How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Its not like I cannot define the dif between a pink and black cadilac - is it? The reason language is indefinable applies to its biological mechanism [according to sciences], and its origins. Why not accept the quotes provided - if they cannot convince, who can!

Wha...?I don't understand what you're getting at.

When you mentioned your mobile comes from finland, Taiwan and America, I assumed you referred to which country introduced its software - not the hardware metal or color of the outer casket. Back to biology.11 [As] the partridge that has gathered together what it has not laid is the one making riches, but not with justice. At the half of his days he will leave them, and in his finale he will prove to be senseless.”” (JEREMIAH 17:9-11The OT is astounding in its inherent knowledge of animals: I only saw that example with patridges in a wild life doc, not realising it was documented in the OT 1000s of years ago. The same is done in a host of other instances, with majestic expressionisms like 'AS AN EAGLE SHIELDS HER YOUNG UNDER HER WINGS' - eat your heart out, Shakespear.The knowledge is widespread and covers all life forms, including virus and bacteria, fishes, birds [w and w/o wings], mammals, beasts, creapy crawlys and the minutae differences in them. The pig is singled out with a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form, while 3 other animals are declared as exhibiting the reverse of the pig; fish are differentiated by scales and fins; shell fish by their scavenging [cleansing the oceans] but potentially harmful for consumption.Most astounding is the differentiating of a speech endowed life form, categorising them as a unique 'kind' - in the OT's first recordings of life form emergence chronologies [eat your heart out, darwin], and the designation of humans as a separate group - a direct challenge to ToE's speciations blunder which never factored speech in its equation: today, this is acknowledged by the world's greatest scientists, even that speech was not an extension of communications seen in all life forms.It is correct and credible all animal rights laws come from this source - exclusively and before the term 'biology' was coined. It becomes more amazing that those laws are reflected in animal rights activists displaying their intense compulsions in its pursuit. Their compulsions would come from 'forces' embedded in nature, designating what we call nature to the declarations in the OT statutes and laws - the 'Butterfly Effect? If it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck...

I fail to see what human speech has to do with evolution other than that humans some how mastered the ability to turn grunts & squacks into words. I feel that the origins of speech were originally onomatapoeic.
(mimics of natural sounds). If by speech is meant language, then it has nothing at all to do with ToE since languages evolved after Homo sapiens
had migrated to nearly all the planet.

This isn't the speech thread. You haven't defined it yet. You are not allowed to mention bugableblab until you have defined it in the appropriate thread.I'm giving you 24 hours to think about it.

But what was quoted was not what you said was quoted. It doesn't matter what name you put on it if you are making up stuff that is not in the quote. It's called a falsehood.Not one of them said speech was undefinable as you (falsely) claimed. Again you are quoting from an article that (claims to) quote from these people instead of from the original sources. You don't know if the article is misrepresenting them because you are too intellectually lazy to look into the original materials.This is sloppy at best and repeating false witness at worse. And it still does not make your point: not one of them said speech was undefinable as you (falsely) claimed.Further discussion should be directed to the Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind in general and Message 216 in particular rather than tying up another thread with your false and self deluded claims.This has nothing to do with this topic -- although it speaks volumes about (1) your inability to deal with topics and (2) make a rational argument, because yours is based on falsehood and self delusion. It will remain such until you go to the speech thread and define speech in a rational and useful manner.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : -

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray, bluescat48 See Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind for some inclination of the bizarre world of IamJoseph.Enjoy.ps -- as you are new:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

*undefinable* is a definition, analogous and synonimic to terms such as:'notoriously difficult to define’:

quote:

---

In fact, the origin of speech and language (along with the development of sex and reproduction) remains one of the most significant hurdles in evolutionary theory, even in the twenty-first century. In an effort “make the problem go away,” some evolutionists have chosen not to even address the problem. Jean Aitchison noted

---

quote:

---

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ”there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ”language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added].[3] In his book, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, Terrance Deacon noted:

​

”In this context, then, consider the case of human language. It is one of the most distinctive behavioral adaptations on the planet. Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense. And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast.’[4]

---

'A ”puzzle’ indeed!':

quote:

---

Evolutionist Carl Zimmer summed it up well when he wrote:

​

”No one knows the exact chronology of this evolution, because language leaves precious few traces on the human skeleton. The voice box is a flimsy piece of cartilage that rots away. It is suspended from a slender C-shaped bone called a hyoid, but the ravages of time usually destroy the hyoid too.’[11]
Thus, theories are plentiful”while the evidence to support those theories remains mysteriously unavailable. Add to this the fact that humans acquire the ability to communicate (and even learn some of the basic rules of syntax) by the age of two, and you begin to see why Aitchison admitted:

​

”Of course, holes still remain in our knowledge: in particular, at what stage did language leap from being something new which humans discovered to being something which every newborn human is scheduled to acquire? This is still a puzzle.’[12]
A ”puzzle’ indeed!

---

'No analogue for speech':

quote:

---

Chomsky summed it up well when he stated:

​

”Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ”gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’[46]

---

The links to these are included in previous posts. I'm not lazy nor my quotes false or quoted falsely. I don't need to track a famed scietist's quotes down to the BB for you. Your in denial - same as those religious fanatics.

Not the same. Not the right thread.Your point is refuted by the fact there are definitions (if there are definitions it cannot be undefinable).None of your quotes say speech is undefinable. You have posted these quotes before and I pointed out that they do not say that speech is undefinable. Saying they make your argument is a falsehood.What you hope to accomplish on this thread by continuing to be off-topic and to repeat refuted arguments from other threads I can't tell, but I am not deluded by your continued avoidance of the issue and refusal to define speech into thinking there is something mystical about speech.I suggest that one of the reasons you can't deal with the truth of biology is your evident failure to deal with reality.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

I suggest that one of the reasons you can't deal with the truth of biology is your evident failure to deal with reality.

​

Enjoy.

---

... namely the reality that speech is an exclusive human attribute with no precedent or parallel: declared over 3000 years ago and fully vindicated today [notwithstanding contrived semantics of the deniers]. I'm not in bad company with science or scientists in those quotes, who agree if the basis of speech is not understood, it makes definition a moot point. Notwithstanding, all factors remain in tact: no one can prove speech existed before 6000 [Genesis wins - and excuses are many], and no one can prove it did not emerge suddenly and in advanced mode [Genesis wins]; while grunts have been around all spacetimes [atheists lose]. The defectors cannot feel pride. Genesis wins - again. Shout MYTH - if you can define it!QED.

You were warned in Message 236 and Message 245: yet you continue. Please follow moderator requests in the future, thank you. To allow you time to think on this further, take 48 hours off.

---

You would be in adequate company if that is what they said. Your continued misunderstanding does not advance your argument on speech nor any argument you may be making to this topic about the truth of biology and the people that study it. If you are claiming that scientiest misrepresent reality and then all you do is misrepresent their arguments then it clearly shows that the perception of falsehood and the falsehoods claimed are entirely of your own creation.To make a point you actually need someone to say what you claim they say. Not one of your quotes does that -- regardless of the topic you are babbling on.Misrepresenting what people say is not substantiation of any argument. Repeating unsubstantiated assertions does not make them any more valid than they were the first time, rather they lose validity due to the lack of requested substantiation that is still missing. It is dishonest.Perhaps biologists believe in the Theory of Evolution because they can't believe the dishonesty of creationists, dishonesty which IS documented and substantiated.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : msg#

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What evidence? Are you saying that there is evidence to support that roughly 3000 years ago every human on the planet tried to get together and build a skyscraper and God got pissed off because they were getting too close to his crib so he rewrote the languages in their heads and teleported them to random locations all over the globe? As a former linguistics student, I'm particularly interested in what evidence you have to share for this.Edited by bernerbits, : hmmmmmm

bernerbits, the topic here is NOT human speech. Please avoid encouraging topic diversions. Thanks.I know you are new here. It is very hard not to chase the red herrings all over the place. We all get trapped by that.It is possible to earn short suspensions if you do so.

Sorry. The OP's subject matter was jarring and the response was kind of knee-jerk. I have created a topic proposal for language and will refrain from further discussion in this forum or will take gentle advice as to where to go to discuss matters of human speech and language.