Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albion · 09-11-2002, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Yes, that is a point that I have made several times: phylogenetic trees are virtually worthless. "Senseless" is the word you are using.

Really looking forward to DD's response to this.

Vanderzyden · 09-11-2002, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger:
[/b]

Sometimes, the only honest answer to a question is "We don't know."

There's no shame in this. The only shameful thing would be to pretend to knowledge that we don't, in fact, possess.

Cheers,

Michael

Ah, but "I don't know" is frequently used as an evasive response. Often it is an indication of a refusal to consider viable alternatives.

Vanderzyden

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baloo:
The only unsettling aspect of all of these studies is the utter absense of double-blind studies. For instance, Koko is exposed to one of 10 complex stimuli, and must communicate to the trainer WHICH of the ten complex stimuli she witnessed. The trainer, unaware of which of the actual stimuli was used, would then attempt to deduce it from communication with Koko. A few repetitions of this experiment would make a much, much stronger impression on me than "Koko's cat died, and look, she moved her hands in a "Cat" motion, and a "sad" motion, so she must be mourning her cat...".

Have such studies been done? If so, where are they, and if not, why not?

How about this, a person trained in standard sign who was not part of Koko's training and had never met Koko and in addition was highly skeptical of ape communication abilities (in fact having actually written several negative papers on the subject) actually met Koko, without her "trainer" present. Now this person is fully involved in the experiments and has completely changed his mind (a complete about-face no less). Who is he? One of the leading language development professors in the US!

He was convinced by the simple method of talking to the subject.

Amen-Moses

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zetek:
I'm curious as to how this information was communicated to her. Did they just go in one day and tell her that her cat was dead, and she understood that, as opposed to understanding that it was just gone? Or did they actually take the flattened carcass to her so she could see it for herself, demonstrating the difference between "gone" and "dead"?

OK, all from memory so I may get some details wrong, she signed a question along the lines of "where is fluffy" (or whatever the feline fleabag was called) and her "trainers" replied
"she is dead" (all in sign you understand). She then spent several days hugging her pet cats favourite toy and signing "sad" whenever asked a question, she also went off her food and refused to play any of the games that were usually her favourites.

One of the most heart rending signs she kept using was one that strikes a chord with me as I lost my son last year, she kept asking "Why?".

After a period of grief (I can'tt remember how long) she started signing for a new pet.

Amen-Moses

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

And yet you spent so much energy focusing on whether I've committed libel in relation to references I cited in support of the very thing you are saying here. Please never make such disrespectful and outrageous insinuations again.

Vanderzyden, until you respond to the thread about your libel, you will be considered libelous. The fact that you consider this unfair is truly hard to comprehend.

You suggested, by libelously misusing the words of respected scientists, that all phylogeny is bunk. All I am saying is that there are no natural groups in nature other than species, and that these groups are drawn, based on genuine scientific data, only so that se can make useful predictions about the groups, and so that we can talk about evolutionary relationships in a meaningful way. This is a far cry from suggesting that all taxonomists do all day is imaginary.

Phylogeny CAN determine that a certain group of species has a single common ancestor, which no other species shares. But although that is true, placing a name on that group is arbitrary, as you could just as easily use an older common ancestor, and make the group include a wider range of organisms.

Stop whining that I am being unfair and answer the damn allegations. You misquoted scientists in a libelous way, which is an immoral act that I will not stand for, lest libel become as common online as copyright infringement.

If you want to clear your name, all you have to do is show why your quotes aren't libelous. It is not irrational to assume that the reason you refuse to do this is because they are true.

Quote:

Please [never] make such disrespectful and outrageous insinuations again.

If I replaced never with three dots I could turn this into a request. This is what you did when you removed [the clonal theory began to crumble when] from your quote.

If you think the allegations are wrong, SPEAK UP and tell us why

Amen-Moses · 09-11-2002, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Godless Dave:
I think the primates went beyond this, to the point of two-way communication that approached what we would call language, including arranging signs in a certain order to change the meaning. But Koko's signing ability plateaued at about the level of a 2-year-old human child (IIRC), whereas human children learning language increase their vocabularies and grammatical knowledge exponentially after that point.

Koko is currently rated at around the level of a 7 year old human. By linguists I might add.

I don't buy that. Koko and Michael were taken out of the wild at a pretty young age, so how would they have learned the signing system of those wild gorillas? If it's not learned, if it's more like the visual communication techniques of wolves, for example, then it isn't language. Language consists of learned arbitrary symbols.

I belive Koko and Michael were second generation (I may be wrong though), i.e their parents were wild. They probably learned enough from their parents prior to being weaned.

Kanzi is different because his mother was raised from an infant (I believe she was rescued after poacher killed her parents when she was only a few months old) by humans so any Bonobo "language" was effectively eradicated. The fact that Kanzi adapted and learned an entirely novel language invented by humans at least shows that he has some inate language abilities on which they could build.

There's no question that primates use vocalizations, posture, and facial expressions to communicate with each other. But that in itself is a far cry from language.

Primate vocalizations are really a red herring as it seems that most comunication amongst all primates (including humans) is visually based, i.e we may say one thing but mean somthing completely different depending on our body language.

Amen-Moses

Non-praying Mantis · 09-11-2002, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
OK, show me some convincing studies demonstrating that apes can learn a language. I am not talking about a sophisticated form of dog-training, where certain stimuli evoke a patterned-response. No, I am talking about language. Language entails understanding the meaning of words. Language is the tool of writing and conversations.

First, I want to thank Trekkie with a Phasor for posting that info about Lana. I think I had seen that study before, but I have not yet had the chance to search for studies as per Vanderzyden's request.

OK, Vanderzyden, I suppose you will have something "interesting" to say on what Trekkie has found?

Quote:

Originally posted by Non-praying Mantis:
Another problem you have understanding is that behavior is often HEAVILY influenced by genes. That is much behavior is instinctual. Even our own. Yes, noone taught your newborn to smile (or cry, or poop his/her diapers, or spit up ), but this behavior was already present in his/her genes....I suppose you think God has to do all of that for them!

Vanderzyden!!

Now, I KNOW that you are an anti-evolutionist! You just used one of their oldest tactics in the book!

I WAS JUST MISQUOTED!

Here is the material that Vander "forgot" to include in his quote:

Quote:

NPM:I am an entomologist (I study insects) and it always amazes me how highly developed insect behaviors can be in some species. Insects can spin cocoons, search for food and mates, lay eggs in the proper places, and so forth, and obviously noone is around to teach them.

This is the material that Vander left out with the "....". This material is important to the context of what I was trying to say! He also left out this related material:

Quote:

NPM:
No, these behaviors are genetically encoded, just the same as body color, or the particular type of enzymes that break down food. This has even been tested by breeding different species together to form hybrids with varying behavior patterns. Often these hybrids take on behavioral characteristics that fall between the two parent species, and that these traits are passed on to their offspring (if the hybrids can breed at all).

Vanderzyden, what I was trying to say is that genetically encoded behavior can be very complex. For instance, Trichoptera, moth-like insects that have larvae that live in freshwater streams and ponds, weave complex nets (in some instances), and complex cases (in others). These insects often choose material that is very consistent in size, quality, and material type. They weave this material (sometimes gravel, sometimes sticks, sometimes leaves - it varies by species) together with silk that they produce from their mandibular glands. In fact, these cases are sometimes so species specific, that the cases are often used as a species identification!

The point that I was trying to make was that MANY behaviors are complex and untaught. Where do they come from? Science does not answer this question with "Goddidit", but they examine the evidence, make hypotheses, and test the hypotheses rigorously. The theory is that these behaviors are genetically based. What information do you have to the contrary?

You "attempted" to answer my observations by misquoting me and setting up a strawman:

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
I am not talking about involuntary "biological" functions. The example I used concerning infants was spontaneous emulation. Who taught my son to laugh? There was no way to tell him "OK, Austin, now, in response to something funny, make this facial expression and make repetitive ha-ha sounds." Do you see the difficulty? First, nobody was able to tell him what "funny" means. Second, nobody could tell him about the facial and oral response that corresponds to things that are funny.

The apes don't have such capacities. Laughing is perhaps the simplest of the many, many differences.

Now, I think that any expert or layman would consider case-making in Trichoptera to be a much more complex ability than laughter in infant humans. Or do you consider case-making to be a "involuntary biological function"?

BTW, I wouldn't be so fast to suggest that apes do not laugh. IIRC, there have been many instances of this very phenomenon happening!

I am now ready to accept an apology.

Quote:

It seems as though you brush the question aside. You display such confidence about lineage all the way back to "self-replicating RNA molecules", but you balk at the critical early steps. So, I'll ask you again, directly:

What do you think is the first biological event, and how did it come about?

Please do me the favor of responding with something different than "We don't know".

I admit that I was being somewhat evasive. I also admit that it may be possible that God snapped God's fingers and bzzzzzt the first self-replicating RNA molecule was formed out of thin air, water, or from the component materials. This is what many Christians who accept evolution usually believe (or something close to this).

Of course, there is no way for us to go back in time and find out exactly what happened, BUT scientists can hypothesize about what might have happened, and test these hypotheses. I admit that the evidence we have for abiogenesis is shaky, but there is some. It is not just a completely unsupported hypothesis.

I doubt that you would find many Creationists who would admit to the possibility of the Bible being wrong about creation. The important point here is that we do not know much about this portion of our family tree.

However, the above does not mean that evolution is on shaky ground. The evidence behind evolution is MUCH stronger!

I was able to admit that I was evasive. Vanderzyden, are you able to admit that you have been evasive on other threads AND that you will apologize for misquoting me?

NPM

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Non-praying Mantis ]

Non-praying Mantis · 09-11-2002, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:

Stop whining that I am being unfair and answer the damn allegations. You misquoted scientists in a libelous way, which is an immoral act that I will not stand for, lest libel become as common online as copyright infringement.

If you want to clear your name, all you have to do is show why your quotes aren't libelous. It is not irrational to assume that the reason you refuse to do this is because they are true.

I AGREE!!

As you can see in my above reply to Vanderzyden, he just did the exact same thing to me!

I have asked him to give me an apology.

Quote:

If I replaced never with three dots I could turn this into a request. This is what you did when you removed [the clonal theory began to crumble when] from your quote.

Except in my case he used four dots!

NPM

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 10:28 PM

It seems vanderzyden thought that those quotes really did apply to animal phylogeny. We are discussing it now in another thread ('questions of libel'). Any opinions on phylogeny (particularly from phylogenists or especially microbiologists) would be most relevant.

Godless Dave · 09-12-2002, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
Koko is currently rated at around the level of a 7 year old human. By linguists I might add.

Can you point me to a recent publication on this? I'm not doubting you. I have always been very interested in this, but haven't kept up over the last ten years.

My opinion, which I tried to state above, is that Koko does use language. My point about her language skills not progressing as fast as a human child's was that, again in my opinion, a gorilla's brain does not have the cognitive ability to learn language skills as quickly or extensively as a human. However I suspect this is a difference of degree not of kind.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 03:36 PM	#46
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by Godless Dave: I think the primates went beyond this, to the point of two-way communication that approached what we would call language, including arranging signs in a certain order to change the meaning. But Koko's signing ability plateaued at about the level of a 2-year-old human child (IIRC), whereas human children learning language increase their vocabularies and grammatical knowledge exponentially after that point. Koko is currently rated at around the level of a 7 year old human. By linguists I might add. I don't buy that. Koko and Michael were taken out of the wild at a pretty young age, so how would they have learned the signing system of those wild gorillas? If it's not learned, if it's more like the visual communication techniques of wolves, for example, then it isn't language. Language consists of learned arbitrary symbols. I belive Koko and Michael were second generation (I may be wrong though), i.e their parents were wild. They probably learned enough from their parents prior to being weaned. Kanzi is different because his mother was raised from an infant (I believe she was rescued after poacher killed her parents when she was only a few months old) by humans so any Bonobo "language" was effectively eradicated. The fact that Kanzi adapted and learned an entirely novel language invented by humans at least shows that he has some inate language abilities on which they could build. There's no question that primates use vocalizations, posture, and facial expressions to communicate with each other. But that in itself is a far cry from language. Primate vocalizations are really a red herring as it seems that most comunication amongst all primates (including humans) is visually based, i.e we may say one thing but mean somthing completely different depending on our body language. Amen-Moses

09-11-2002, 10:28 PM	#49
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	It seems vanderzyden thought that those quotes really did apply to animal phylogeny. We are discussing it now in another thread ('questions of libel'). Any opinions on phylogeny (particularly from phylogenists or especially microbiologists) would be most relevant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.