Nicaraguan Sign Language, spontaneously developed by deaf children <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language</a> This was a community; whereas individually isolated children have not developed language independently.<p>A module can be functional, in that it behaves as a module even if not implemented as one (and certainly need not an isomorphism between genes and anatomical or behavioural features).<p>Chomsky argues for theories that make sense; whereas Norvig accepts impenetrable machine learning model as theories. <a href="http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/06/norvig-vs-chomsky-and-the-fight-for-the-future-of-ai" rel="nofollow">http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/06/norvig-vs-chomsky-and-the-f...</a><p>Unfortunately, biology is messy. But I think we should at least <i>try</i> to decompose it into what it is <i>trying</i> to do.
A biological module need not be pointed at to be functional. You can reason about a module given its properties <i>while</i> simultaneously continue to look for what constitutes that module.<p>Chomsky has argued that this module could be standing alone, or it could be something that actively recruits from other mental faculties. There is nothing in his writings that suggest that this module can <i>only</i> be separate one, or that language as a whole must be reduced to one gene. In fact, Chomsky and few others are strong believers that whatever gave rise to language <i>did</i> give rise to a whole set of other mental capabilities, and this is exactly what research into complex tooling is confirming.<p>This article does not contradict the ideas that originated with Chomsky in the slightest, despite some paragraphs claiming otherwise.
<i>The mutation was subtle—only one nucleotide removed from the typical FOXP2 sequence—but the resulting language impairment was substantial.</i><p>I wonder what kind of superpower-like abilities we're just one nucleotide away from.<p>OK, maybe "superpower" is too much. What I mean is this: what if the "normal" version of FOXP2 was the one <i>without</i> the nucleotide? People <i>with</i> that extra nucleotide would be seen as geniuses.
How do nautil.us posts seem to hit the front page so frequently and effectively? I know others have brought it up before....<p>I'm not complaining about the quality of the content, but many of them don't seem like "hacker news". I'm a little suspicious....
The article completely dismisses persistent culture and only searches for a biological capability for language in each individual.<p>The cultural argument contends that complex behavior (including communication) is merely the result of consistent sharing and learning throughout a population over time. Basically, familiarity allows mutual understanding and eventually communication, verbal or otherwise.