Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:25:53 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Tadex Niejadex
Lines: 204
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl>
References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com> <Xns947A4B5CBF133cheezitsnetzeronet@129.250.170.83> <butoq1$4hq$0@pita.alt.net> <butqab$a2v$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <buttes$csv$0@pita.alt.net> <24c3076b.0401241357.146a7039@posting.google.com> <slrnc167m3.bc.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem> <bv0l4d$bqp$2@news.onet.pl> <slrnc1843b.1j0.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem> <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com> <bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401300712.35109640@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075566353 16220 128.100.83.246 (31 Jan 2004 16:25:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:25:53 +0000 (UTC)
Fake-Sender: piorokrat@autograf.pl@pa252.warszawa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pa252.warszawa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spamscanner: mailbox3.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Dec 3 2003 15:07:19, 1.2/5.0 2.60)
X-Spam-Level: Level *
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 86279 i0VGQ2wF099378 mailbox3.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2006
> "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
news:<bvd11c$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.
>
Well, if you say that, you say that behaviour is not part of biology.
And since behaviour determines who breeds with whom, what you say undermines
evolutionary theory.
Best,
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 |
|