"Experimental evidence, please, just like we'd expect in physics and chemistry."

"Well, these took three seconds to find:"

Forgive me for a moment, Stathei, but are you an idiot?

There was a specific context to my statement:

DO YOU PEOPLE READ?  This goes to Copernicus, too, because he also appealed to the 'fossil record' and DNA when my comment was specifically pointed to his one claim:

You know that humans are animals in the same sense that chimps are. We share so many biological characteristics. Humans just have much more complex brains. Chimpanzees just ended up with brains that lacked certain cognitive skills. What explains the fact that chimp DNA is more similar to human DNA than that of other animals, e.g. monkeys? A reasonable explanation--the one that evolution theory suggests--is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor that monkeys do not. That turns out to be what the evidence suggests.

What are we talking abou there?  Evidence for evolution?  No, a specific claim- the conginitive differences of chimpanzees relative to humans because they do not share a common ancestors blah blah blah.  To this, Copernicus said that the 'evidence suggests,' which I pointed out was not exactly a very significant scientific argument imo.

To this, the two of you (its ambiguous in my mind as to whether Cop did or not) provide general 'experimental' evidence for evolution, not the specific challenge about common ancestry and cognition.

Seriously, Stathei, you need to get your head screwed on straight before you mouth off.  I don't have time to respond to the constant mischaracterizations of what is going on.  Take the one minute necessary to read for understanding what is actually there.

Thanks.

[vicious and witty, and completely deserved, ad hominem deleted]

"Experimental evidence of intelligent design or whatever religious pseudoscience you believe in, please, SJ."

Would you like to try again now with this specific example in mind?

So are you saying you don't think evolution is absurd after all? A simple yes or no, without insult, long quotes, or "vicious, witty" (right) ad hominems will do. Do you think evolution is absurd?

sntjohnny, I don't recall you answering this question with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.  Is that impossible?

Apparently, you cannot give us a straightforward answer.  All you can do is temporize.

I should have added punctuated equlibria to my litany of elements within evolutionary theory where it is allowed for major changes to happen quickly.  I need to head off the typical and standard atheistic response here by pointing out that I did not just now attack gradualism- its not even the point.  The 'speed' is the point, whether the changes are incremental or not, and you can have big increments when you have smaller founder populations.

Why would you think that punctuated equilibria contradict Darwinism?  The phenomena seen in the fossil record still take place over geologic periods and are not "speedy" in any human sense of the word.  They are periods of intense speciation over a geologic age that tend to occur after a mass extinction event.  Why do they occur?  The prevailing theory is that such events leave a lot of empty ecological niches for species to expand into.  Normally, those niches are already filled.  Moreover, Darwin himself made allowances for such phenomena.  This issue has long since been put to rest.  Moreover, the proponents of PE have explicitly repudiated those who would use PE to attack evolution theory.  It is ironic that you would start an entire thread to defend the claim that evolution theory is unfalsifiable, yet you feel no embarrassment at using the discredited "punctuated equilibria" shibboleth to demonstrate that it is falsifiable.

"All of the so-called speech organs have non-linguistic functions."

That's a pretty clever designer to pull off that trick.  

Is it?  Those non-linguistic functions existed for eons in non-speaking animals.  The human case shows how complex biological structures can acquire brand new functionality, which is a poke in the eye to Behe's concept of irreducible complexity.  Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis jumps to the false conclusion that complexity is about one dimension of functionality.  Behe's "mousetrap" might not always have been a mousetrap before it emerged to be one.  His failure to take that kind of emergent complexity into account is a fundamental flaw in his thinking.   

"So it is clear that the language faculty itself does not require physical equipment."

This is another example of you saying something that should make you put some serious thought into your affirmation of evolutionary theory as a FACT but does not faze you in the slightest.  It appears to me that embracing evolution must emasculate your ability to think critically.  Surely the obvious question would be how something that does not require physical equipment managed to be selected for in a physical environment.  Your answer is 'evolutiondiddit and that's enough for me.'

Don't be silly.  The physical equipment very clearly defined the linguistic structural similarities across languages--e.g. that virtually all languages have the three vowels , , and [a].  That follows from the three most extreme vocal configurations that humans can make with their "physical equipment".  The fact that people with oral pathologies can still articulate the same vowels does not contradict the reason for their existence.  The brain coordinates articulation to meet the demands of the language that the child learns, and that can involve compensatory behaviors.

"Your charge is silly, as I already pointed out, since nobody seriously disagrees that humans are unique animals."

And yet technically, all animals are unique animals, so your rebuttal is petty.  We can't use echo-location like the bats, but you aren't going to consider them unique.  I think you are a speciest.  

Who said that I didn't consider other animals unique?  Not me.  As evolution theory predicts all living organisms develop unique traits to enhance survival in different environmental niches.

So you agree that it is not absurd, in principle, for even an evolutionist to allow the POSSIBILITY that another non-human animal communicated with a human.  Thanks for playing.

Playing what?  You may be playing games, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.  Animals communicate with humans all the time.  They just haven't evolved the equipment to speak human languages. Dogs can understand many human commands, but they seem to lack phonemic hearing.  Other primates can learn to communicate with us in a crude sign language or using visual symbols, but they are severely limited in vocabulary and grammatical capability.  In theory, any animal could involve our type of brain.  There are plenty of examples of convergent evolution across different species out there.  (Think "platypus".)

"We could probably even breed them into evolving speech."

Now that would be something I'd like to see.

Me, too.  I don't think that anyone has tried anything like that.

I think maybe you stepped in here without seeing the other threads where they were throwing around insults that christians believe in 'talking animals.'  This imprecise insult not only is at least as true of the ones making the insult, but as you have now agreed, can be understood in a way consistent with evolutionary theory itself.  Only what happened here is that you didn't want to agree with it so long as it was me making the point, but since now you have made the point (MY point), you feel more comfortable with it.

I think that the Bible does have the serpent speak in Genesis, and that is nothing more than a Hebrew folktale.  For you to take it seriously because of your rigid prerequisite to be a biblical 'literalist' is absurd.  Stories of talking animals abound in creaton myths in many cultures, and the Hebrews were not an exception.  It is just that Christians have been brought up to treat the Hebrew myths as exceptional.

"What kind of evidence would you like?"

Experimental evidence, please, just like we'd expect in physics and chemistry.  Remember, you did say in another place that evolution is as much of a 'hard science' as those fields.  But it would be a different thread, and I'd ask you not to pursue it in this one.

Stathei answered this one quite nicely.  Even Behe has acknowledged that evolution has been verified experimentally.  So I don't see what your problem is.

"Apparently, you cannot give us a straightforward answer."

Apparently I can, and did.  Here is the emoticon for you:    I'll send you a box of kleenex if you just provide a mailing address by PM.

"Why would you think that punctuated equilibria contradict Darwinism?"

Boy, that's not what I said.  In fact, I said even as I was talking that that was not what was being said, anticipating that you would say that.  

"Is it? Those non-linguistic functions existed for eons"

Begs the question.

"Don't be silly."

I learn by imitation.  What's your excuse?

Your fuller response was not on target.  I'm getting tired of trying to hold people's hands, here.  A little ornery, in fact.  Cranky.

"Who said that I didn't consider other animals unique? Not me. As evolution theory predicts all living organisms develop unique traits to enhance survival in different environmental niches."

Exactly.  So if all animals are unique, then you affirming that humans are unique is really not saying anything.  They are not unique by being unique.  Why do you keep making points as though you are the first one to make them?  Now they are unique, now they aren't....  

""So you agree that it is not absurd, in principle, for even an evolutionist to allow the POSSIBILITY that another non-human animal communicated with a human. Thanks for playing.""

"Animals communicate with humans all the time. They just haven't evolved the equipment to speak human languages."

Good boy.  Goooooood boy.  Say no more.   In theory, the thread can go forward with this, and bring us to the place I'm at with doofacemagoo

"There are plenty of examples of convergent evolution across different species out there. (Think "platypus".)"

Think begging the question.

"I think that the Bible does have the serpent speak in Genesis, and that is nothing more than a Hebrew folktale."

It is precisely this sort of blanket dismissal that I'm challenging.  As possibilities for animal to human communication (pardon the redundancy) do exist, even within an evolutionary framework, the account can't be summarily dismissed.  Furthermore, as I said to dooface but still waiting for reply, we can begin to explore other ways to look at the question once we have decided not to treat our subjective reactions, which are inconistent with your own beliefs, as intellectually superior positions.

"So I don't see what your problem is."

[ad hominem deleted]

Thank you for the clarification, SJ. .....

SJ:
"Dooface, waiting for you."

Why are you waiting on me? It looks like you're making an a$$ of yourself just fine without my help!

I haven't seen anything from you that even deserves a read much less a response. It's all about word games and dodging direct questions with you.

I could just answer it once again, but that would just be enabling a steady stream of continued rudness out of you, Stathei

ROFL!! Hello again, Kettle! Is Pot's ass all black again? You, Sir, are by far the rudest person on this board.

Ragnar, I was being somewhat pedantic on the 'say' thing.  My point was that its common usage to use the word 'say' for lots of kinds of communication, and there isn't any reason to at least keep it as a possibility that such usage was common not only in our own era.

Your argument about the cat fails, though.  I know what you're saying,<----  but you wouldn't let the logic work backwards, which you should.  An example that sprung to mind would be if a lion roared.  Like you hissing at your cat makes the cat 'stop and pay attention,' a lion roaring will achieve the same affect for you.  Else, make you run for your life.  Either way, its communicated, and in neither case would we imagine that this is communication in the sense we are debating, nor would we infer from it that the lion is exhibiting higher intelligence by finding a way to speak in a way we understand.

So on the one hand in this argument, it is specifically being condemned roundly that 'animals' (we had to work to get humans included in that category) can communicate using our language, even though we grant mimicry, some sign language perhaps, or Peter Sanger's consenting dog.  On the other hand, you have people communicating back to the animals using mimicry, some inflection perhaps (pavlov's dog, anyone?), etc, and thinking that that qualifies.

In order to be consistent, you've got to keep it apples and apples.  You can't demand as Stathei and Dooface are doing that only human speech counts as 'talking' if we are working animal to human, but then allow human attempts that are still only mimicry to count as 'talking' working human to animal.

So that brings us back to my point that if we are indeed the more intelligent species, then we should be able to decode these lower language systems, master them ourselves, and do the Dr. Doolittle.

My four year old still speaks some gibberish now and then, but with some effort I can figure it out and I could- if I wanted- use his words to communicate with him.  I don't, because I want him to learn how to speak properly, but I could.  That would be me 'descending' to his level.   I'm not mimicing him- I'm conversing.  But can we descend to the level of animals who allegedly have even less complex language systems then a four year old human boy?

If you run from a lion, you will probally be food.