AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

MATT (under "Different in degree or kind"): We obviously don't know how language originated, but if we note that captive gorillas, (koko, in particular) were able to develop a vocabulary of about 2000 words, we have some kind of an idea that the ability to learn language isn't unique. What makes us unique is quite simply (to me) an issue of instinct. Other ape communities don't rely on other members quite as intricately as we do--we're more social, not less. 
It isn't a stretch to say that we have an instinct for language, and that I think it was this instinct, this desire to more effectively communicate that allowed us to develop constant word-symbols over time, passed on via music and culture.-This boils down to what you mean by language. All organisms communicate, and they use whatever means are at their disposal, including chemicals, touch, sound, smell, movement etc. These presumably develop until all needs have been met, and then they stagnate. A gorilla will only learn human vocabulary if put under some kind of obligation to do so. Conversely, feral children only "speak" the language of the animals that have reared them. The difference with humans is that thanks to our superior intelligence and additional layers of consciousness, there is no end to the "need". I imagine that the earliest humans would have had a very basic vocabulary not dissimilar to that of other animals, but our heightened awareness demanded that we put names to things we perceive, and as time went by, it demanded that we even put names to things we don't perceive. That's how language evolves, and it does so through intelligence, with every new word a deliberate invention. I doubt if cavemen had a word for "existentialism" or "genetics" or "internal combustion"! Even my wife's native language (Urhobo) would use English for such concepts. I agree that our social interdependence is a vital factor, but all social animals (including insects) are interdependent, and so for me the main difference is the range of subjects we feel we "need" to communicate, and that arises directly from our heightened awareness of the world and ourselves.-As regards the anatomical differences, before the invention of writing, we used mainly sound, but as David says, our vocal instruments have had to be greatly refined in order to provide the range of sounds necessary for our huge variety of communications. If I were pushed into choosing one explanation over all others, I'd say it was our heightened consciousness that created the need for an ever expanding vocabulary, and the need for new sounds created pressure on the cell community to reshape itself into the organs we have today. I certainly prefer that to random mutations, but no doubt David will opt for God planning and preprogramming it a few billion years ago, or stepping in to do a dabble.

4129 views

MATT (under "Different in degree or kind"): We obviously don't know how language originated, but if we note that captive gorillas, (koko, in particular) were able to develop a vocabulary of about 2000 words, we have some kind of an idea that the ability to learn language isn't unique. What makes us unique is quite simply (to me) an issue of instinct. Other ape communities don't rely on other members quite as intricately as we do--we're more social, not less. 
> It isn't a stretch to say that we have an instinct for language, and that I think it was this instinct, this desire to more effectively communicate that allowed us to develop constant word-symbols over time, passed on via music and culture.
> 
> ... I agree that our social interdependence is a vital factor, but all social animals (including insects) are interdependent, and so for me the main difference is the range of subjects we feel we "need" to communicate, and that arises directly from our heightened awareness of the world and ourselves.
> -I personally think that the selective pressure that brought us out of the trees is sufficient to explain this: As selection worked to have us walking more upright we (because apes ARE pretty smart) started figuring out that we could hunt large game as well as gather. Hunting large game *requires* a team effort. So right away we see social behavior taking center stage. I'm of the opinion that until we were able to create stable nomadic societies, we didn't have the luxury of time that necessitates using our minds for reflection, which in my view, was the driver of more complex language and understanding. This is trivially true when we look at snapshots of western civilization where the poor simply were less sophisticated in art and language than their well-kempt brothers in the castles. -Since you're probing me more deeply, I think that as we developed strategies for hunting big game, we gained an immediate advantage in terms of calories: A half pound of bison meat will give keep you fuller longer, and provide nutrition that you don't have access to from gathering alone. -And in the cold (as we left Africa) meat is also a self-preserving food, in that it will keep for far longer than any stores of food you gathered. (H. Erectus penetrated all of southern Europe, so they would have had to adapt for winters in Spain, France, and Northern Italy.) Not to mention mountain life. -With big game, you don't need to hunt as often to feed your people, so this creates downtime, and its that downtime that allowed us to begin creative construction of language. And then we were nomadic... we couldn't have survived long if every nomadic band attacked and killed each other. So there was the beginning of an economic life here as well, which would also drive selection pressure to increase demand for verbal language. -> As regards the anatomical differences, before the invention of writing, we used mainly sound, but as David says, our vocal instruments have had to be greatly refined in order to provide the range of sounds necessary for our huge variety of communications. If I were pushed into choosing one explanation over all others, I'd say it was our heightened consciousness that created the need for an ever expanding vocabulary, and the need for new sounds created pressure on the cell community to reshape itself into the organs we have today. I certainly prefer that to random mutations, but no doubt David will opt for God planning and preprogramming it a few billion years ago, or stepping in to do a dabble.-I don't think the emergence of language in humans is a strong case for a creator. I really do think that the rapid advancement we see here is the result of the human organism responding and adapting to a new set of circumstances driven by the economic fact that energy stores allow for leisure and trade... and that both leisure and trade put great stress and demand to communicate in a universal fashion. Leisure allows us to create music and stories, which require the invention of words and sounds, which in turn drive anatomical changes.-[EDIT]-It also isn't a stretch to say that these ancestors were wise enough to identify those in the tribe that were better at making sounds... maybe for entertainment, maybe because they were better communicators. And then we see intelligence beginning to internally select for those individuals that could make sounds no one else could... and its complications like this that I've always said makes intelligence difficult: If human beings were smart enough to use genetics to come up with all our varieties of domestic animals, dogs, cats, etc., then it becomes really difficult to determine *how much* of our evolution wasn't co-opted by human beings ourselves. Good luck unraveling that mess...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4078 views

Matt:As regards the anatomical differences, before the invention of writing, we used mainly sound, but as David says, our vocal instruments have had to be greatly refined in order to provide the range of sounds necessary for our huge variety of communications. If I were pushed into choosing one explanation over all others, I'd say it was our heightened consciousness that created the need for an ever expanding vocabulary, and the need for new sounds created pressure on the cell community to reshape itself into the organs we have today. I certainly prefer that to random mutations, but no doubt David will opt for God planning and preprogramming it a few billion years ago, or stepping in to do a dabble.
> 
> Matt:I don't think the emergence of language in humans is a strong case for a creator. I really do think that the rapid advancement we see here is the result of the human organism responding and adapting to a new set of circumstances driven by the economic fact that energy stores allow for leisure and trade... and that both leisure and trade put great stress and demand to communicate in a universal fashion. Leisure allows us to create music and stories, which require the invention of words and sounds, which in turn drive anatomical changes.
> 
> [EDIT]
> 
> Matt:It also isn't a stretch to say that these ancestors were wise enough to identify those in the tribe that were better at making sounds... maybe for entertainment, maybe because they were better communicators. And then we see intelligence beginning to internally select for those individuals that could make sounds no one else could... and its complications like this that I've always said makes intelligence difficult: If human beings were smart enough to use genetics to come up with all our varieties of domestic animals, dogs, cats, etc., then it becomes really difficult to determine *how much* of our evolution wasn't co-opted by human beings ourselves. Good luck unraveling that mess...-I read this carefully and it doesn't fit the expert theory of Mc Crone. Get the book and review his exposition.

4055 views

Matt:As regards the anatomical differences, before the invention of writing, we used mainly sound, but as David says, our vocal instruments have had to be greatly refined in order to provide the range of sounds necessary for our huge variety of communications. If I were pushed into choosing one explanation over all others, I'd say it was our heightened consciousness that created the need for an ever expanding vocabulary, and the need for new sounds created pressure on the cell community to reshape itself into the organs we have today. I certainly prefer that to random mutations, but no doubt David will opt for God planning and preprogramming it a few billion years ago, or stepping in to do a dabble.
> > 
> > Matt:I don't think the emergence of language in humans is a strong case for a creator. I really do think that the rapid advancement we see here is the result of the human organism responding and adapting to a new set of circumstances driven by the economic fact that energy stores allow for leisure and trade... and that both leisure and trade put great stress and demand to communicate in a universal fashion. Leisure allows us to create music and stories, which require the invention of words and sounds, which in turn drive anatomical changes.
> > 
> > [EDIT]
> > 
> > Matt:It also isn't a stretch to say that these ancestors were wise enough to identify those in the tribe that were better at making sounds... maybe for entertainment, maybe because they were better communicators. And then we see intelligence beginning to internally select for those individuals that could make sounds no one else could... and its complications like this that I've always said makes intelligence difficult: If human beings were smart enough to use genetics to come up with all our varieties of domestic animals, dogs, cats, etc., then it becomes really difficult to determine *how much* of our evolution wasn't co-opted by human beings ourselves. Good luck unraveling that mess...
> 
> I read this carefully and it doesn't fit the expert theory of Mc Crone. Get the book and review his exposition.-Is there a more modern book you can suggest? I have a hard time swallowing conclusions drawn considering that in 1992 we didn't know half as much about cognition/intelligence/evolution as we do now.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4061 views

Matt: Is there a more modern book you can suggest? I have a hard time swallowing conclusions drawn considering that in 1992 we didn't know half as much about cognition/intelligence/evolution as we do now.-No, I don't know of one offhand, but the material here on anatomy and probable develoment of speech should not have changed that much. The newer developments I am aware of involve the innate knowledge little kids have naturally for syntax across all languages. All language is based on the same concepts of organization.

4084 views

Dhw: I agree that our social interdependence is a vital factor, but all social animals (including insects) are interdependent, and so for me the main difference is the range of subjects we feel we "need" to communicate, and that arises directly from our heightened awareness of the world and ourselves.-MATT: As selection worked to have us walking more upright we (because apes ARE pretty smart) started figuring out that we could hunt large game as well as gather. Hunting large game *requires* a team effort. So right away we see social behavior taking center stage. I'm of the opinion that until we were able to create stable nomadic societies, we didn't have the luxury of time that necessitates using our minds for reflection, which in my view, was the driver of more complex language and understanding. -Perhaps this is a chicken and egg situation. "Figuring out" something new already requires heightened awareness, so our time and energy saving innovations arose from our heightened awareness, and these in turn allowed us to use our awareness for further developments. All these ideas would have required enhanced methods of communication, and I suspect as you do that this would have resulted in adjustments to our physiology (the response of "the intelligent cell" perhaps). I like the idea of increased leisure allowing a wider scope of reflection, which would also broaden language and culture generally. I'm not so sure about trade. The fact is that languages have developed separately (there are neighbouring tribes that speak a totally different language ... another form of evolutionary convergence?), and tribal warfare is at least as common as tribal trade! But we may now be talking about events long after human language had begun its evolution.-MATT: I don't think the emergence of language in humans is a strong case for a creator. -Nor do I. For me, human language is a natural extension of communication as practised by all our fellow animals. Their subject matter, however, is (we assume) generally limited to matters of survival, whereas our degree of awareness and self-awareness has immeasurably expanded the range, with each new mode of survival, habitation, environmental conquest, reflection, leisure activity, providing a further spur to the development. As we know from the rapid changes taking place even now, this is a never-ending evolution.

4017 views

dhw: The fact is that languages have developed separately (there are neighbouring tribes that speak a totally different language ... another form of evolutionary convergence?), and tribal warfare is at least as common as tribal trade! But we may now be talking about events long after human language had begun its evolution.-Remember that babies pick up language syntax as if it is automatic. It seems implanted and convergent.
> 
> MATT: I don't think the emergence of language in humans is a strong case for a creator. 
> 
> dhw; Nor do I. For me, human language is a natural extension of communication as practised by all our fellow animals. Their subject matter, however, is (we assume) generally limited to matters of survival, whereas our degree of awareness and self-awareness has immeasurably expanded the range, with each new mode of survival, habitation, environmental conquest, reflection, leisure activity, providing a further spur to the development. As we know from the rapid changes taking place even now, this is a never-ending evolution.-Obviously I do not fully accept dhw's statement. It is a natural extension, but there was obviously much anticipatory preparation anatomically.

4047 views

Dhw: I agree that our social interdependence is a vital factor, but all social animals (including insects) are interdependent, and so for me the main difference is the range of subjects we feel we "need" to communicate, and that arises directly from our heightened awareness of the world and ourselves.
> 
> MATT: As selection worked to have us walking more upright we (because apes ARE pretty smart) started figuring out that we could hunt large game as well as gather. Hunting large game *requires* a team effort. So right away we see social behavior taking center stage. I'm of the opinion that until we were able to create stable nomadic societies, we didn't have the luxury of time that necessitates using our minds for reflection, which in my view, was the driver of more complex language and understanding. 
> 
> Perhaps this is a chicken and egg situation. "Figuring out" something new already requires heightened awareness, so our time and energy saving innovations arose from our heightened awareness, and these in turn allowed us to use our awareness for further developments. All these ideas would have required enhanced methods of communication, and I suspect as you do that this would have resulted in adjustments to our physiology (the response of "the intelligent cell" perhaps). I like the idea of increased leisure allowing a wider scope of reflection, which would also broaden language and culture generally. I'm not so sure about trade. The fact is that languages have developed separately (there are neighbouring tribes that speak a totally different language ... another form of evolutionary convergence?), and tribal warfare is at least as common as tribal trade! But we may now be talking about events long after human language had begun its evolution.
> -I think its a feedback loop: Native peoples are much more attuned to their natural surroundings, in short, it pays to be observant in the bush. And again, natural gifts (Paul can hear better than I can) help drive the selective process... it isn't hard to see that the best hunter would have the best prospects for an H. Erectus wife. What observations could possibly have lead to cultural innovation? And we're naturally curious as well. So our hunters go out -
> MATT: I don't think the emergence of language in humans is a strong case for a creator. 
> 
> Nor do I. For me, human language is a natural extension of communication as practised by all our fellow animals. Their subject matter, however, is (we assume) generally limited to matters of survival, whereas our degree of awareness and self-awareness has immeasurably expanded the range, with each new mode of survival, habitation, environmental conquest, reflection, leisure activity, providing a further spur to the development. As we know from the rapid changes taking place even now, this is a never-ending evolution.-I don't fully buy that. I've seen prarie dogs engage in play, and don't get me started on cats! A business of ferrets also engage in highly intelligent, non-survival behavior based on curiosity. Whenever I read the work of behavioral biologists, I'm always brought back to earth about my perceived superiority. -I just marked a book that intends to explain four pillars of evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation. I hope to bring its insights here.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4067 views


> Matt: I just marked a book that intends to explain four pillars of evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation. I hope to bring its insights here.-Would love to see your comments

4014 views


> > Matt: I just marked a book that intends to explain four pillars of evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation. I hope to bring its insights here.
> 
> Would love to see your comments-This is the book, btw: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00194DC8S/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=B...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4065 views


> Matt: This is the book, btw: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00194DC8S/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=B... like one I need to read.

4117 views

Noam Chomsky's idea that we have an innate grammar we are born with is supported:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25334-born-to-chat-humans-may-have-innate-language-instinct.html

3944 views

New support for the idea that language syntax may be innate:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150331131324.htm-"'The hierarchical complexity found in present-day language is likely to have been present in human language since its emergence," says Shigeru Miyagawa, Professor of Linguistics and the Kochi Prefecture-John Manjiro Professor in Japanese Language and Culture at MIT, and a co-author of the new paper on the subject.-"To be clear, this is not a universally accepted claim: Many scholars believe that humans first started using a kind of "proto-language" -- a rudimentary, primitive kind of communication with only a gradual development of words and syntax. But Miyagawa thinks this is not the case. Single words, he believes, bear traces of syntax showing that they must be descended from an older, syntax-laden system, rather than from simple, primal utterances.-*****-"Miyagawa's integration hypothesis is connected intellectually to the work of other MIT scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, who have contended that human languages are universally connected and derive from our capacity for using syntax. In forming, this school of thought holds, languages have blended expressive and lexical layers through a system Chomsky has called "Merge."-"'Once Merge has applied integrating these two layers, we have essentially all the features of a full-fledged human language," Miyagawa says."

3969 views

DAVID: New support for the idea that language syntax may be innate: -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150331131324.htm
 
 "The hierarchical complexity found in present-day language is likely to have been present in human language since its emergence," says Shigeru Miyagawa, Professor of Linguistics and the Kochi Prefecture-John Manjiro Professor in Japanese Language and Culture at MIT, and a co-author of the new paper on the subject.- "To be clear, this is not a universally accepted claim: Many scholars believe that humans first started using a kind of "proto-language" -- a rudimentary, primitive kind of communication with only a gradual development of words and syntax.-This is truly sensational news. Professor Miyagawa has equalled the world record for the invention of theories for which there is not, never was, and never can be the slightest shred of evidence. I am slightly miffed that MIT have turned down my application for a grant to develop my theories that dinosaurs invented football, there were no apple trees in the Garden of Eden, and Professor Miyagawa has a doppelgänger on planet Z in Universe 24B. 
 
***********************
 
On a more serious note:
 
QUOTE: Miyagawa has an alternate hypothesis about what created human language: Humans alone, as he has asserted in papers published in recent years, have combined an "expressive" layer of language, as seen in birdsong, with a "lexical" layer, as seen in monkeys who utter isolated sounds with real-world meaning, such as alarm calls. Miyagawa's "integration hypothesis" holds that whatever first caused them, these layers of language blended quickly and successfully.-He apparently doesn't know that both birds and many animals both sing and utter sounds with real-world meaning, thus combining the expressive with the lexical. Humans are not "alone". He is, however, undoubtedly correct that whatever caused our own languages to develop as they have done was successful in causing our languages to develop as they have done. Whether this happened quickly or slowly might possibly depend on how you define "quickly" and "slowly".

4021 views


> ***********************
> 
> dhw: On a more serious note:
> 
> QUOTE: Miyagawa has an alternate hypothesis about what created human language: Humans alone, as he has asserted in papers published in recent years, have combined an "expressive" layer of language, as seen in birdsong, with a "lexical" layer, as seen in monkeys who utter isolated sounds with real-world meaning, such as alarm calls. Miyagawa's "integration hypothesis" holds that whatever first caused them, these layers of language blended quickly and successfully.
> 
> He apparently doesn't know that both birds and many animals both sing and utter sounds with real-world meaning, thus combining the expressive with the lexical. Humans are not "alone". He is, however, undoubtedly correct that whatever caused our own languages to develop as they have done was successful in causing our languages to develop as they have done. Whether this happened quickly or slowly might possibly depend on how you define "quickly" and "slowly".-However and whenever, language syntax seems to e universal throughout the very many human languages and built in at birth. Up to age 8-10 children can sop them up like a sponge and without an accent appearing. It allows us to think in word concepts and express the most complex of ideas, and only we humans have it. It involved many changes in tongue muscles, changing the shape of the palate and throat, dropping the larynx so inhaling food became a problem, requiring the development of a trap door over the main airway that closes it off as we swallow. It requires short clipped bursts of air carefully produced to express the sounds. Grunts and bellows and barks are not like it at all.This is a major example as to why I cannot accept unguided and unplanned evolution.

4021 views

DAVID: However and whenever, language syntax seems to e universal throughout the very many human languages and built in at birth. Up to age 8-10 children can sop them up like a sponge and without an accent appearing. It allows us to think in word concepts and express the most complex of ideas, and only we humans have it. It involved many changes in tongue muscles, changing the shape of the palate and throat, dropping the larynx so inhaling food became a problem, requiring the development of a trap door over the main airway that closes it off as we swallow. It requires short clipped bursts of air carefully produced to express the sounds. Grunts and bellows and barks are not like it at all.This is a major example as to why I cannot accept unguided and unplanned evolution.-Thank you for bringing a piece of serious scholarship to the debate, though I know you have described all this before. Just a very minor disagreement: accents appear much earlier than 8-10. No-one would question the complexity of human language, as opposed to that of other animals - just as no-one would question the complexity of our technology, our society, or our ability to learn, create, interpret etc. Our superior intelligence has led to all these attributes, enabling us to outstrip the abilities of our fellow animals to an almost immeasurable degree. But we should never lose sight of the fact that all of these abilities are inherited from the animal kingdom, no matter how much more sophisticated they have become.-As always, I agree that the necessary physical changes can hardly have been the result of random mutations. Whatever it was that led a group of apes to descend from the trees (if that's what happened) and start the whole process of humanization would undoubtedly have required an increasingly complex form of communication to make use of an ever expanding volume of information (conventional use of the word). Perhaps this is where the inventive mechanism would have come into play, changing structures in the same way as it changes structures in response to environmental pressures or opportunities. Your idea of guided or planned evolution entails God preprogramming the changes to tongue, palate, throat, larynx etc. 3.7 thousand million years in advance, along with the weaverbird's nest. Your alternative is God doing a dabble - and if he exists, there is no reason why he shouldn't have done that, since he would have dabbled in the first place to create the inventive mechanism. But that causes problems for your preconceived notion that he planned humans from the start and always knew exactly what he was doing. Of course, if the mechanism is autonomous, it would have made its own adjustments, as the need arose. We are back to the vexed question of evolutionary innovation.

4022 views


> dhw: Thank you for bringing a piece of serious scholarship to the debate, though I know you have described all this before. Just a very minor disagreement: accents appear much earlier than 8-10.-You misunderstand my statement and I was not clear. In this country of immigrants children under 10 pick up English easily without a foreign accent, but will have the local accent.- 
> dhw: As always, I agree that the necessary physical changes can hardly have been the result of random mutations. Whatever it was that led a group of apes to descend from the trees (if that's what happened) and start the whole process of humanization would undoubtedly have required an increasingly complex form of communication to make use of an ever expanding volume of information (conventional use of the word). Perhaps this is where the inventive mechanism would have come into play, changing structures in the same way as it changes structures in response to environmental pressures or opportunities. -All we now is that it happened rather quickly for all the changes that had to occur.

3932 views

DAVID: This is a major example as to why I cannot accept unguided and unplanned evolution.-Dhw: Your idea of guided or planned evolution entails God preprogramming the changes to tongue, palate, throat, larynx etc. 3.7 thousand million years in advance, along with the weaverbird's nest. Your alternative is God doing a dabble - and if he exists, there is no reason why he shouldn't have done that, since he would have dabbled in the first place to create the inventive mechanism. But that causes problems for your preconceived notion that he planned humans from the start and always knew exactly what he was doing. Of course, if the mechanism is autonomous, it would have made its own adjustments, as the need arose. We are back to the vexed question of evolutionary innovation.-DAVID: All we know is that it happened rather quickly for all the changes to occur.-I really don't know what experience you or anyone else has had of how much time it OUGHT to take for the palate and throat etc. to change, and the same applies to every innovation. All we do know is that these things happened. Perhaps you would like to think they happened unnaturally quickly so that you can argue for preprogramming or dabbling, but the IM would solve your time problem anyway - if there is a time problem.

3968 views

DAVID: All we know is that it happened rather quickly for all the changes to occur.
> 
> dhw: I really don't know what experience you or anyone else has had of how much time it OUGHT to take for the palate and throat etc. to change, and the same applies to every innovation. All we do know is that these things happened. Perhaps you would like to think they happened unnaturally quickly so that you can argue for preprogramming or dabbling, but the IM would solve your time problem anyway - if there is a time problem.-So, how fast does the IM work? Another unknown quantity. The evolutionists have theoretical math formulas about fixing a trait in so many generations. Since one human generation is about 20 years, there are only five in 100 years. 15 major changes from apes in 3.5 million years requiring many, many mutations. Enough time?

3946 views

DAVID: All we know is that it happened rather quickly for all the changes to occur.
dhw: I really don't know what experience you or anyone else has had of how much time it OUGHT to take for the palate and throat etc. to change, and the same applies to every innovation. All we do know is that these things happened. Perhaps you would like to think they happened unnaturally quickly so that you can argue for preprogramming or dabbling, but the IM would solve your time problem anyway - if there is a time problem.-DAVID: So, how fast does the IM work? Another unknown quantity. The evolutionists have theoretical math formulas about fixing a trait in so many generations. Since one human generation is about 20 years, there are only five in 100 years. 15 major changes from apes in 3.5 million years requiring many, many mutations. Enough time?-Of course it's enough time - it happened! (Or maybe the figures are wrong anyway - you never know.) I make the total 175,000 generations. What makes you think 175,000 generations are not long enough for such changes, bearing in mind that a change needs to work straight away if it is to survive? By all means argue that the mechanisms of life and evolution are too complex not to have been designed, but don't try to kid us that you know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans.

3919 views


> DAVID: Since one human generation is about 20 years, there are only five in 100 years. 15 major changes from apes in 3.5 million years requiring many, many mutations. Enough time?[/i]
> 
> dhw: Of course it's enough time - it happened!-That statement is a truism that doesn't tell us why or how it happened so quickly. In the Wistar Institute math conference of 1967 was the first and one of the best estimates of the lack of time by the Darwin chance mutation method. Human mutation rate is too slow for the time allotted. -> dhw: By all means argue that the mechanisms of life and evolution are too complex not to have been designed, but don't try to kid us that you know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans.-As noted above estimates are present.

3906 views

DAVID: Since one human generation is about 20 years, there are only five in 100 years. 15 major changes from apes in 3.5 million years requiring many, many mutations. Enough time?
dhw: Of course it's enough time - it happened!-DAVID: That statement is a truism that doesn't tell us why or how it happened so quickly. In the Wistar Institute math conference of 1967 was the first and one of the best estimates of the lack of time by the Darwin chance mutation method. Human mutation rate is too slow for the time allotted. -Why have you suddenly brought in the Darwin chance mutation method? Over and over again we have agreed to discount chance mutations - although even then it is patently absurd for anyone to claim they know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans. One of the best? Another judgement that cannot be confirmed. In our own discussions, I have suggested that it happened through organisms having an inventive mechanism (possibly deigned by your God) that was able to exploit new conditions in order to bring about advantageous changes. The only clue we have as to the existence of such a mechanism is the fact that we know organisms can adapt to new conditions, which itself involves making changes to their own structure.-dhw: By all means argue that the mechanisms of life and evolution are too complex not to have been designed, but don't try to kid us that you know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans.
DAVID: As noted above estimates are present.-As noted above, nobody can possibly know the normal rate, but in any case we are not dealing with random mutations.

4003 views


> dhw: Why have you suddenly brought in the Darwin chance mutation method? Over and over again we have agreed to discount chance mutations - although even then it is patently absurd for anyone to claim they know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans. One of the best? Another judgement that cannot be confirmed.-The Wistar Institute's presentations have never been refuted. Judgments about human mutation rates are published from time to time as relatively accurate assessments.-> dhw: In our own discussions, I have suggested that it happened through organisms having an inventive mechanism (possibly deigned by your God) that was able to exploit new conditions in order to bring about advantageous changes. The only clue we have as to the existence of such a mechanism is the fact that we know organisms can adapt to new conditions, which itself involves making changes to their own structure.-But not necessarily advancements, only responses to situational problems.-
> dhw;in any case we are not dealing with random mutations. -I know we both can accept that statement. The problem is the complexity in life that developed appears to be evolutionarily driven. By what? Epigenetic discovery only refutes Darwin's approach and supports Lamarck, but doesn't guarantee an increase in complexity. I agree we are left with God alone or God plus an IM, never an IM alone.

3931 views

Perhaps the issue of the epiglottis was skipped over from my previous description. Changes in advance of function are called exaptation's. The changes in palate shape, tongue muscles, the drop in the larynx to allow for proper bursts of air to allow speech, all preceded speech developing. It could not have developed without those preparations. These are changes out of thin air for no reasonable challenge response. Apes don't have that type of anatomy. Please tell me what drove those changes, none of which were necessary for life in general without speech? A series of IM experimentations? And the lower larynx with its trapdoor epiglottis is a constant threat to choking to death. (Heimlich maneuver!) Only design can account for this if one studies it logically.

3989 views

I've left out an important point. Human infants are born with an ape-like vocal tract, that is, with a very high larynx, so that they can suckle and drink without drowning. It is only after six months that the larynx drops to its lower position to allow for speech and it is then that the epiglottis comes into play. It must be a very intelligent IM to have that much foresight in planning for language and speech. Sorry, but this reeks of design.

3951 views

dhw: ...it is patently absurd for anyone to claim they know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans. 
DAVID: The Wistar Institute's presentations have never been refuted. Judgments about human mutation rates are published from time to time as relatively accurate assessments.-How can you refute a hypothesis about or assess the accuracy of judgements on events without precedent or points of comparison? Besides, once again, we are not dealing with random mutations.-dhw: In our own discussions, I have suggested that it happened through organisms having an inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) that was able to exploit new conditions in order to bring about advantageous changes. 
DAVID: But not necessarily advancements, only responses to situational problems.-Once more, nobody knows how innovations are created, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that a mechanism capable of changing an organism's structure for adaptation might also be able to innovate, given the right conditions.-DAVID: I agree we are left with God alone or God plus an IM, never an IM alone.

Why not an IM alone if God invented it to do its own inventing (just like humans)?-DAVID: Perhaps the issue of the epiglottis was skipped over from my previous description. Changes in advance of function are called exaptation's. The changes in palate shape, tongue muscles, the drop in the larynx to allow for proper bursts of air to allow speech, all preceded speech developing. It could not have developed without those preparations. These are changes out of thin air for no reasonable challenge response. Apes don't have that type of anatomy. Please tell me what drove those changes, none of which were necessary for life in general without speech? A series of IM experimentations? And the lower larynx with its trapdoor epiglottis is a constant threat to choking to death. (Heimlich maneuver!) Only design can account for this if one studies it logically.
I've left out an important point. Human infants are born with an ape-like vocal tract, that is, with a very high larynx, so that they can suckle and drink without drowning. It is only after six months that the larynx drops to its lower position to allow for speech and it is then that the epiglottis comes into play. It must be a very intelligent IM to have that much foresight in planning for language and speech. Sorry, but this reeks of design.-Yes, it does, and these are brilliant posts for which many thanks. I have dealt with your three versions of design under Evolution v Creationism. The IM is the fourth design option. The problem of complexity applies to every innovation that leads from bacteria to humans, but there is a major difference in our approach to all this. You constantly talk of planning, and that is not how I see the progress of evolution. Just as with adaptation, I visualize the changes coming about IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in preparation for them. Either there is a need for change, or conditions encourage change for the sake of improvement. And so in this particular case, the changes in the larynx, epiglottis etc. would have come about because with their ever expanding intelligence and acquisition of information, humans needed a more sophisticated method of communicating. In other words, the changes were not planned in advance of that need - they arose from it. In anticipation of your usual objections, I'd better repeat for the umpteenth time that nobody knows how innovations take place. You offer preprogramming from Year One, divine dabbling, or a list of multi-choice questions; I offer a mechanism which is known to be capable of adaptation and may therefore also be capable of invention.

3976 views

dhw: ...it is patently absurd for anyone to claim they know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans. 
> DAVID: The Wistar Institute's presentations have never been refuted. Judgments about human mutation rates are published from time to time as relatively accurate assessments.
> 
> dhw: How can you refute a hypothesis about or assess the accuracy of judgements on events without precedent or points of comparison? Besides, once again, we are not dealing with random mutations.-Purposeful mutations mean teleology. Are you joining me?-> dhw: Once more, nobody knows how innovations are created, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that a mechanism capable of changing an organism's structure for adaptation might also be able to innovate, given the right conditions.-Epigenetics research tell us that organisms do adapt and subsequent generations carry those adaptations. As I've noted before this means changes are environmentally driven by changing environmental challenges. This is still a chance driven evolution, in which the odds for human consciousness seem insurmountable.- 
> DAVID: It must be a very intelligent IM to have that much foresight in planning for language and speech. Sorry, but this reeks of design.[/i]
> 
> dhw: Yes, it does, and these are brilliant posts for which many thanks. .... You constantly talk of planning, and that is not how I see the progress of evolution. Just as with adaptation, I visualize the changes coming about IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in preparation for them. Either there is a need for change, or conditions encourage change for the sake of improvement. And so in this particular case, the changes in the larynx, epiglottis etc. would have come about because with their ever expanding intelligence and acquisition of information, humans needed a more sophisticated method of communicating. In other words, the changes were not planned in advance of that need - they arose from it. -You keep skipping over the knowledge we have about the stages of development. Tell me about the conditions that told the larynx to drop well before speech developed. Speech also required a brain to learn speech. Your claim seems to be all of this happened because the environment demanded it?!-> dhw: In anticipation of your usual objections, I'd better repeat for the umpteenth time that nobody knows how innovations take place. You offer preprogramming from Year One, divine dabbling, or a list of multi-choice questions; I offer a mechanism which is known to be capable of adaptation and may therefore also be capable of invention.-"May therefore", without recognizing the coordination of stages of development which reek of purpose is very unreasonable to me.

3927 views

dhw: ...it is patently absurd for anyone to claim they know how long it normally takes for apes to evolve into humans. 
DAVID: The Wistar Institute's presentations have never been refuted. Judgments about human mutation rates are published from time to time as relatively accurate assessments.
dhw: How can you refute a hypothesis about or assess the accuracy of judgements on events without precedent or points of comparison? Besides, once again, we are not dealing with random mutations.-DAVID: Purposeful mutations mean teleology. Are you joining me?-If by teleology you mean that certain phenomena are best explained in terms of purpose rather than cause, yes - that is the whole point of my inventive mechanism hypothesis, the purpose being survival and/or self-improvement. If you mean evidence for the existence of God, I remain agnostic.-DAVID: Epigenetics research tell us that organisms do adapt and subsequent generations carry those adaptations. As I've noted before this means changes are environmentally driven by changing environmental challenges. This is still a chance driven evolution, in which the odds for human consciousness seem insurmountable.-This means you are once more faced with the question whether your God organized environmental change. If he didn't, he left evolution to chance, or he continuously dabbled, which = Creationism. The occasional dabble is always a possibility, but that would suggest to me that either things weren't going to plan, or there was no plan. According to you, even the odds against the weaverbird's nest seem insurmountable.-DAVID: You keep skipping over the knowledge we have about the stages of development. Tell me about the conditions that told the larynx to drop well before speech developed. Speech also required a brain to learn speech. Your claim seems to be all of this happened because the environment demanded it?!-Apes also have brains and their own form of speech. I thought I'd explained the condition. My suggestion (claim is far too strong) is that whatever it was that caused a group of apes to descend from the trees (if that's what happened) set in motion a process whereby with their ever expanding intelligence and acquisition of information, they needed a more sophisticated method of communicating. That was the condition that told the larynx to drop etc. Adaptation proves that organisms can change their structures according to need. Innovation demands a far more drastic reorganization than adaptation, but the same mechanism may have been at work. Innovation in general, though, does not have to be the result of need - it can also happen because of new opportunities offered by a change in the environment. Once more, the purpose is survival and/or self-improvement. We don't know why the apes descended, but if fins could be changed to legs, I don't see why a larynx couldn't be made to drop.-dhw: I offer a mechanism which is known to be capable of adaptation and may therefore also be capable of invention.
DAVID: "May therefore", without recognizing the coordination of stages of development which reek of purpose is very unreasonable to me.-Cell communities coordinate purposefully in astonishing ways, as you have demonstrated repeatedly on your Nature's Wonders thread. In cases such as the monarch butterfly's lifestyle, the spider's silk, the weaverbird's nest, you have rejected the possibility of autonomous invention, and insisted that either God preprogrammed them 3.7 billion years ago, or dabbled, or gave them a list of options and preprogrammed them to choose the right one. These explanations do not sound more reasonable to me than God giving organisms the wherewithal to do their own inventing.

3942 views

dhw:Innovation in general, though, does not have to be the result of need - it can also happen because of new opportunities offered by a change in the environment. Once more, the purpose is survival and/or self-improvement. We don't know why the apes descended, but if fins could be changed to legs, I don't see why a larynx couldn't be made to drop.-Very hopeful and iffy suggestion. I don't buy it. Fins to legs required enormous changes. The larynx dropped but is not present on fossils, since it is soft tissue. The only fossil evidence is from the arched palate starting to appear at 1.5 million years ago. Speech possibly appearing at 100,000 years ago. I look at this as good planning and not fitting your hoped for 3rd way of producing evolution.-> 
> dhw: Cell communities coordinate purposefully in astonishing ways, as you have demonstrated repeatedly on your Nature's Wonders thread..... These explanations do not sound more reasonable to me than God giving organisms the wherewithal to do their own inventing.-I'll stick with God.

3939 views

dhw: Innovation in general, though, does not have to be the result of need - it can also happen because of new opportunities offered by a change in the environment. Once more, the purpose is survival and/or self-improvement. We don't know why the apes descended, but if fins could be changed to legs, I don't see why a larynx couldn't be made to drop.-DAVID: Very hopeful and iffy suggestion. I don't buy it. Fins to legs required enormous changes. The larynx dropped but is not present on fossils, since it is soft tissue. The only fossil evidence is from the arched palate starting to appear at 1.5 million years ago. Speech possibly appearing at 100,000 years ago. I look at this as good planning and not fitting your hoped for 3rd way of producing evolution.-I know you don't buy it. You think it was all separately created (by dabbling) or planned 3.7 billion years ago in a programme inserted into the first living cells, along with the weaverbird's nest, the spider's silk, the monarch's lifestyle, the western grey whale's migration (I presume), and a zillion other innovations and activities too complex for anything but God to devise. How hopeful and iffy is that? -dhw: Cell communities coordinate purposefully in astonishing ways, as you have demonstrated repeatedly on your Nature's Wonders thread..... These explanations do not sound more reasonable to me than God giving organisms the wherewithal to do their own inventing.-DAVID: I'll stick with God.-I have offered you God as the possible inventor of the mechanism. You mean you'll stick with your hugely hopeful, awfully iffy 3.7-billion-year computer programme and an occasional dabble.

3906 views

dhw: I know you don't buy it. You think it was all separately created (by dabbling) or planned 3.7 billion years ago in a programme inserted into the first living cells......-I have also said that life is very inventive and I have allowed for a semi-autonomous IM.
> 
> DAVID: I'll stick with God.
> 
> dhw: I have offered you God as the possible inventor of the mechanism. You mean you'll stick with your hugely hopeful, awfully iffy 3.7-billion-year computer programme and an occasional dabble.-No, I've accepted the possibility of a semi-autonomous IM. Based on our current knowledge of epigenetics, I don't think we can know how much complexity can be developed by an IM.

3974 views

It has taken lots of training:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/how-a-coughing-ape-is-changing-our-ideas-about-animals-humans-and-language/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines-"Later, scientists would learn that the mouths, wind pipes and vocal chords of apes are fundamentally different than those of humans. Our tongues are more flexible, our lips more sophisticated, our lungs specially designed to control the strength of our breath. Beyond that, our brains are just better equipped to control those parts of our bodies. Our Broca's area  the part of the brain linked to language processing and speech  is much larger, and our neurons more significantly connected to our vocal tract.-"So researchers switched to sign language for their ape experiments, resigned to the idea that apes' bodies and brains just weren't designed for speech.-
"But those discoveries left researchers with an unexplained gap in the evolutionary history of language. Other kinds of more distantly related primates, like monkeys, are known to produce human-like precursors to speech: chitters, chortles, harmonic tones. And most humans in most environmental circumstances have developed spoken language, even without being explicitly taught.-****-" There's still some skepticism in the scientific community about that last point. Studies have challenged the idea that apes understand the meaning of their sign language communication the way humans do, or suggested that famous primates like Koko, who have lived their whole lives in the company of humans, aren't representative of their species"--?

3902 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum