rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (05/24/85)
[Lief Sorensen] > > You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a > >natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other > >animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn > >to speak if they have the motivation, that is other humans to which > >to speak must be present. The *real* test of the inborn nature of > >language would be to raise a group of children *together* from > >infancy, but without *any* contact with adults, and then see if they > >invent a language for use among themselves. > >-- > > > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > > > >/* ---------- */ > > Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which > have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? Well, I can't say exactly what mutation it was, but I have some pretty good ideas of what natural selection mechanism it was. ****************DISCLAIMER**************** The following theory has been made by me, with much propagandizing by upteen Godless, communist teachers who have indoctrinated me with Evolutionism. This is not necessarily a view held by the scientific community at large, but it's held by me. ****************END OF DISCLAIMER**************** It seems to me that the animals way back when were competing for the same economic goods (food, water, TVs, etc...) and had to fight to get them. (Possibly even fight to not become one of these goods.) Since most apes nowadays (humans included) are tribal animals, it is a fair assumption that they were back then, too. This meant that whichever tribe could fight better would get these goods (and wouldn't become goods themselves). This means that, all other things being equal, the tribes that could communicate better would do better (i.e. have more food, longer life-spans, more children). Therefore, when there would come to some tribe a combination of mutations which would improve the capacity for language, it would be reproduced more, since the owners would have better life-spans. This would encourage the selection of this capacity, and it would spread simply because the animals will do better than their "dumb" counterparts. This, Lief, is an idea of how it happened. It is not necessarily the one held by the rest of humanity, but it is reasonable and has some semblence of logic behind it. On the other hand, the idea that humans were just put here has about the same logic as saying the my Aunt Sophie made the Earth last summer in an interstellar bake-off. Actually, that can't be true since I don't have an Aunt Sophie. But that doesn't stop Creationism, either. Hmmm... ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold, and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms and a void." -Democritus(400 B.C.)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/26/85)
> > Actually, that can't be true since I don't have an Aunt Sophie. > ---- > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } > Amazing! I don't either. Could one predict that from evolution? Probably not. We should think about this some more. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas