Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
cladking

Why is Ancient Language Different?

260 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

cladking
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Nope you claimed a mutation occurred circa 40,000 BP. That is completely UNEVIDENCED. Try another lie. 

cormac

No.  I believe the most logical explanation for what makes humans distinct from animals and that explains the lack of abstraction in AL is there was a mutation around 40,000 years ago.  I don't care when the foxp2 gene arose UNLESS it is shown to be the marker of the advent of human behavior.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
cormac mac airt
3 minutes ago, cladking said:

What you really need is an antrobiolophyicist.  Good luck with that.  With such good luck you might as well find one familiar with geysers, engineering, ancient materials/stone working, philosophy, and logic.  

Good luck.   

If you BELIEVE there is something in what you quote that proves there never was a sudden onset to humanity and or complex language then just say what it is and how that affects my argument.  In the meantime I'll assume you are just copying and pasting material you believe is relevant.  

There was no genetic mutation within the last 40,000 years responsible for your claim. Are you really that incompetent in understanding that? Never mind, rhetorical question. 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, cladking said:

No.  I believe the most logical explanation for what makes humans distinct from animals and that explains the lack of abstraction in AL is there was a mutation around 40,000 years ago.  I don't care when the foxp2 gene arose UNLESS it is shown to be the marker of the advent of human behavior.  

There is no recent mutation in or concerning the FOXP2 gene within the last 40,000 years, which means such a mutation NEVER happened.

cormac

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

as the FOXP2 gene is responsible for language and

And THERE is your assumption.  If your assumption is correct then this part of my theory requires rework based on new evidence.

What evidence do you have that this gene is solely responsible for complex language?  How is it even possible to isolate such a thing without even a working definition for consciousness?  How can anyone know everything that happened 40,000 (OR MORE) years ago without complete knowledge of how the human organism works and how this has changed over time.  ANTHROPOLOGIST SAY HUMANS SUDDENLY STARTED ACTING HUMAN.  What DO YOU BELIEVE caused this?  Are you going to argue with scientists.  On what basis do you refuse to accept scientific consensus.

I'd remind you I have extensive evidence for rejecting consensus and part of this is ANCIENT LANGUAGE HAD NO ABSTRACTION.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

There is no recent mutation in or concerning the FOXP2 gene within the last 40,000 years, which means such a mutation NEVER happened.

cormac

And how do you know that this gene is wholly responsible for language and consciousness!  What makes you think one gene is solely responsible for consciousness and you know everything about the nature of language yet you still won't talk about the subject of this thread?  

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, cladking said:

And THERE is your assumption.  If your assumption is correct then this part of my theory requires rework based on new evidence.

What evidence do you have that this gene is solely responsible for complex language?  How is it even possible to isolate such a thing without even a working definition for consciousness?  How can anyone know everything that happened 40,000 (OR MORE) years ago without complete knowledge of how the human organism works and how this has changed over time.  ANTHROPOLOGIST SAY HUMANS SUDDENLY STARTED ACTING HUMAN.  What DO YOU BELIEVE caused this?  Are you going to argue with scientists.  On what basis do you refuse to accept scientific consensus.

I'd remind you I have extensive evidence for rejecting consensus and part of this is ANCIENT LANGUAGE HAD NO ABSTRACTION.  

Nope, not an assumption. The last link "should' have answered your question since it was a theory developed over several years and with much evidence leading up to it that had already invalidated your 40,000 BP date before it was even written. By the time of its analysis your claim was once and for all time buried in the trash heap of useless ideas. 

Anthropologists ARE NOT geneticists and therefore do not, for the most part, have a significant working knowledge of the human genome and when, where and how it operates as it does based on the latest available analyses. You might as well be depending on your local auto mechanic for details on a rather specific and risky brain operation procedure. You don't even know what scientists, and specifically geneticists, know. You refuse to read and understand the papers.

I'll remind everyone that you have BS, that's ALL you have. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, cladking said:

And how do you know that this gene is wholly responsible for language and consciousness!  What makes you think one gene is solely responsible for consciousness and you know everything about the nature of language yet you still won't talk about the subject of this thread?  

The subject IS language, it's in the title, you're just too incompetent to understand it. We know what this gene and its associates are responsible for because we know the effects if it's altered. As this thread is about language and not consciousness the latter is irrelevant. Language CANNOT exist without the FOXP2 gene and since there is no evidence that your mutation ever occurred then your idea of such is rendered moot. 

cormac

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
15 minutes ago, cladking said:

And THERE is your assumption.  If your assumption is correct then this part of my theory requires rework based on new evidence.

What evidence do you have that this gene is solely responsible for complex language?  How is it even possible to isolate such a thing without even a working definition for consciousness?  How can anyone know everything that happened 40,000 (OR MORE) years ago without complete knowledge of how the human organism works and how this has changed over time.  ANTHROPOLOGIST SAY HUMANS SUDDENLY STARTED ACTING HUMAN.  What DO YOU BELIEVE caused this?  Are you going to argue with scientists.  On what basis do you refuse to accept scientific consensus.

I'd remind you I have extensive evidence for rejecting consensus and part of this is ANCIENT LANGUAGE HAD NO ABSTRACTION.  

as I said:...or come up with some long bombastic pile of 'metaphysical' tripe to dismiss it and continue the claim.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
57 minutes ago, cladking said:

And THERE is your assumption.  If your assumption is correct then this part of my theory requires rework based on new evidence.

What evidence do you have that this gene is solely responsible for complex language?  How is it even possible to isolate such a thing without even a working definition for consciousness?  How can anyone know everything that happened 40,000 (OR MORE) years ago without complete knowledge of how the human organism works and how this has changed over time.  ANTHROPOLOGIST SAY HUMANS SUDDENLY STARTED ACTING HUMAN.  What DO YOU BELIEVE caused this?  Are you going to argue with scientists.  On what basis do you refuse to accept scientific consensus.

I'd remind you I have extensive evidence for rejecting consensus and part of this is ANCIENT LANGUAGE HAD NO ABSTRACTION.  

Ahh, you see when normal people use the word “suddenly” it means “in an instant” whereas when anthropologists and geologists use it, it means “in a timescale faster than ordinary” and could very well mean tens of thousands of years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Thread closed for review.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.