You have to speak so that people know what you're talking about.
:think:
Unless you're trying to be subversive.
The claim was made. The claim was falsified. Now you're making a new claim. You're a bit late and all ad-hoq.
Real Science Friday: Language!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
You have to speak so that people know what you're talking about.
:think:
Unless you're trying to be subversive.
The claim was made. The claim was falsified. Now you're making a new claim. You're a bit late and all ad-hoq.
What are you talking about?
Darwin asserted that tribal languages were proof that language evolved. He was shown wrong. That was the point in the show.
Stripe, this is why it's so difficult talking to you. You are either completely dishonest, or you are extremely thick.
You haven't shown anything, except that there is no evidence. And this lack of evidence is not justification for claiming the opposite (that languages didn't evolve).
Darwin claimed that there was an evolution in language because he was being consistent with his reasoning. Of course, this in particular remains a hypothesis because it cannot be demonstrated true due to the fact that, and I will say it again, written language is tandem to complex "modern" spoken language. Or to put it more simply, more complex "modern" language came first, and then the advent of writing. So where and how would there be evidence for ancient simple languages, other than Darwins observations of sounds (grunts, barks, squeals etc...) that animals make (and communicate with)?
The fact that Enyart has the audacity to mention Chomsky just shows how ill-advised this show really was.
Miss the point much?
Ah, but first he magically poofed the chemical elements, right?
And why is it that fundy creationists take Darwin as gospel on almost every issue despite the fact that he wrote Origin 150 years ago. Nothing has happened since then to expand/clarify/explain? Guess when you are willing to take as truth a cobbled together book of 2000+ years then 150 years is not a big deal.
Fundies fall into a real peculiar catch-22: they treat evolutionary theory with contempt because as a good theory it changes--and fundamentalists aren't exactly big on anything that changes with time, especially the printed word--yet they seem to assume that because Darwin wrote a book, it's taken as inerrant by those who support evolutionary theory.
Stratnerd
New member
There are some ideas that Darwin put out there that haven't been rigorously looked at and it is interesting stuff. Is it groundbreaking if the results were shown to be false? Depends on the idea. His ideas behind inheritance have been shown to be wrong and that has actually worked in his favor in other areas. The branching pattern of evolution has shown to work and so has natural selection.
But anyway, my biggest beef with the study (not having read it) is that it is strange to talk about the origin of something without proper sampling of the organisms involved and the brushing aside of primate vocalizations.
Or maybe my biggest beef is the disconnect between the hypothesis and the predictions such.
Or maybe my biggest problem is the use of negative evidence...
Question is, why didn't the reviewers reject the paper?????
But anyway, my biggest beef with the study (not having read it) is that it is strange to talk about the origin of something without proper sampling of the organisms involved and the brushing aside of primate vocalizations.
Or maybe my biggest beef is the disconnect between the hypothesis and the predictions such.
Or maybe my biggest problem is the use of negative evidence...
Question is, why didn't the reviewers reject the paper?????
The thing that the fundies fail to understand is that Darwin is not our Jesus.
We rely on Darwin for our science as much as we rely on Lewis and Clark for our maps of the west.
Darwin wasen't a linguest or an anthropologist of any great import as far as I know, the "evilutionists" don't care what Darwin thought about language and don't care even more what Bob and his friend think about what Darwin thought.
We rely on Darwin for our science as much as we rely on Lewis and Clark for our maps of the west.
Darwin wasen't a linguest or an anthropologist of any great import as far as I know, the "evilutionists" don't care what Darwin thought about language and don't care even more what Bob and his friend think about what Darwin thought.
Let's.
How did they study "the earliest languages" did the hold a pottery shard up to thier ear and listen really hard?
Well it's not surprising considering he does name this segment of the show "Real Science Friday", as though it's only really science if it agrees with Bob's presuppositions.
It's really just a hint that Bob's never actually had any actual science training, he just likes to play dress up scientist now and again with his little radio friends. Fantasy land is lots of fun. At least I thought so when I was 6.
No. Darwin visited isolated tribes and listened to them speak. He drew wrong conclusions.
I thought we'd been through this...?
:bang:
Shut your mouth, read the Bible, then you can come in here and talk about what's in there. Because you clearly don't know.
- Status