Beautiful cop-out.:thumb:
Real Science Friday: Language!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
You really need me to explain how that's a cop-out?
The point was that the oldest languages we can look at are just as complex as modern ones. Thus there is no evidence for languages evolving.
It's not redundant to point out that languages have not evolved in a discussion about the evolution of language.
At least you admit you aren't smart.
Telling us that if it happened we wouldn't even expect to see evidence for it is nothing more than copping out on proving a theory. If there is no evidence for it should just be dropped.
Whoever said we were magically poofed?
Squishes
New member
The reason we will probably not understand the development of language for a long time is because of our sophomoric understanding of the human brain. There is so much we are still figuring out that is foundational for linguistics, it's no wonder we are unable to pinpoint the specifics of our development.
As someone who works in Cog Sci, I can say that the new area of embodied cognition (also known as the extended mind theory) is extremely exciting. See here, here and here.
As someone who works in Cog Sci, I can say that the new area of embodied cognition (also known as the extended mind theory) is extremely exciting. See here, here and here.
Maybe you should try reading the Bible. It wasn't done in an instant. And our bodies are made up of the same chemicals as the Earth, from which the Bible reads that God created Adam.
The root of the matter is that Darwin stated that "primitive" languages would still exist, and they didn't. Where's the flaw?
Stratnerd
New member
That's the test? To see the origin of language or to see if Darwin was right?
Having gone back and read the opening post it is a test of Darwin's theory. But that's really strange to me. Why not test the idea the brain cool's the body (Aristotle) or the body head is produced by the blood's friction with blood vessels?
Good gravy man don't they have something better to do?
Last edited:
Haven't you heard, Lighthouse? People are only allowed to reject Darwin in a Stratnerd ApprovedTM manner. :chuckle:
Dude, if you leave it alone it will leave you alone .. :chuckle:
Languages are evolving. Haven't you ever seen or discussed the original Beowulf in high school? That was what used to be "English".
Well that was not why I said his comments are redundant. He (Bob) is asking for the production of evidence that doesn't exist (and logically so. Written language is tandem to complex modern spoken language.). Then, in light of the non-existence of evidence, he declares victory with his premise that this disproves evolution.
I guess you have to be really easily impressed to listen to Bob's shows.
:doh: The words change. The complexity doesn't change like you would expect if languages evolved from "grunts".
The production of evidence? The claim was made that languages evolve from less complex forms into more complex forms. That claim has been shown false by a better understanding.
Or another word for "change" is....evolve? :dunce:
No it hasn't been shown false. Bob speculates that it is false only because there is no conclusive evidence to prove it true. His reasoning is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance". You might want to look that one up.
- Status