branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in
news:b9b3de8.0401290021.7393e123@posting.google.com:
> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns947E8B0275C25ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>...
>> branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in
>> news:b9b3de8.0401272315.401c2941@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns947DABE6018B0ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>...
>> >> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>> >> news:bv2jat$382$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in
>> >> >> news:bv13qe$7ej$1@news.onet.pl:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > news:Xns947B7CBC12A9Cericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
>> >> >> >> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:bv0jsq$6uk$2@news.onet.pl:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > news:Xns947AAACC86676ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121...
>> >> >> >> >> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:buuvmq$cpc$0@pita.alt.net:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > You're just trying to spin your way out, now.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Hypocrite.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Not in the slightest,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Wishful thinking won't help you, either. Developing a sudden
>> >> >> >> attack of honesty and straightfowardness is what you need.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I'm waiting for a god reason why they shouldn't
>> >> >> >> > be conflated.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Of course, the way it works is YOU should you be showing why
>> >> >> >> it should be.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > If the theory of evolution is true, it should cover
>> >> >> >> > language too.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's *your* claim. We've been trying to get you to show
>> >> >> >> why for tens of messages now, and here you are still stating
>> >> >> >> it as a bald fact.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No no.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, yes, that's YOUR claim.
>> >> >
>> >> > So disprove it, scientist.
>> >>
>> >> IOW, I finally have the answer to my question - you have no idea
>> >> what "baseless" means.
>> >>
>> >> Tsk.
>> >
>> > That's okay, since you have no idea what "faith" means, either.
>>
>> Thanks for the non-sequitur. Aside from not having any idea if I do,
>> why do you mention it?
>>
>> >> >> > The onus is on you to show why language should be an
>> >> >> > exception,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To what?
>> >> >
>> >> > An exception to the theory of evolution, when you call that the
>> >> > explainer of how we got here.
>> >>
>> >> I have never called ToE any such thing, since it describes no such
>> >> thing.
>> >
>> > REALLY?
>>
>> Really.
>>
>> > So how did we get here then? Did we evolve or was it special
>> > creation?
>>
>> ToE describes the change of life over time, not the origin of life,
>> nor the origins of the universe, notr any other straw man you'd care
>> to set up.
>>
>> > "Tonight it's the meaning of Life".
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> The capacity for language is a biological function. How they
>> >> >> change change over time is not, no matter how desperately you
>> >> >> wish it to be otherwise.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course language is part of the human biology, and no amount
>> >> > of special pleading will get around that if you are claiming
>> >> > evolution as the means how we got there.
>> >> >
>> >> > Evolution means all of where we are now, including language,
>> >> > comes from a survival of the fittest algorithm.
>> >>
>> >> Powered by genetics and imperfect biological reproductions?
>> >
>> > Certainly.
>>
>> IOW, you've got your own 'special' ideas.
>>
>> Wondeful. Now, can they stand up to scrutiny?
>>
>> > Lithping Tims don't get laid.
>>
>> And I've noted that the *capacity* for speech is indeed a realm ToE
>> might explore.
>>
>> But none of that happens to have anything to do why and how languages
>> change over time, now, does it?
>
> Of course it does.
Indeed?
How, exactly?
And why does it take so many messages to get to the substance of your
alleged argument?
> Haven't you ever wondered why there is hardly a language that has in
> common use both sounds like the 'th' of 'these' and 'things' on the
> one hand and the 'zh' of 'pleasure', 'sh' of 'shut', and 'dge' of
> 'bridge' on the other. Usually (except for welsh and English)
> languages have either one of these groups or the other. Have you
> thought about why that is?
It's your story, Davey - why don't you elaborate?
>> You're spinning around in circles, "Davey."
>
> You're right, except that in that sentence 'spinning' has a transitive
> meaning rather than the intransitive one you probably intended, with
> "us" as the unspoken direct object.
Odd - and here I thought I meant you simply keep making the same
assertions again and again without supporting them.
Oh, yes - I did.
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> > and you are totally at a loss to do so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I'm not at a total loss to explain your fantasies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're still in desperate need of that attack of honesty and
>> >> >> straightforwardness. You can start by admitting you cannot show
>> >> >> that biological evolution should explain the evolution of
>> >> >> languages and that science never claimed it should.
>> >> >
>> >> > This pathetic ad hominem outburst is no excuse to avoid dealing
>> >> > with the issues.
>> >>
>> >> No, no, no. Honesty does not include pretending your problems
>> >> don't exist, nor does it include attempting to project them on
>> >> others.
>> >>
>> >> Davey, Davey. What are we to do with you?
>> >
>> > Honesty means not taking imperfections you happen to know in your
>> > opponent more than he happens to know about you, and using them as
>> > a reason not to confront the argument.
>> >
>> > I already said why biological evolution should explain, as language
>> > is an integral part of human biology.
>>
>> Can you detail the part of the genome that codes for "English,"
>> bubba?
>>
>> No?
>
> I have as much genome proof for my theory as Darwin had for his.
Were it the 1850's, I wouldn't have asked the question.
But it's not, now, is it?
Are you ever going to answer the question?
>> > Unfortunately I wrote that mail on the plane, and I'm not sure it
>> > got sent properly. While I'm in Russia I can only use this account.
>>
>> Doesn't look like it. Can you remember whatever it was well enough to
>> give some kind of outline?
>>
>> >> > Science would claim that the theory of evolution jolly well
>> >> > should apply to languages if only they could provide some body
>> >> > of common ancestry.
>> >>
>> >> So, indeed, you now admit that science makes no such claim.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Only because it's not in its interests to do so.
>>
>> Yes - lying is seldom in the best interests of anything that has a
>> mechanism to detect and weed such out.
>>
>> >> Well, that would be an unusually honest sentence for you were you
>> >> not trying to spin it into something else...and the fact that you
>> >> claim just the opposite a few lines down.
>> >>
>> >> Tsk. What is it about religious fanatacism that encourages such
>> >> amoral, incoherent behavior, "Davey?"
>> >
>> > Ad hominem doo dooh.
>>
>> You mean "merely descriptive of the actions of yourself and many
>> fellow co-fanatics I've observed.".
>
> No, I mean "ad hominem doo dooh".
Davey, Davey - I didn't need more evidence to support my observation. I
was asking *why*.
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> > That's why so many scientists have been trying to do exactly
>> >> > that, with their nostratic, and all that baloney.
>> >>
>> >> Funny - I cannot seem to find anything linking Nostratic with
>> >> hertiable genetic changes in populations.
>> >>
>> >> Have you, or is this just another little story you've made up?
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >
>> > They've been trying to posit a common ancestor between PIE and
>> > other families.
>>
>> Genetic ones?
>>
>> <snip irrelevancies>
>>
>> >> >> Then you can admit that making up stories is not an honest
>> >> >> alternative to simply admitting we don't know and continuing to
>> >> >> pursue the evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So you say languages did not evolve,
>> >>
>> >> Of course I'm not.
>> >>
>> >> But clothes fashions have evolved as well, and that too has
>> >> nothing to do with genetic changes, either.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Clothes are man made, but only artificial languages like Esperanto,
>> > Volapuek, Lojban and Ebubo are man made.
>>
>> Right. You claim all the rest were magic'd into existance.
>
> Not at all, they were given by God at Babel.
Forced, not given, as I recall the story.
> I don't call that magic.
Of course you wouldn't - Special Pleading is stock in trade for the
Apologist.
But why should someone not already convinced of your religion agree?
>> Which is irrelevant to the changes in languages over time not being
>> genetic, now, isn't it?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> No one is going to let you get away with conflating two very
>> >> different concepts simply because one of the short terms for
>> >> describing them is the same.
>> >>
>> >> <snip more arranty stupidity.>
>> >>
>> >> BTW - you owe me ten million American dollars.
>> >>
>> >> Disprove it.
>> >
>> > I'm not disproving it, I'm just setting it off against the twenty
>> > million you owe me.
>> >
>> > Seriously though, in that case, we accountants would look at the
>> > event that gave rise to the putative debt and see where the
>> > transfer of value was.
>>
>> IOW, you'd look at the evidence instead of making up just-so stories,
>> like languages appearing by magic.
>>
>> You've got a serious problem applying logical methodology evenly,
>> Davey
>>
>> However, the next time you feel inclined to demand someone prove a
>> negative, don't.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> Prove why I shouldn't!
>
> Uncle Davey, sorry, was that predictable?
Most of the message was.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 |
|