On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:12:30 +0000 (UTC),
Harry Redenberg <will_post_with_this@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "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.
>>
>> > >
>> > > > 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.
>>
>> The reason is that languages are part of the human biology.
>>
>> Just say, just say that isn't true.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Uncle Davey
>
> I'm coming in late on this one, and I don't have your fancy book
> learnings you all do, but it seems to me, as a regular average joe on
> the street, that biology would have little to do with language
> evolution as human being have been biologically the same for as long
> as we have been humans.
Uncle Davey thinks he has this killer argument against evolution. In
addition he does know a little about linguistics, so, as I said, he has
seamlessly melded his favorite mythology with some aspects of linguistics.
On top of that, he is conflating linguistic evolution with biological
evolution. Of course, both his bits of make-believe are just that, but
he'll write long paragraphs, and when people question him, he will assert
that he is some sort of expert and ask questions like "just how many
languages do you speak?"
What Uncle Davey hasn't done is actually show why we even need to know the
common root of any group or the whole array of language groups. He
continues to conflate, but when you strip away the long posts, there is in
fact nothing other than "evolution cannot account for why we don't find a
common ancestor for Finno-Ugric and Indo-European, so evolution is wrong".
Beyond that, Uncle Davey actually hasn't explained why he seems to believe
every member of H. sapiens outside of Mesopotomia was apparently incapable
of language. But most importantly, he has not provided any evidence that
the Babel story is even true.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
|
| 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 |
|