Why did he think they were primitive?
Real Science Friday: Language!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Why did he think they were primitive?
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.
Absolutely. To cherrypick Chomsky is intellectually dishonest, at best. Using an evolutionist in an attempt to disprove evolution strikes me as completely absurd, and using Chomsky in particular to make a point about Darwin is just ludicrous.
Stratnerd
New member
Possible predictions:
I. Cultural evolution mimics biological evolution and
A. language evolved in modern humans and therefore ancestral elements are still present in modern humans
B. language evolved before modern humans and ancestral elements are "extinct"
II. Languages evolve independently of biological evolution
A. languages evolved in modern humans yet ancestral elements persist
B. languages evolved in modern humans but the cultural evolution proceeded faster and the ancestral elements went extinct.
C. languages evolved before humans and only modern elements are present in modern humans
D. languages evolved before humans and ancestral elements are present in modern humans
I count six different predictions Stripe.
Why did they use negative evidence to support their study?
Why do they discount vocal elements in other primates?
Why do they discounts the mental apparatus of language in other primates?
Shut up! Shut up! Mom never told me to shut up! 10 points if you can name that movie.
But Lighty, I have read the Bible, especially Genesis and especially the New Testament. I have also read a fair amount of the history of how it was put together.
You aren't suggesting that it was not put together from various sources written at different times, in different locations, by different authors (well, scribes to you), are you? Cause if you are I would like to know where you get that information.
Oh, and can I tell others to "shut up" when they clearly have no clue about evolutionary theory yet talk about it? Or is that attitude reserved solely for the select few?
Thanks.
What are you talking about?
Stratnerd
New member
You don't understand how to make predictions from a hypothesis?
Stratnerd
New member
I'm showing all the possible models for languages to evolve. The authors of the article eliminated (using negative evidence) one of those and conclude there's no evidence for language evolution. They eliminated (not really) one model but there are many alternatives. They did not show a lack of evidence for evolution but just eliminated one model - and they did it poorly.
:chuckle: They spoke for about half an hour and left evolutionists to eliminate Darwin's model. They then presented their own model. Methinks you're making far too much out of it.
Sleepless in Seattle. Pay up.
Good work, you win. The check is in the mail.
Reading and comprehending are certainly two different things, then, aren't they?
Yes, as perhaps are reading and believing.
:squint:
I don't get why Bob thinks the earth is only a few thousand years old.
- Status