On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:25:53 +0000 (UTC), "Piorokrat"
<piorokrat@autograf.pl> 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.
>>
>
>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.
>
do you really think that this undermines biology and evolutionary
theory? no, i mean, really, do you actually think that this somehow
presents a problem for evolution? if people matted by a throw of
the dice then that would undermine biology too wouldn't it?
>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 |
|