The use of a bow and arrows is also unique to humans (as far as I know) but I don't see that as a compelling argument that humans have an innate, unique and spe

The use of a bow and arrows is also unique to humans (as far as I know) but I don't see that as a compelling argument that humans have an innate, unique and specific bow n' arrow faculty. Neither is the complexity of human language alone an argument for a specific and innate human faculty to support language - no more than the complexity of the human body is enough to support the theory of intelligent design. In fact the whole debate reminds of the intelligent design argument. The theory itself is hardly falsifiable (or at least it keeps getting modified to avoid new found inconvenient facts - compare the original strong claims of a universal grammar with the vagueness of the current version of Chomsky's theory of language). It provides little or no predictive value as a theory; for example, you'd imagine it would explain the patterns of language acquisition in children but it doesn't[1]. And it seems it's difficult to debate the subject without the discussion becoming heated and politically charged. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-c...