3 ms·
Probably not to you explaining the idea, but to Chomskys ideas that have not been panning out well lately. Genetically is seems it's very unlikely there is a s
by pixl97 13d ago
Probably not to you explaining the idea, but to Chomskys ideas that have not been panning out well lately.
Genetically is seems it's very unlikely there is a single gene spot that explains human language but a confluence of different factors feeding back into one another in linage we do not have genetic access to at this time. We've done a bit of gene testing around this now, and single gene flips aren't near enough. I think the best analogy would be like playing a video game where you have to flip a number of switched to the correct position to get the system to work together.
- suddenlybananas 13d agoAgain, I don't think you understand the substance of the claim. Have you read the book? Mutations don't need to be single gene flips and I don't understand why you think Chomsky thinks that. He compares it to the evolution of the first photorecepetive cell, e.g. a qualitative jump, but that the mechanism is likely quite simple in order for that qualitative jump to be possible. People really do flagrantly misrepresent his claims.