Real Science Radio: The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever Pt. 2

[gcthomas]

Yes... Evolutionists thought Neandertals were incapable of speech. They had no evidence of that but believed it because they thought Neandertals were a "dim witted" ape man. Its easy for you to find articles written by evolutionists, admitting their beliefs were wrong...Science has shown that the evolutionists were incorrect.
EXAMPLE: ...

You are quoting from a news article again, even though the source paper was referenced. Here is part of the intro of the actual paper:

In this paper we briefly review several recent lines of evidence concerning Neandertal language and speech capacity, aiming to dispel the idea—still held in some influential circles—that the Neandertals were an inarticulate not quite human species, arguing instead that they were probably not very different biologically or cognitively from us, and that their linguistic capacities were closely similar to our own1. We propose that essentially modern language is phylogenetically quite old, being already present in the common ancestor of these two lineages about half a million years ago (that is, five to ten times older than is often assumed).
(My emphasis)
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397/full​

So, not only did the paper only use the phrase 'inarticulate' instead of 'dimwitted' or 'incapable of speach', but they find that language is likely to be half a million years old.

Yet again you are undermined by your own links!

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

If you know of any scientist that claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, feel free to name them and provide links to where they claim this, otherwise your argument is dead on arrival.

^

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Your only recourse has been to quote inaccurate summaries of his conclusions from his scholarly competitors in popular news articles.

The tactic still hasn't changed. This reminds me of the old bit about doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Aren't you at least slightly curious as to why you seem to have no trouble finding news articles where someone claims that "those people over there believed that neanderthals didn't have speech" and yet you cannot find any scientist alive or dead who himself says this? Any curiosity there?

 

[6days]

You are quoting from a news article again, even though the source paper was referenced. Here is part of the intro of the actual paper:

In this paper we briefly review several recent lines of evidence concerning Neandertal language and speech capacity, aiming to dispel the idea—still held in some influential circles—that the Neandertals were an inarticulate not quite human species, arguing instead that they were probably not very different biologically or cognitively from us, and that their linguistic capacities were closely similar to our own1. We propose that essentially modern language is phylogenetically quite old, being already present in the common ancestor of these two lineages about half a million years ago (that is, five to ten times older than is often assumed).
(My emphasis)
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397/full​

So, not only did the paper only use the phrase 'inarticulate' instead of 'dimwitted' or 'incapable of speach', but they find that language is likely to be half a million years old.

Yet again you are undermined by your own links!

GC...Your quote says Neandertals were viewed as inarticulate
and not quite human. Science has dispelled that evolutionary belief.

And... Thanks for the additional link showing that evolutionary beliefs about Neandertals were wrong.

American Heritage Dictionary:
in·ar·tic·u·late
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
(ĭn'är-tĭk'yə-lĭt) pronunciation
adj.1. Uttered without the use of normal words or syllables; incomprehensible as speech or language: "a cry . . . that . . . sank down into an inarticulate whine" (Jack London).
2. Unable to speak; speechless: inarticulate with astonishment
.......................................

Roget's Thesaurus:
inarticulate

adjective
1.Lacking the power or faculty of speech: aphonic, dumb, mute, speechless, voiceless.


God created humans distinct from the animals....
Genesis1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I'm still no closer to knowing whether it was that you agree or disagree with the notion that you can just 'know' something without verification.





Again, I disagree, but I don't see what it matters anyway?




Well, for one the authors don't get to pick the reviewers, the publisher does, and the majority of the time the authors don't even know who the reviewers are, and sometimes in double-blind reviews the reviewers don't know the authors are either.








con·so·nant

adjective
3.
in agreement; agreeable; in accord; consistent (usually followed by to or with ): behavior consonant with his character.


Even if you didn't know that consonant could be used in this way, surely you could have determined from context my meaning. I think you were being dense.




Assuming the truth of a proposition is not equivalent to assessing how likely it is to be true. The authority that you are appealing to isn't God. What you're appealing to are things written about God, by other humans.




It certainly hasn't prevented you from thinking that Publishing scientists get to choose who reviews their work.




If that were the case then pastors, and not scientists, would be making the discoveries, curing diseases, and going to space.





You're begging the question.





With which parts?



If your proposition holds true, sure, but you cannot verify it and therefore we don't know if it holds true.




You're conflating ad hoc purpose with existential purpose.




As they should, but this does not mean that philosophy is now science.




It doesn't have to for them to remain unreasonable propositions.




They already do.

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/4/4/409.short

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love#Neurochemistry

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/3/2/173.short

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/58/2/281/





Such as?






And I have no problem distinguishing my sister from my cousin, and yet genetically they are more similar than dissimilar. Chimpanzees are 98.8% - 94% genetically similar to us. Remember you said Neanderthals were "more alike than not".



Fortunately it doesn't depend on your belief.



I fail to see how belief dictates reality.




I don't think Charles Darwin was optimistic that religious objections would acquiesce to his findings.



This is incorrect in more ways than I care to explain or you care to listen. How else do you think the Darwinian model of evolution underwent it's revision into the modern evolutionary synthesis?




From where I'm standing, it looks like the creationists lost the scientific argument roughly 150 years ago, and are still sore about it. Perhaps you'd be justified rejecting the theory of evolution in 1859, but certainly not in 2014. Not dissimilar to 1Mind1Spirit and his rejection of Heliocentrism, and for roughly the same reasons too.




I think it would be a great disservice to the children to handicap their science education because it contravenes certain customary beliefs of the public.





The disagreements are over the fundamentals of science, that are necessary for a scientifically literate public.



No, because it misleads the children by giving undue credence to objections which are necessarily rooted in religious dogmatism, and not in science. Theists and atheists alike accept the evidence for an old earth, the only refusal comes from those who insist on a particular hermeneutic of a particular faith text. We do not qualify our history books simply because there are some who deny the holocaust. Why then should we amend our science textbooks to appeal to those that deny the age of the earth?






Radioactive decay rates.

Would you be interested in continuing this discussion Lon?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The tactic still hasn't changed. This reminds me of the old bit about doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Aren't you at least slightly curious as to why you seem to have no trouble finding news articles where someone claims that "those people over there believed that neanderthals didn't have speech" and yet you cannot find any scientist alive or dead who himself says this? Any curiosity there?

?

 

[6days]

?

Why do you wish to be proven wrong over and over?? Your argument is dead.

For some reason you continue denying that evolutionists have been so wrong about Neandertals.

Even GC posted a link from a journal that discussed the false beliefs evolutionists have had. They admit that evolutionists once thought Neandertals were an inarticulate not quite human species. (See definitions I posted previous including things such as speechless. See other evolutionary interpretations I have already posted in this thread calling them subhuman brutes incapable of anything but the most primitive of grunts)


But science has brought the evolutionists much closer to the Biblical creation model. The article GC quoted says..."In this paper, we have tried to review the evidence supporting the claim that Neandertals, Denisovans and contemporary modern humans shared a similar capacity for modern language, speech and culture. Furthermore, we argued that regarding these lineages as different species is unhelpful


and..."Thus we attribute to Neandertals modern speech, double-articulation (separated phonology and lexicon), some systematic means of word combination (syntax), a correlated mapping to meaning, and usage principles (pragmatics)."


The evolutionary view that Neandertals were ape like humans was simply an illusion that some evolutionists loath to let go of, in spite of the science.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

For some reason you continue denying that evolutionists have been so wrong about Neandertals.

Even GC posted a link from a journal that discussed the false beliefs evolutionists have had. They admit that evolutionists once thought Neandertals were an inarticulate not quite human species. (See definitions I posted previous including things such as speechless.

6Days, you merely cherry-picked the definition you best thought supported your case, which is why you skipped the first definition, presented the second, and ignored the rest. Could the authors have been using the word in a differ sense than the definition you provided? His article went on to state:

"Several lines of evidence have been thought to suggest that Neandertals lacked language as we know it, using instead perhaps some form of protolanguage."

Clearly they are not suggesting Neanderthals incapable of speech, but rather capable of a primitive form of it.

See other evolutionary interpretations I have already posted in this thread calling them subhuman brutes incapable of anything but the most primitive of grunts)

And apparently you were unable to address my contention head-on.

If you know of any scientist that claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, feel free to name them and provide links to where they claim this, otherwise your argument is dead on arrival.

 

[gcthomas]

GC...Your quote says Neandertals were viewed as inarticulate
and not quite human. Science has dispelled that evolutionary belief.

And... Thanks for the additional link showing that evolutionary beliefs about Neandertals were wrong.

American Heritage Dictionary:
in·ar·tic·u·late
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
(ĭn'är-tĭk'yə-lĭt) pronunciation
adj.1. Uttered without the use of normal words or syllables; incomprehensible as speech or language: "a cry . . . that . . . sank down into an inarticulate whine" (Jack London).
2. Unable to speak; speechless: inarticulate with astonishment

3. Unable to speak with clarity or eloquence: an inarticulate debater.

Wow! you even selectively quote dictionaries! Why, 6days, did you leave off usage three from your dictionary quote, the one tat from the context is the one used in the paper?

And you wonder why we think you dishonest. Sheesh.

 

[gcthomas]

Why do you wish to be proven wrong over and over?? Your argument is dead.

For some reason you continue denying that evolutionists have been so wrong about Neandertals.

Even GC posted a link from a journal that discussed the false beliefs evolutionists have had. They admit that evolutionists once thought Neandertals were an inarticulate not quite human species. (See definitions I posted previous including things such as speechless. See other evolutionary interpretations I have already posted in this thread calling them subhuman brutes incapable of anything but the most primitive of grunts)


But science has brought the evolutionists much closer to the Biblical creation model. The article GC quoted says..."In this paper, we have tried to review the evidence supporting the claim that Neandertals, Denisovans and contemporary modern humans shared a similar capacity for modern language, speech and culture. Furthermore, we argued that regarding these lineages as different species is unhelpful


and..."Thus we attribute to Neandertals modern speech, double-articulation (separated phonology and lexicon), some systematic means of word combination (syntax), a correlated mapping to meaning, and usage principles (pragmatics)."


The evolutionary view that Neandertals were ape like humans was simply an illusion that some evolutionists loath to let go of, in spite of the science.

You 'accidentally' left off the second half of the conclusion you quoted. Here it is:

The antiquity of modern language and speech capacities, going back to at least the last common ancestor of Neandertals, Denisovans and modern humans some half a million years ago, raises new and interesting questions concerning the nature of the linguistic design space, the relationship between biological and cultural evolution, and the time frame for the emergence of modern human traits, and language in particular.

Does that look like the model you get from a naive reading of the bible?

 

[6days]

You 'accidentally' left off the second half of the conclusion you quoted. Here it is:

The antiquity of modern language and speech capacities, going back to at least the last common ancestor of Neandertals, Denisovans and modern humans some half a million years ago, raises new and interesting questions concerning the nature of the linguistic design space, the relationship between biological and cultural evolution, and the time frame for the emergence of modern human traits, and language in particular.

Does that look like the model you get from a naive reading of the bible?

Another example of evolutionists having to change their story... it changes nothing. Neandertals were intelligent and as capable of speech as we are...contrary to what evolutionists once thought.

 

[6days]

3. Unable to speak with clarity or eloquence: an inarticulate debater.

Wow! you even selectively quote dictionaries! Why, 6days, did you leave off usage three from your dictionary quote, the one tat from the context is the one used in the paper?

And you wonder why we think you dishonest. Sheesh.

Sheesh is correct...You are tilting at windmills selecting the 3rd definition to fit your belief system.
Definitions 1 and 2 better fit what the article is saying... Evolutionists thought Neandertals were not quite human. As PhysOrg said... Evolutionists thought Neandertals couldn't do more than grunt.

Evolutionists were wrong. Most have admitted they were wrong. You aren't there yet

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

If you know of any scientist that claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, feel free to name them and provide links to where they claim this, otherwise your argument is dead on arrival.

^ x2

 

[6days]

^ x2

X2...
Yes... Evolutionists thought Neandertals were incapable of speech. They had no evidence of that but believed it because they thought Neandertals were a "dim witted" ape man. Its easy for you to find articles written by evolutionists, admitting their beliefs were wrong...Science has shown that the evolutionists were incorrect.
EXAMPLE: "The Neanderthals have fascinated both the academic world and the general public ever since their discovery almost 200 years ago. Initially thought to be subhuman brutes incapable of anything but the most primitive of grunts.....
....Recently, due to new palaeoanthropological and archaeological discoveries and the reassessment of older data, but especially to the availability of ancient DNA, we have started to realise that their fate was much more intertwined with ours and that, far from being slow brutes, their cognitive capacities and culture were comparable to ours."
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-neander...rn-humans.html

In recent news (April 30) researchers now are saying what Biblical creationists have been saying all along. They quite likely were as intelligent as we are....."The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there," said Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History. "What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-neandertal-inferiority-early-modern-humans.html#jCp

 

[gcthomas]

Linking to an article by a magazine writer isn't the same as linking to a science paper written by a scientist.

You said it is easy to find scientists who said Neanderthals couldn't speak at all, yet you are still to find one. Are you finding it harder than you thought?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I've noted that you've continued to evade the contention here.

6days, can you or can you not name any scientist alive or dead who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, yes or no?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

What scientists think about Neanderthals has been undergoing revision since I was a kid. I remember an article in Read magazine I read in grade school about this very subject. I can't believe you guys are arguing about what people used to think.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

What scientists think about Neanderthals has been undergoing revision since I was a kid. I remember an article in Read magazine I read in grade school about this very subject. I can't believe you guys are arguing about what people used to think.

The dispute was over the phonetic range of neanderthals, magazines, and news articles have simplified this debate in terms that the general public can digest, as is usually the case on most subjects (not just science topics). Thus many of the finer nuances of scientific papers are often lost in its translation to mainstream media.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I've noted that you've continued to evade the contention here.

6days, can you or can you not name any scientist alive or dead who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, yes or no?

That's what this paper seems to be claiming. It looks like it was authored by Philip Lieberman and Edmund S. Crelin and published in 1971.

Can we move on, now?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

That's what this paper seems to be claiming. It looks like it was authored by Philip Lieberman and Edmund S. Crelin and published in 1971.

Can we move on, now?

We've already discussed Lieberman extensively in this thread so far, Here, and Here.

Lieberman was not stating that neanderthals couldn't speak, he states in his own words that neanderthal had "linguistic ability inferior to modern man", which to be clear is still a linguistic ability.