"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1154091066.695852.253060@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1154043015.466315.71130@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1153871218.164290.195250@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060724003243.htm

"Based on these findings, the researchers suggest that the
communication centers in the brain of the last common ancestor to
macaques and humans - particularly those centers used for
interpreting species-specific vocalizations - may have been
recruited
during the evolution of language in humans. In the macaque, these

me wonder whether the author of the article might be thinking of a
second
career in politics (grin). Seriously though, suggestion is not
evidence
(although suggest often and long enough and people may start to assume
it
is).

Please don't make the mistake of confusing "evidence" with "proof".
This *is* evidence. It demonstrates yet another reason to accept that
we do indeed have a common ancestry with other primates.

Please don't make the mistake of confusing "suggestion" with "evidence"
or
"proof".

The first definition for evidence in the dictionary on my desk is:
"anything
which provides a basis for believing or disbelieving something".
Personally,
I wouldn't believe something on the basis of "suggestions" (which is the
word used in the article we are discussing), nor do I consider a
suggestion
to be evidence. If someone were to consider a "suggestion" to be evidence
then I would suggest that would be evidence of either flawed logic or an
easily led individual.

Please don't confuse a quotation from a report about a science paper
with the actual science paper. The findings in the science paper
constitute the evidence. Duhh.

Try actually referencing the URL, digest it, comprehend it, before you
pontificate about it.

Try actually reading the thread before you respond, digest it, comprehend
it, before you pontificate about it. I pointed out it was the subject line
of the posting that was misleading. I haven't taken issue with the article.

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:eacut0$8im$1@news04.infoave.net...

In talk.atheism Brian Cryer <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote:

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message

One definition for "suggest" is "to make evident indirectly; intimate or
imply" so yes, this does suggest that evolution is true. It's just not
STRONG or direct evidence and thus the use of the word "suggest."

Assuming you got your definition from answers.com, then the full quote
(definition 3 of 4) is:

"To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply: a silence that
suggested
disapproval."

everything after the colon should be in italics as an example of this
usage - but its difficult to do italics in a plain text medium.

So, "suggest" is not the same as evidence.

Evidence is simply something that supports a claim, idea, theory. It can
either be hard and firm and such that no-one in their right mind could
deny
(seeing an elephant right in front of me taking a huge dump is very hard
evidence that the dung I see is elephant dung) or it can be very indirect
and only "suggestive" of a theory or point the way to a theory or
hypothesis
but needing a lot of other evidence to help support the theory/hypothesis
(hearing an elephant trumpet way off in the distance would suggest that
there's a circus in town and be some slight evidence for it but there's
also
any number of other things that it could have been from.)

I agree with 98% of what you say. I also think your example is a good one.
The point I disagree with is your example of hearing "... an elephant
trumpet way off in the distance would suggest that there's a circus in town
and would be some slight evidence ...".
The trumpet call is itself a fact, and I could take to suggestion there
there were a circus in town (and if I'd seen posters I'd even accept it as
supporting evidence). But if it were taken on its own then it is only
evidence that an elephant call was heard. It is not evidence for a circus
being in town. If I heard it while visiting a zoo then I would assume that
it meant an elephant was near by (but that's not guaranteed because it might
be a recording).

Now, if you want to take "suggestions" as "evidence" that's your call,
but
be aware that such an interpretation is adding something that the authors
did not say.

They used the word "suggest" to show the evidence was not that strong. But
even the definition above (and I did quote the full definition. The part
reading "a silence that suggested disapproval" was simply an example usage
of the word.) uses the phrase "make evident" in it. It just basically says
that a suggestion isn't direct evidence or hard evidence but is more
indirect evidence. There are many forms and levels of evidence and to say
a
suggestion isn't one of them is just as ludicrous as saying a drizzle
isn't rain just because it's not that hard of precipitation.

I agree that the "evidence" isn't strong - although we will just have to
agree to differ as to whether a "suggestion" constitutes evidence.
Have a good weekend.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian