More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, March 19, 2016, 14:39 (2962 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section:
> 	Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar-I've read them and have many points I could refute. A major complaint is that Chomsky's UG theory doesn't fit Darwin! Whew! That is the point. Why didn't you offer your point of view?
> 
> dhw: Then please tell me what are the universal grammatical structures and what is the one type of “language arrangement”.-I'm not an expert, and can only quote authorities on the subject.
> 
> dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”?-The UG theory.-> dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. -Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work.-> 
> dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate.-Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no.-> dhw:If you can ask me to explain how brains talk to bones, then I can ask you how “God helped them”. Did he preprogramme the first cells to pass on instructions to every single brain, bone and muscle of every single member of every single disparate group that “invented” every single language? Or did he personally dabble with their brains, bones and muscles?-Stop asking the question. I don't know how He helped, but of course He did.
> 
> dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God.-No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists. -> 
> dhw: I wonder how Adler defines the difference between saltations and giant saltations. .... I know he was anti-Darwin, but before we go on, please clarify whether he rejected common descent and was a creationist, or did he subscribe to your divine computer programme theory?-Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more.
> 
> dhw: As an agnostic, I am as close to you as I am to atheists! I see both sides of the argument. But even with my theist hat on, I'm afraid I can't find any credibility in your divine computer programme theory for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder - all created for the sake of humans.-Your theistic hat is very askew. You theistic thinking is very limited by your agnosticism in my opinion. Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.