"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.
No. Everyone I've read in this thread, but yourself, has recognized
that you are concatenating two or more processes describable in part
by the word "evolution." You then treat all as if they were largely
biological and genetically inherited, and hence subject to the
processes of biological evolution. This is an obvious point, and I
think you understand it, as evidenced by the fact that you never
answer the point directly, and keep responding as if it had never been
made.
> > > > 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.
Note: I'm not the one who wrote, above, that you are dishonest. I
think you're joking.
That said, you should deal with the issue.
> That's what you would do, if you were so honest yourself.
He has; you haven't.
> > 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.
I stand corrected.
> The reason is that languages are part of the human biology.
>
> Just say, just say that isn't true.
Just say, just say what you mean by "part of the human biology." Do
you mean, do you mean they are genetically inherited?
Just say, just say you don't understand that "evolution of the
capacity for language" is not the same thing as "evolution of
languages (e.g., Latin to French)." Just say, just say you believe
that the languages one speaks are genetically inherited, and the
change of Latin into French involved change in the genetic makeup of a
population over time. Because that is exactly, that is exactly what
you're saying.
> > 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.
That is obviously not what I wrote. Only someone with poor English
reading skills, or a decerebriate, would fail to understand my point,
which was that decerebriates often claim that theories of biological
evolution must account for every process with a name with the word
"evolution" in it.
You must learn to reconcile yourself to neologism. It is one of the
factors in the evolution of language. What you are claiming in this
thread is that, if "decerebriate" someday becomes a common word in
English vocabulary, it would require heritable genetic changes in the
population of English speakers.
> I'll remember that as the reason people think we can get from kind to kind
> by evolution.
What do you think "kind" means, in context?
Mitchell Coffey
|
| 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 |
|