Administrator2
New Member
HELEN
Radiochemist brought up the following on “Haldane’s Dilemma”, which I
would like to use to start a new thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The unusual success of the human species can be explained in
terms
of ancient mutations that led to speech and
the ability to transfer
knowledge between generations. Man is far more
successful at that
than other animals. Therefore it seems that
these ancient mutations
are turning out to be far more important than
any recent mutations
that may have produced physical problems. Our
well being is still
being influenced by these old beneficial
mutations and this effect
is likely to continue for several thousand
years into the future,
with effects that far outweigh the effects of
other mutations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps radiochemist knows something Norm Chomsky doesn’t? In his
Commencement Remarks to the graduating class at the University of
Connecticutt in May, 1999, Chomsky stated:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For the present, the study of language and other higher human
mental faculties is proceeding much as chemistry did, seeking to
"establish a rich body of doctrine," and sometimes succeeding, with an
eye to eventual unification, but without any clear idea of how this
might take place. Some of these bodies of doctrine are rather surprising
in their implications. Thus in the case of language, very recent work,
some of the most important of it conducted here, is providing
interesting grounds for taking seriously an idea that a few years ago
would have seemed outlandish: that the language organ of the brain
approaches a kind of optimal design, that it is in some interesting
sense an optimal solution to the minimum design specifications the
language organ must meet to be usable at all.
That is not what one expects to find in a highly complex biological
organ.
http://www.news.uconn.edu/chomspch.htm
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All known human languages, past and present, are complex, grammatical,
and involve abstract concepts. There is a vast gulf between animal
communication and human language. They are not even comparable.
Despite the fact that evolution is assumed, there is no method known by
which human language evolved. Every bit of data available indicates it
seems to have appeared full-blown.
(And when one listens to speaking today, there is a good argument that
it is going downhill, and perhaps rapidly!
)
Radiochemist brought up the following on “Haldane’s Dilemma”, which I
would like to use to start a new thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The unusual success of the human species can be explained in
terms
of ancient mutations that led to speech and
the ability to transfer
knowledge between generations. Man is far more
successful at that
than other animals. Therefore it seems that
these ancient mutations
are turning out to be far more important than
any recent mutations
that may have produced physical problems. Our
well being is still
being influenced by these old beneficial
mutations and this effect
is likely to continue for several thousand
years into the future,
with effects that far outweigh the effects of
other mutations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps radiochemist knows something Norm Chomsky doesn’t? In his
Commencement Remarks to the graduating class at the University of
Connecticutt in May, 1999, Chomsky stated:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For the present, the study of language and other higher human
mental faculties is proceeding much as chemistry did, seeking to
"establish a rich body of doctrine," and sometimes succeeding, with an
eye to eventual unification, but without any clear idea of how this
might take place. Some of these bodies of doctrine are rather surprising
in their implications. Thus in the case of language, very recent work,
some of the most important of it conducted here, is providing
interesting grounds for taking seriously an idea that a few years ago
would have seemed outlandish: that the language organ of the brain
approaches a kind of optimal design, that it is in some interesting
sense an optimal solution to the minimum design specifications the
language organ must meet to be usable at all.
That is not what one expects to find in a highly complex biological
organ.
http://www.news.uconn.edu/chomspch.htm
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All known human languages, past and present, are complex, grammatical,
and involve abstract concepts. There is a vast gulf between animal
communication and human language. They are not even comparable.
Despite the fact that evolution is assumed, there is no method known by
which human language evolved. Every bit of data available indicates it
seems to have appeared full-blown.
(And when one listens to speaking today, there is a good argument that
it is going downhill, and perhaps rapidly!