"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message news:<bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl>...
> news:a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com...
> > AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc1843b.1j0.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
> > > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:51:56 +0000 (UTC),
> > > Piorokrat <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > news:slrnc167m3.bc.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
> > > >> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > > >
> > > > Would the crown fall from your head if you actually allowed my group
> to stay
> > > > in the discussion, without making me write it back in every time?
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:58:31 +0000 (UTC),
> > > >> Bennett Standeven <berry@pop.networkusa.net> wrote:
> > > >> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<buttes$csv$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > >> >> "Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >> >> news:butqab$a2v$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> > > >> >> > news:butoq1$4hq$0@pita.alt.net...
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > "Cheezits" <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> >> > > news:Xns947A4B5CBF133cheezitsnetzeronet@129.250.170.83...
> > > >> >> > > > laurieappieton@aol.com (LaurieAppIeton) won't even try to
> defend
> this
> > > >> >> > > > nonsense, but let's have some fun with it anyway:
> > > >> >> > > > > 1) no natural process which resulted in information
> forming
> > > >> >> > > > > automatically in matter, has ever been observed;
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > No act of divine creation has ever been observed.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Oh yes it has, Sue. When God confounded the languages at
> Babel,
> > > humanity
> > > was
> > > >> >> > > able to observe it. That's why we were scattered all over the
> > > earth, and
> > > we
> > > >> >> > > speak languages whose families cannot possibly have a common
> ancestor.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Any evidence of that outside the Bible, shmuck?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Ed
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Sure.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> All the evidence of a lack of common ancestor between the various
> language
> > > >> >> families lies in the fact that in the nearly two hundred years of
> sensible
> > > >> >> study of philology that we have had, no-one has been able to posit
> one.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Or even give a reasonable envisaging of one.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So, if you would like to say that it's wrong, then kindly show me
> what
> the
> > > >> >> common ancestor language could have looked like between, say,
> Finno-Ugric
> > > >> >> and Indo-European, and kindly leave my genitalia out of this
> discussion
> if
> > > >> >> you want to continue to be treated with respect. There are many
> more
> > > >> >> elevated uses of Yiddish phraseology.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Look up Nostratic; it is a putative common ancestor of Finno-Ugric
> and
> > > >> > Indo-European. Of course, the "fossil record" for languages only
> goes
> > > >> > back 6000 years, so anything prior to that is guesswork.
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I know, this is hardly accepted by most linguists, and
> really
> the
> > > >> whole thing is besides the point. Uncle Davey seems to have created
> this
> > > >> odd bit of illogic where we need to find a common ancestor between
> all
> > > >> languages, otherwise the theory of biological evolution is not true.
> First
> > > >> of all, linguistics does not require that we actually be able to tie
> any
> of
> > > >> the major language groups together with common ancestors (though that
> would
> > > >> be cool), and language evolution shows some similarity to biological
> > > >> evolution, is a seperate process relying upon different mechanisms.
> > > >>
> > > >> IN other words, Uncle Davey is just spouting nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense, you say, but my question has got all your side coming back
> with
> > > > contradictory arguments.
> > >
> > > And what are those contradictory arguments. Spell them out.
>
> Some of you are saying languages don't subject to the laws of evolution, and
> some of you are saying they do.
>
the rules that govern how languages change are not the same rules that
govern the physical ability to understand and use language.they might
intermesh in some ways, but they should in be seperable. For example,
there are rules governing how a partiuclar language will
systematically vary right? like one sound allways(almost allways)
gets replaced by another sound right? this requires biology becuase
the body is required to form the sounds, and the strucures of the
brain are where all the mental processes are occuring. but that does
not mean to say that this systematic replacement is because of an
equally systematic change in the vocalizing structures of the throats,
palate or tounge. on the other hand, there are conveivable instances
where this might hold true, as in, a population of people with cleft
palate might be expected to speak differently than non-cleft palate
populations, and that that difference would be primarily due to having
a cleft palate (or at least a repaired cleft palate). For a
(relatively shakey) example of the first instance, my name is spelled
s.c.h.e.n.c.k. its german/dutch. its probably derived from the
german/dutch verb schencken (i know i am spelling it wrong). in the
netherlands that s.ch portion is pronounced like shhh (as in 'be
quiet'). Englanders use a similar pronunciation of the word
shhhhedule. here in america however, we say skedule. Now here is
where the systematic variation comes in. Like i said netherlanders use
the shh pronounciation, but netherlanders who became colonists use the
sk pronounciation, so in the netherlands my name is shhhenk or
shhhank, but in america, south africa, and other dutch colonies, my
name is skank. its not that anyone thinks that dutch colonialists
have some sort of mutation that makes them do this (Draaaka aside),
its just that the language obeys its own linguistic laws, which are
seperate.
> > >
> > > > Nonsense shouldn't have that effect, now, should it?
> > >
> > > The only nonsense around here is that you take two processes which are
> > > described by the word evolution and hung one on the other. At best,
> that is
> > > the sign of a dishonest individual trying to score a weak rhetorical
> point.
> > >
> > > And we know that you are a dishonest person.
>
> Just deal with the issues, not my imperfections, perfectionboy.
>
> That's what you would do, if you were so honest yourself.
>
> >
> > At times he seems to be conflating at least three processes. There is
> > biological evolution itself, then there are two senses of the term
> > "linguistic evolution": the evolution of languages (e.g., Latin to
> > French), and the evolution of the capacity for language. As you know,
> > the latter is presumably a subset of biological evolution, and
> > scientists have attempted to account for it as such. The former
> > could, I suppose, be a subset of biological evolution, but Sockdaddy
> > needs to explain why.
>
> That's Sockuncle, to you.
>
shouldn't it be socky? or Davey Sockey Combs? notorious s.o.c.k.s
> The reason is that languages are part of the human biology.
>
not they're not.
> Just say, just say that isn't true.
>
it isn't true. they require biology to exist sure, but they are no
more a part of biology than any other aspect of culture. did the
romans wipe their butts with a sponge ona stick because of biology?
did the american natives fail to enter the bronze age because of
biology? did the iranians destroy the cities f harrapan because of
biology? is confucianism inheritable? did siddhatra have a mutation
that made him think like a buddhist rather than a hinud?
> > Most of all, he needs to identify which process
> > he's referring to, else he's just another decerebriate claiming that
> > theories of biological evolution must account for every process with a
> > name with the word "evolution" in it.
> >
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> So you're calling people who believe that biological evolution accounts for
> more than it really does 'decerebriate' (sic) are you?
>
> That's a good one.
>
> I'll remember that as the reason people think we can get from kind to kind
> by evolution.
>
and why can't it do that again?
> Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|