings to its current complexities as homos and humans built on the linguistic inventions of their predecessors in response to the need for a wider range of communication. But there would certainly have been long periods of linguistic stasis in times when societies themselves were static.

DAVID: As usual I think your concept humanizes God. I view Him as knowing exactly what He wants.

dhw: If he exists, I also view him as knowing exactly what he wants, and it ain’t the same as your version of exactly what he wants. And there is no point in talking about purpose if you are not prepared to tell us what that purpose is. AnD why do you think your God is incapable of creating an autonomous mechanism, as opposed to a mechanism that preprogrammes every undabbled change in the history of evolution?

DAVID: your view is very different than mine in which I see Him as purely purposeful, who
does not need spectacle

What do you mean by “purely purposeful”? How can you have a purpose without a definition of what that purpose is? You are playing with words. And you haven’t explained why you think your God is incapable of creating an autonomous mechanism.

DAVID: What is evolution but the development of all the forms that evolution has produced? If God is in change, the history of what He did is clear. And humans are certainly specially designed, compared to everything else.

dhw: Yes, evolution is the history of all the forms, and if God exists, that history is clear. But you keep telling us that EVERYTHING is specially designed – even the weaverbird’s nest – and THAT is the problem with your hypothesis, because you will insist that he specially designed EVERY form, and did so only in order to specially design humans.

DAVID: And just why can't it be proposed that He designed everything, while in charge of evolution?

Of course it can be proposed. It simply doesn’t make sense that he should specially design the whale’s flipper and the weaverbird’s nest when the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum