Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 207
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <a766a589.0401312346.4ec5e67f@posting.google.com>
References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com> <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$2@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401300712.35109640@posting.google.com> <bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075621590 33075 128.100.83.246 (1 Feb 2004 07:46:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.59.168.242
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-Spamscanner: mailbox2.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Dec 3 2003 15:07:19, 0.5/5.0 2.60)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 55093 i117khde071735 mailbox2.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2065
"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message news:<bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl>...
> > "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
> news:<bvd11c$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.
Certain behaviours have heritable genetic components; others don't.
Those behaviours with heritable genetic components may be acted upon
by natural selections. The other cannot be (directly, at least).
Do you believe that the languages one speaks are genetically
determined?
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 |
|