Different in degree or kind: Egnor's take (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 03, 2016, 12:43 (2764 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Originally you wrote: “the anatomic changes…were present 200,000 years in H. sapiens before language is thought to have appeared 50,000 years ago. The evidence is strong that anatomy preceded language suggesting pre-planning in evolution by God.” I pointed out the illogicality of such thinking and you then changed your tune: “Of course it was used 200,000 years ago and gradually organized language and its rules developed.”
DAVID: You are harping on the fact that I mistakenly left out the word 'modern' in the sentence re' 50,000 years ago. I just wasn't clear.-Where do you draw the line between the language that was used 200,000 years ago (which nobody knows) and the language which was used 50,000 years ago (which nobody knows). Language evolves word (sound) by word (sound). So how many words (sounds) do you want before you decide that ancient language has become modern language? The fact that it has evolved from simple to enormously complex mirrors most facets of human life, all stemming from enhanced consciousness. And so I don't know exactly what it is that you consider to be strong evidence of divine pre-planning, other than your own assumption that God dabbled changes to the vocal organs as opposed to changes to the vocal organs resulting from human need, which would be like God giving fish legs before they stepped onto dry land, as opposed to fish fins changing to limbs when conditions demanded the change.
 
DAVID: If constant effort makes progress, where are the itty bitty changes that they should cause. These are giant gaps in anatomy formations, which need exact planning.-How itty bitty are itty bitty changes? We know that the cell communities cooperate very quickly to enable organisms to cope with new conditions (adaptation). If they don't, they perish. And the adaptations then become the norm. That's all we have to go by. (Even a human weed can transform himself into a muscle man with the “effort” of a few exercises.) In the case of the vocal organs, they already existed, and the fossil record suggests much the same process (saltation, not itty-bitty).-DAVID: Did you forget brain plasticity. Just like having to tune a radio to a station, humans had to develop the ability in their new-sized brain to receive consciousness. Both habilis and erectus did part of the job. And vocal tract changes developed along with the larger brain changes.
dhw: Yes indeed, if your dualism is correct: The new-sized brain did not give rise to consciousness or to consciousness's need to express itself. Consciousness gave rise to the new brain and the new tracts. The need changes the anatomy; the changed anatomy does not create the need.-DAVID: What a twisted view: the series of Homo fossils had to start at the animal level of having conscious behaviour. At some point in the brain enlargement of the frontal lobe, self-aware consciousness had to appear as the brain received consciousness. -Stop there! If the brain received consciousness, which came first: consciousness or the brain? And are you now saying that it was the enlarged brain that engendered self-consciousness, or that the brain had to grow in order to receive self-consciousness?