Why aren't monkeys evolving now?

[pinqy]

Kanzi has exhibited advanced linguistic aptitude.

Kanzi, language-reared male bonobo, converses with Sue Savage-Rumbaugh in 2006 using a portable "keyboard" of arbitrary symbols that Kanzi associates with words.

Kanzi has learned hundreds of arbitrary symbols representing words, objects, and familiar people (including the generic "Visitor").

Although Kanzi learned to communicate using a keyboard with lexigrams, Kanzi also picked up some American Sign Language from watching videos of Koko the gorilla, who communicates using sign language to her keeper Penny Patterson; Savage-Rumbaugh did not realize Kanzi could sign until he signed "You, Gorilla, Question" to anthropologist Dawn Prince-Hughes, who had previously worked closely with gorillas. Based on trials performed at Yerkes Primate Research Center, Kanzi was able to correctly identify symbols 89-95% of the time.

Criticism of ape language claims: Aping Language a skeptical analysis of the evidence for nonhuman primate language

"For a start Kanzi — like [Nim Chomsky] before him — did not show the increase in sentence length that is typical of children learning language. In fact, at 1.15 symbols per sentence, Kanzi’s average utterance is even shorter than Nim’s. And it turns out that to complete many of the requests that were put to him Kanzi did not need to understand grammar. For example when Kanzi was asked to “Take the hat to the colony room” — which Kanzi did successfully — all he needed was some sense of “hat” and of “colony room.”14 A hat may be taken to a colony room, but a room cannot be brought to a hat. Successful completion of this instruction suggests an understanding of some vocabulary, but it is not in itself proof of grammatical comprehension. To test grammar what are needed are pairs of reversible commands like: “Dog bites man” and “Man bites dog.” Just knowing those three words — man, bites, and dog — is not enough to comprehend the difference between these two statements. For that difference to be understood grammar is crucial.

Of the 660 commands that Kanzi was given, a mere 21 formed pairs of the “man bites dog” “dog bites man” variety that constitute a critical test of grammatical comprehension. Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues reported that Kanzi responded accurately to 12 of these 21 pairs — a modest 57% correct. On closer inspection, however, it became clear to me that their method of coding Kanzi’s responses was unreasonably generous. To take one example: They commanded Kanzi, “Pour the juice in the egg.” Kanzi proceeded to pick up the bowl with the egg in it, sniff it, and shake it. They repeated the command three times — each time changing the wording slightly — before Kanzi did what they asked him to. They nonetheless scored his response as correct. When they asked Kanzi to “Pour some water on the raisins,” he held a jug of water over a lettuce. This was coded as correct. Kanzi’s first reaction to the request to pour milk into water was to stick a tomato in the water. When asked to chase Liz he remained seated; when asked again he touched Liz’s leg and she chased him. All of these were scored correct. When Kanzi was given the two commands, “Make the [toy] doggie bite the [toy] snake” and “Make the snake bite the doggie,” in both cases the snake ended up in the dog’s mouth but both responses were coded as correct. Re-scored to exclude these false positives, Kanzi achieves less than 30% correct."

Similarly, I've looked at the studies of Koko, and while she certainly does use ASL, she requires her handler to translate what she really means. If she truly understood language, anyone who understood ASL should be able to freely communicate with her.

Did you hear about Kanzi

Kanzi the bonobo can recognize several hundred words. He can communicate in complex ways using sign language, even ordering dinner or arguing with his trainer. , he can order dinner, and he might even be able to physically speak in English.

Ape Bites Human’s Finger Off, Then LITERALLY Apologizes

He told his handler to bite a guy who upset him. The trainer said no. Bonzi said, "if you don't I'll bite you". The trainer said I'm not going to bite the man. So Bonzi bit his fingers off. For months Bonzi wanted to see the trainer but the trainer insisted that he apologize. Bonzi told the others he would not apologize but he wanted to see him. He didn't feel he was wrong. He warned him. So months went by and finally Bonzi told the other handlers he was ready to apologize. The reunion was very emotional.

This is pretty deep conversation coming from a bonobo don't you think? What more do you want? If we can understand them and they use, that's communication.

might even be able to physically speak in English.

No, I don't think that's a particularly deep conversation, especially not seeing the actual symbols used. I can't tell what Kanzi actually indicated and what was interpolated. No real use of grammar is required, on the words "I," "man," and "bite."

I find it interesting how you didn't address the criticisms of Kanzi's abilities. From what I have read, in all cases of ape-human language studies, there is a great deal of "interpretation" on the part of the study team. I am not aware of any significant communication between an ape and a human who has had no previous contact with the ape. If I or anyone off the street could walk in a successfully communicate with Kanzi or if anyone who knew ASL could communicate with Koko...one-on-one without anyone else present, then I might change my mind. I am not aware of any such attempts, though, so it is not clear that these communications much more sophisticated than Hans, the mathematical horse.

 

[BreezeWood]

Just because you, a human, can't understand their language does not mean they don't have a language. Whales have a language, monkeys use sign language, porpoises. Might even say Dogs have writing, in the form of their urine.

No. I've told you, there is a difference between communicating and using language. You are mistaken.

Of course there is a difference between their language ...

"They" don't use language, humans do.

.

"They" don't use language, humans do.

And most importantly, where other species have fixed, limited sets of messages they can convey, humans have an unbounded range of things that can be expressed in language.


there is not a sentence in your link that isn't contradictorly reimposed to satisfy their conclusion as the above to their distinction between the two communication and language, cooking the books is a poor excuse for an answer.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

 

[Unkotare]

And you're wrong.

Just because you, a human, can't understand their language does not mean they don't have a language. Whales have a language, monkeys use sign language, porpoises. Might even say Dogs have writing, in the form of their urine.

No. I've told you, there is a difference between communicating and using language. You are mistaken.

Of course there is a difference between their language ...

"They" don't use language, humans do.

Well, an acquaintance showed me some exciting video the other day. It was of Kanzi, a Bonobo that has learned to communicate with humans by pointing at symbols. ......

Communicate, mimic, perform commands, not language.

 

[sealybobo]

Kanzi has exhibited advanced linguistic aptitude.

Kanzi, language-reared male bonobo, converses with Sue Savage-Rumbaugh in 2006 using a portable "keyboard" of arbitrary symbols that Kanzi associates with words.

Kanzi has learned hundreds of arbitrary symbols representing words, objects, and familiar people (including the generic "Visitor").

Although Kanzi learned to communicate using a keyboard with lexigrams, Kanzi also picked up some American Sign Language from watching videos of Koko the gorilla, who communicates using sign language to her keeper Penny Patterson; Savage-Rumbaugh did not realize Kanzi could sign until he signed "You, Gorilla, Question" to anthropologist Dawn Prince-Hughes, who had previously worked closely with gorillas. Based on trials performed at Yerkes Primate Research Center, Kanzi was able to correctly identify symbols 89-95% of the time.

Criticism of ape language claims: Aping Language a skeptical analysis of the evidence for nonhuman primate language

"For a start Kanzi — like [Nim Chomsky] before him — did not show the increase in sentence length that is typical of children learning language. In fact, at 1.15 symbols per sentence, Kanzi’s average utterance is even shorter than Nim’s. And it turns out that to complete many of the requests that were put to him Kanzi did not need to understand grammar. For example when Kanzi was asked to “Take the hat to the colony room” — which Kanzi did successfully — all he needed was some sense of “hat” and of “colony room.”14 A hat may be taken to a colony room, but a room cannot be brought to a hat. Successful completion of this instruction suggests an understanding of some vocabulary, but it is not in itself proof of grammatical comprehension. To test grammar what are needed are pairs of reversible commands like: “Dog bites man” and “Man bites dog.” Just knowing those three words — man, bites, and dog — is not enough to comprehend the difference between these two statements. For that difference to be understood grammar is crucial.

Of the 660 commands that Kanzi was given, a mere 21 formed pairs of the “man bites dog” “dog bites man” variety that constitute a critical test of grammatical comprehension. Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues reported that Kanzi responded accurately to 12 of these 21 pairs — a modest 57% correct. On closer inspection, however, it became clear to me that their method of coding Kanzi’s responses was unreasonably generous. To take one example: They commanded Kanzi, “Pour the juice in the egg.” Kanzi proceeded to pick up the bowl with the egg in it, sniff it, and shake it. They repeated the command three times — each time changing the wording slightly — before Kanzi did what they asked him to. They nonetheless scored his response as correct. When they asked Kanzi to “Pour some water on the raisins,” he held a jug of water over a lettuce. This was coded as correct. Kanzi’s first reaction to the request to pour milk into water was to stick a tomato in the water. When asked to chase Liz he remained seated; when asked again he touched Liz’s leg and she chased him. All of these were scored correct. When Kanzi was given the two commands, “Make the [toy] doggie bite the [toy] snake” and “Make the snake bite the doggie,” in both cases the snake ended up in the dog’s mouth but both responses were coded as correct. Re-scored to exclude these false positives, Kanzi achieves less than 30% correct."

Similarly, I've looked at the studies of Koko, and while she certainly does use ASL, she requires her handler to translate what she really means. If she truly understood language, anyone who understood ASL should be able to freely communicate with her.

Did you hear about Kanzi

Kanzi the bonobo can recognize several hundred words. He can communicate in complex ways using sign language, even ordering dinner or arguing with his trainer. , he can order dinner, and he might even be able to physically speak in English.

Ape Bites Human’s Finger Off, Then LITERALLY Apologizes

He told his handler to bite a guy who upset him. The trainer said no. Bonzi said, "if you don't I'll bite you". The trainer said I'm not going to bite the man. So Bonzi bit his fingers off. For months Bonzi wanted to see the trainer but the trainer insisted that he apologize. Bonzi told the others he would not apologize but he wanted to see him. He didn't feel he was wrong. He warned him. So months went by and finally Bonzi told the other handlers he was ready to apologize. The reunion was very emotional.

This is pretty deep conversation coming from a bonobo don't you think? What more do you want? If we can understand them and they use, that's communication.

might even be able to physically speak in English.

No, I don't think that's a particularly deep conversation, especially not seeing the actual symbols used. I can't tell what Kanzi actually indicated and what was interpolated. No real use of grammar is required, on the words "I," "man," and "bite."

I find it interesting how you didn't address the criticisms of Kanzi's abilities. From what I have read, in all cases of ape-human language studies, there is a great deal of "interpretation" on the part of the study team. I am not aware of any significant communication between an ape and a human who has had no previous contact with the ape. If I or anyone off the street could walk in a successfully communicate with Kanzi or if anyone who knew ASL could communicate with Koko...one-on-one without anyone else present, then I might change my mind. I am not aware of any such attempts, though, so it is not clear that these communications much more sophisticated than Hans, the mathematical horse.

Maybe in a couple or dozen or couple hundred generations.

 

[Unkotare]

And you're wrong.

Just because you, a human, can't understand their language does not mean they don't have a language. Whales have a language, monkeys use sign language, porpoises. Might even say Dogs have writing, in the form of their urine.

No. I've told you, there is a difference between communicating and using language. You are mistaken.

Of course there is a difference between their language ...

"They" don't use language, humans do.

I disagree.......

I have provided information for those interested in actually learning about the subject.

 

[Unkotare]

No. I've told you, there is a difference between communicating and using language. You are mistaken.

Of course there is a difference between their language ...

"They" don't use language, humans do.

.

"They" don't use language, humans do.

And most importantly, where other species have fixed, limited sets of messages they can convey, humans have an unbounded range of things that can be expressed in language.


there is not a sentence in your link that isn't contradictorly reimposed to satisfy their conclusion as the above to their distinction between the two communication and language, cooking the books is a poor excuse for an answer.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course there is a difference between their language ...

"They" don't use language, humans do.

.

"They" don't use language, humans do.

And most importantly, where other species have fixed, limited sets of messages they can convey, humans have an unbounded range of things that can be expressed in language.


there is not a sentence in your link that isn't contradictorly reimposed to satisfy their conclusion as the above to their distinction between the two communication and language, cooking the books is a poor excuse for an answer.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

Agree to disagree

 

[Unkotare]

"They" don't use language, humans do.

.

"They" don't use language, humans do.

And most importantly, where other species have fixed, limited sets of messages they can convey, humans have an unbounded range of things that can be expressed in language.


there is not a sentence in your link that isn't contradictorly reimposed to satisfy their conclusion as the above to their distinction between the two communication and language, cooking the books is a poor excuse for an answer.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

Agree to disagree

No. You are wrong. Linguistics is a science, not some ignorant dope's feelings.

 

[Slash]

If man evolved from the monkey, then why are monkeys not still evolving?

Where's the monkey who is smarter than the other monkeys, who's trying to evolve into a man?

Why don't we see monkeys doing anything intelligent, like discovering fire, or inventing the wheel, or burying their dead with ceremonial ritual?

Has the evolutionary process stopped cold?

I'd say no.

Remember, anatomical humans are 200,000 years old. Humans with behavioral modernity are only 50,000 years old. 150,000 years where we were physically human but not capable of abstract thought, planning, trade, cooperative labor, body decoration, control and use of fire. That's a LONG time when considering we've only really been studying monkey behavior for around 50 years.

And likewise as we can see how humans evolved quicker than other's in our genus, we see similar differences in other hominids as they've evolved.

There are monkeys smarter than other monkeys. It's just like dogs. Not all dogs evolution patterns went the same way as the wolf. And you have ones that evolved further than others so far when it comes to physical and intellectual traits.

Finally, for evolution, usually you have a change in habitat that requires it for survival. There's a lot of missing information but one popular theory on humans is as the hunter/gatherer in group option for survival was what they were best at, they developed more keen social structures to improve that and got us where we are today. Whereas a monkey in current environments doesn't need to develop that skill for survival.

 

[sealybobo]

.

And most importantly, where other species have fixed, limited sets of messages they can convey, humans have an unbounded range of things that can be expressed in language.


there is not a sentence in your link that isn't contradictorly reimposed to satisfy their conclusion as the above to their distinction between the two communication and language, cooking the books is a poor excuse for an answer.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

Agree to disagree

No. You are wrong. Linguistics is a science, not some ignorant dope's feelings.

Right and the jury is still out as far as the science goes. So I don't care that you concluded your findings. You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

.

If you don't understand what you read in the links, that's your shortcoming.

if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

Agree to disagree

No. You are wrong. Linguistics is a science, not some ignorant dope's feelings.

Right and the jury is still out as far as the science goes. .......

Science is never settled, but linguists understand that animals do not use language; humans do.

 

[sealybobo]

.
if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

Agree to disagree

No. You are wrong. Linguistics is a science, not some ignorant dope's feelings.

Right and the jury is still out as far as the science goes. .......

Science is never settled, but linguists understand that animals do not use language; humans do.

I bet I'm reminding you of Anthony Crispino from SNL

Weekend Update: Anthony Crispino

 

[BreezeWood]

.
that must be it, communication and language are not interrelated and reciprocal for human beings.

 

[hobelim]

.
that must be it, communication and language are not interrelated and reciprocal for human beings.

yes, theres a lot of language being used but very little if any communication.

some people post thousands of words that can be summed up with a simple "out to lunch".

 

[sealybobo]

.
if you are unable to defend your statement without defending theirs then why provide the link ...

It has been explained many times now that simple communication does equate to language use.

Agree to disagree

No. You are wrong. Linguistics is a science, not some ignorant dope's feelings.

Right and the jury is still out as far as the science goes. .......

Science is never settled, but linguists understand that animals do not use language; humans do.

Some of Anthony Crispino's badly reported news include:

• Incorrectly stated that "Arkansas Governor Huckleberry Hound" was unhappy that "she made a baby out of dreadlocks," referring to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee expressing dissent over her having a baby out of wedlock from Natalie Portman's Oscar win for her role in Black Swan. He further mistook her film Black Swan for "Black Tron," referring to the 2010 film Tron: Legacy, starring "Todd Bridges," mistaken for actor Jeff Bridges.
• Incorrectly shouted "We did it! We finally killed Oksana Baiul! UFO! UFO! UFO!" from Osama bin Laden's death when intending to cheer the acronym for United States of America (USA).
• Saying that football player Brett Favre is retarded, instead of retired, and insiting that Favre goes back and forth from being retarded, to not being retarded, then later points out "...if he's not retarded, then why'd he take a picture of his ding-a-ling?."
• Mistakenly says "he finally divorced Ellen DeGeneres (Elin Nordegren)....that was never going to work, 'cause, you know, she's Lebanese (lesbian)" from Tiger Woods' divorce.
• Incorrectly states Prince will.i.am (Prince William) married Kate Gosselin (Kate Middleton) from the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton in 2011. He then says "that's why everybody was so upset that he didn't invite Fergie."
• Claims that the Protestants (protesters) are trying to occupy Walgreens (Wall Street) because they want 99% off from Occupy Wall Street.

 

[sealybobo]

If man evolved from the monkey, then why are monkeys not still evolving?

Where's the monkey who is smarter than the other monkeys, who's trying to evolve into a man?

Why don't we see monkeys doing anything intelligent, like discovering fire, or inventing the wheel, or burying their dead with ceremonial ritual?

Has the evolutionary process stopped cold?

Do you live in Turkey?

In Turkey, Schools Will Stop Teaching Evolution This Fall

You should move there.

 

[ChrisL]

 

[Dragonlady]

Humans are evolving now. Monkeys are probably also evolving. Evolution takes places over thousands of years. For example, humans are larger than they used to be. Go to an ancient site and see the size of doorways, beds, clothing, etc. Humans are getting larger, physically.

Humans are getting larger because there's more meat in their diet. Go to a country where they still eat mostly corn and beans (Mexico) and you will see how small the people are, especially the Indian women.

Then why are southern Italians short?, or Asians?

 

[Unkotare]

Humans are evolving now. Monkeys are probably also evolving. Evolution takes places over thousands of years. For example, humans are larger than they used to be. Go to an ancient site and see the size of doorways, beds, clothing, etc. Humans are getting larger, physically.

Humans are getting larger because there's more meat in their diet. Go to a country where they still eat mostly corn and beans (Mexico) and you will see how small the people are, especially the Indian women.

Then why are southern Italians short?, or Asians?

Genetic diversity plays a large role. Hybridization vs inbreeding and all that.

 

[BreezeWood]

Then why are southern Italians short?, or Asians?

it is a conscious decision that is relayed to their collective genome by the living specimens.