Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[NoGodaloud ?]

The neural substrate that regulates speech production appears to play a part in syntactic operations and other cognitive processes.

so its just a guess. No proof then.

The isolation and dating of the human form of the FOXP2 gene, which governs the embryonic development of the subcortical structures that support these neural circuits, provide insights on the evolution of human speech, language, and cognition.

“The finding that FOXP2 is critical to speech and language does not by itself demonstrate the role of this gene in the origin of human speech, because the function of FOXP2 could have remained unchanged during human evolution while other speech-related genes changed.”

(Jianzhi Zhang, David M. Webb and Ondrej Podlaha, “Accelerated Protein Evolution and Origins of Human-Specific Features: FOXP2 as an Example,” Genetics, Vol. 162:1825–1835 (December 2002).)

FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language

http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm

No-one should imagine that the development of language relied exclusively on a single mutation in FOXP2. They are many other changes that enable speech. Not least of these are profound anatomical changes that make the human supralarygeal pathway entirely different from any other mammal. The larynx has descended so that it provides a resonant column for speech (but, as an unfortunate side-effect, predisposes humans to choking on food). Also, the nasal cavity can be closed thus preventing vowels from being nasalised and thus increasing their comprehensibility. These changes cannot have happened over such a short period as 100,000 years. Furthermore the genetic basis for language will be found to involve many more genes that influence both cognitive and motor skills

Human mind needs human cognition and human cognition relies on human speech. We cannot envisage humanness without the ability to think abstractly, but abstract thought requires language. This finding confirms that the molecular basis for the origin of human speech and, indeed, the human mind, is critical. Ultimately, we will find great insight from further unravelling the evolutionary roots of human speech - in contrast to Noam Chomsky's lack of interest in this subject

I do not think that language
provided the cultural stimulus that triggered human
symbolic thought. Language and other symbolic behaviors
appear to derive from the evolution of a complex interdependent
neural substrate—one that was not present until
50,000 or so years ago.

appear to derive..... that indicates just - guess what ?? guess work.....

have i missed something ? i've not found any conclusive explanation of human language through evolution.

Wanna present a second one, which convinced you ?

[Entropist]

appear to derive..... that indicates just - guess what ?? guess work.....

Science does not produce sentences that say "There is absolutely certainty that..." If you want statements like that you have to turn to religion.

[NoGodaloud ?]

appear to derive..... that indicates just - guess what ?? guess work.....

Science does not produce sentences that say "There is absolutely certainty that..." If you want statements like that you have to turn to religion.

i completely agree with you. Since there is no proof , that the human ability of speech was due to evolution, it could also be through other means, like design. And there are good reasons to believe so :

Chomsky, N., Language and the Mind, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, pp. 67-68, 1972.

‘Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’

http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

The fact of the matter is that language is quintessentially a human trait. All attempts to shed light on the evolution of human language have failed—due to the lack of knowledge regarding the origin of any language, and due to the lack of an animal that possesses any ‘transitional’ form of communication. This leaves evolutionists with a huge gulf to bridge between humans with their innate communication abilities, and the grunts, barks, or chatterings of animals.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The fact of the matter is that language is quintessentially a human trait. All attempts to shed light on the evolution of human language have failed—due to the lack of knowledge regarding the origin of any language, and due to the lack of an animal that possesses any ‘transitional’ form of communication. This leaves evolutionists with a huge gulf to bridge between humans with their innate communication abilities, and the grunts, barks, or chatterings of animals.

Failed to you, perhaps, but the evidence of animal language (another set of ignored scientific papers) has obviously been provided. In fact, the more we look, the more creatures of nature with some form of complicated social behavior and language has been emerging in more and more species.

[Entropist]

appear to derive..... that indicates just - guess what ?? guess work.....

Science does not produce sentences that say "There is absolutely certainty that..." If you want statements like that you have to turn to religion.

i completely agree with you.

You appear to have missed my point.

[Minimalist]

If you want statements like that you have to turn to religion.

And religion is notoriously wrong when it does so!

But, simple answers for simple people.....oops, I mean for complex questions!

[NoGodaloud ?]

Failed to you, perhaps, but the evidence of animal language (another set of ignored scientific papers) has obviously been provided. In fact, the more we look, the more creatures of nature with some form of complicated social behavior and language has been emerging in more and more species.

there is a hudge difference between the chattering etc. of animals, and our abilitiy to think, to make choices, to explore our world, the universe, the microcosmos etc. Nothing of the animal world compares to the ability of human speech and thinking. you failed so far, to present conclusive and undeniable evidence, human speech arose through evolution. Your presented paper is guess work..... since you did not provide any other paper, i guess you want to throw the towel, right ?

[Minimalist]

i would like to see the quote of collins, where he sayst this, and the data , which backs up his claim.

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-imago-dei/

This past week I attended a meeting about the human genome at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. I heard many astounding presentations on comparisons of our own genome to that of other species -- all consistent in exquisite detail with an evolutionary explanation. A particularly interesting paper described the latest findings on Neanderthals, whose DNA sequence is being painstakingly pieced together from several 30,000-year-old bones of different individuals. The DNA similarity to Homo sapiens is striking; but the evidence is most consistent with a separation of humans and Neanderthals nearly 500,000 years ago.

Seek and ye shall find.


As for the data, nothing you have said here indicates that you have any capability to understand it.

[Entropist]

But, simple answers for simple people.....oops, I mean for complex questions!

Or, in other words: "We cannot pray to a god who is probably true. Prayer does not demean itself to subtleties nor tolerate distinctions within the Supreme: even when it doubts, it does so in the name of truth. We do not beseech a nuance." E.M. Cioran, from The New Gods

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

there is a hudge difference between the chattering etc. of animals, and our abilitiy to think, to make choices, to explore our world, the universe, the microcosmos etc. Nothing of the animal world compares to the ability of human speech and thinking. you failed so far, to present conclusive and undeniable evidence, human speech arose through evolution. Your presented paper is guess work..... since you did not provide any other paper, i guess you want to throw the towel, right ?

I haven't failed to produce anything. It's easy to say I haven't produced evidence when you ignore the evidence I present. The papers I have are from people studying the field and the work is paper based on studies on reference to other studies and statements from experts in the field.

This entire 'discussion' is a farce, just as I have concluded from the other thread.