Animals can not talk to humans in human speech.

"Saying animals cannot talk to humans in human speech"

There are many things disappointing about this reply.  Let me just go right to the throat-

Stathei and Dooface, I thought humans ARE animals.  Isn't that what evolution tells us?

"Of course humans are animals (what else - vegetables? Minerals?), but when one asks the question "is it absurd to believe in talking animals?", one assumes you are talking about animals other than humans, since believing in talking humans is so obviously not absurd."

But that begs the question.  You are inventing an arbitrary distinction between animals and humans even though according to you, humans are also animals.  Thus your constant little digs about 'believing in talking animals' actually is hypocritical, since actually, YOU believe in talking animals.

The problem with your 'one assumes' argument is that people who really discuss the merits of positions do not make such assumptions.  If we are supposed to read your mind as you try to insult us to make sure we get the insult right, you'll have to do a better job.

So, before I go on to the next step in THIS argument, I would like to hear if you are brave enough to say- now that we've sifted the unspoken assumption out- that you believe in talking animals.

Do you?

"You made this thread just to get this point out there? Wow, that is pretty weak."

Don't worry.  I haven't yet got to the point I want to make.

"Yes, humans are animals."

And that means you believe that animals can talk, right?

"Gorillas can be taught to communicate with humans, but this doesnt mean that a rat would be able to learn sign language, just because it is also an "animal"!"

Of course, that's not quite relevant.  Let's run with your Gorilla example, then.  The fact that gorillas can be taught to communicate with humans should at least make you open to considering the possibility that 'animals' might be able to communicate with humans, especially since humans are animals themselves.

"The complexity of their communication is determined by the intelligence of that partcicular animal."

Is that a law or just an observation?  

"That being said, for an animal to communicate with a human via speech"

I don't remember specifying 'via speech.'

"(actually have a conversation)"

I don't remember specifying that, either.

"The intelligence to do so (possibly dolphins, or apes could meet this requirement for basic speech, similiar to a toddler.)

The Vocal Ability - (Birds are pretty much the only ones that can mock our speech)"

In your list now, we have dolphins, apes, and birds, that you agree could possibly communicate with humans.  We could add chimps to that, and according to Peter Sanger, we could add dogs.  He would say, at least, that a dog could express consent to having sex with a human, and of course from an evolutionary POV, sexual consent would be the most important level of communication between animals.  But we don't need to go there.

So, you now agree that animals can talk (humans), and some non-human animals can be taught to talk with humans, too.  Right?

"No, I beleive that humans can talk. Once again, you cannot attribute an ability to all animals based on the fact that ONE can do it."

On the other hand, if one can do it, it should be an obvious possibility that more could do it.  Right?

"Yes, some of the VERY intelligent animals can be taught to COMMUNICATE on a very basic level."

Well, they can communicate with themselves pretty well, don't you think?  How is it that you decide that it takes VERY intelligent animals to be taught to COMMUNICATE when they can communicate with EACH OTHER just fine?  Furthermore, I wonder about this idea of intelligence you are running with.  

If an ape, a dolphin, a chimp, and a bird, can all be taught to communicate with us, and we presume that their failure to do so completely or only basically represents some sort of lower intelligence than us, shouldn't it follow then that we- as the presumed higher intelligent animal, should be ablt to be taught how to communicate with THEM.

Are you aware of any human that can 'talk' in the language of the ape, dolphin, bird, etc?  Surely our inability to do so would seem to indicate that we are actually of lesser intelligence then them, since they are able to do what we ourselves cannot do.

"Mostly an observation, but one that would be widely accepted."

Well that's exactly right.   Its an observation.  However, see my point above about animals communicating with each other.  They may have different mechanisms and purposes of communicating with each other, but they seem to do alright.  Some of them can communicate with us in our own language systems, but we cannot do the same for them.

More importantly, given 4.5 billion years of evolution, and at least one instance of a species learning to communicate in our (allegedly) advanced way, surely you should admit that that same 4.5 billion years could have allowed other species to do the same- even, perhaps- just possibly- in our own tongue.  

That is possible, right?  Your argument otherwise has more to do with what has been observed more than it does with any physical principle or law, doesn't it?  

"You don't have to, your Bible does. And since I am assuming this is what you are basing your arguement on, so am I."

But its not, so you can step off.

"Birds merely mimic sounds, but have no understanding of the sounds."

I have heard that some do.  However, you are probably being imprecise again.  Bird can understand their OWN sounds just fine.  Perhaps they think we are the ones speaking in gibberish.  
"
Nope, nice try. A very select few can COMMUNICATE. Not one of them outside of humans can have a converstaion with speech."

It sounds to me like you are holding a very anthro-centric view here.  It sounds like 'specism' to me.  Are you a speciest?  YOU HOMO-SPECIST!

"say: To utter aloud; pronounce"

Did you say this:

"Yes, some of the VERY intelligent animals can be taught to COMMUNICATE on a very basic level."

Weren't you the one to say that?

"This is idiotic. Just because ONE animal can do something doesn't mena that ANY others can."

All I'm asking you to do is admit that it is both a physical and a logical possibility.  If you admit that one animal can it must be POSSIBLE that others can.  I'm not by anymeans saying that they MUST be able to.  Are you saying that it is impossible for other animals to utilize communication systems?

"Compared to humans.. Are you going to dispute the fact that we are the most intelligent beings on the planet?"

I'm just pointing out a critical flaw in your argument.  It seems strange to me that less intelligent beings could learn to communicate with us in OUR language system, but we, the alleged higher intellligent beings, cannot learn to communicate with them in THEIR language system.

Perhaps dogs just pretend to be stupid because they know we'd probably declare war on them if they challenged our special spot as a 'higher being.'  As we cannot communicate with them in their language, perhaps they discuss higher level material all the time, and we just don't know it.  Maybe they are just happy chasing sticks and leave the destruction of the globe and each other to us.

"You're ignoring the part about those animals not having the vocal ability to create the sounds."

You are ignoring the reality that not all communication takes place via sound.  Your own example of apes using sign language should be enough to show that.  

"Yes, there are animal calls that can mimic the sounds of animals."

That is a good try, but I already anticipated that.  I didn't ask if we could use tools or instruments to 'mimic.'  After all, that's only making humans like birds, whom you said could only 'mimic.'  My point was whether or not we could go deeper and actually communicate with them in their lesser complex system.

Again, we have this irony where you want to argue that we are the higher species, but we cannot parse the allegedly lesser complex language system of other animals, while the allegedly lower intelligence animals can be taught to parse OUR allegedly MORE complex language system.

Something doesn't add up there.

"Why would you assume that? That is like saying "well you'd think after 4.5 billion years, we'd have telepathy and flight"."

Well, we do have flight.  I would assume that based on the...what did Stathei say?  "since believing in talking humans is so obviously not absurd"

Humans are animals, obviously humans can talk, humans are animals, humans and animals are both alleged to be products of evolution, therefore if its possible human animals can talk (and we know it to be actual, since we do it) then it should be possible for other kinds of animals to talk, though perhaps we haven't observed it yet, or perhaps we just didn't understand them.

You should agree its possible, which admitting that human animals can talk demands.

"So you are arguaing that humans can talk based on personal experience? Are you typing this from a padded room?"

Boy, I didn't know you had to be crazy to argue that humans can talk, regardless of whether I know this from personal experience or not.

"Sure, why not? Are the apes going to be upset? Do they think that we put them in cages because we are worshipping them?"

But specism is not justified in an evolutionary point of view.  We have no special place.  Stathei said exactly that in another place.  We are not important.  We are not unique.  We are just animals like the rest of them.

"say: To utter aloud; pronounce"

Did you say this:

"Yes, some of the VERY intelligent animals can be taught to COMMUNICATE on a very basic level."

Weren't you the one to say that?

"I sure was.. Point? Communicate can mean any way to transfer information. I am specifically referring to speech, since this is what the word "say" implies."

But you just did admit that you SAID the comment I referenced, but you did not utter it aloud or pronounce it.  When I asked if you did 'say' something you said yes, even though actually you 'transferred information' in a non-audible way.  This shows that even you don't make a practical distinction.  The common usage of the word 'say' could mean any transfer of communication, whether it is spoken aloud (which you first tried to trumpet), or typed to me (which you admitted fit into the category of 'saying').  Perhaps there are other ways to 'say' things, too, without necessarily requiring human speech?

grrrrrrrrrrr roooowf roooowf  *chirp* 'baaauwauk!'

Translation:  We're almost there.    

Sorry, you both used the word "say" wrong. None of us are saying anything here. We are all writing.

Humans can understand the "language" of other animals if they spend any amount of time with them. Most animals have a fairly simple language that is easy to figure out. For example, I usually had a pretty good idea of what my cats were saying to me. They had distinctive meows for "Feed me," "Let's play," "Leave me alone," "Help," "Are you okay?" (I'm not joking); not to mention an array of non-verbal communication. All cats have that look that means, roughly, "Get that finger out of my face or you're gonna lose it." The point of all this is that I, as the more intelligent species, could understand tham a lot better than they could understand me. They understand us to a limited degree, they know tones of voice and actions, but they can not understand our language and they can not use our language. We can also use their language, to a limited extent. When we meow it is probably meaningless, but try hissing at a cat. It stops and pays attention. You are using it's language when you hiss.

Ragnar, I was being somewhat pedantic on the 'say' thing.  My point was that its common usage to use the word 'say' for lots of kinds of communication, and there isn't any reason to at least keep it as a possibility that such usage was common not only in our own era.

Your argument about the cat fails, though.  I know what you're saying,<----  but you wouldn't let the logic work backwards, which you should.  An example that sprung to mind would be if a lion roared.  Like you hissing at your cat makes the cat 'stop and pay attention,' a lion roaring will achieve the same affect for you.  Else, make you run for your life.  Either way, its communicated, and in neither case would we imagine that this is communication in the sense we are debating, nor would we infer from it that the lion is exhibiting higher intelligence by finding a way to speak in a way we understand.

So on the one hand in this argument, it is specifically being condemned roundly that 'animals' (we had to work to get humans included in that category) can communicate using our language, even though we grant mimicry, some sign language perhaps, or Peter Sanger's consenting dog.  On the other hand, you have people communicating back to the animals using mimicry, some inflection perhaps (pavlov's dog, anyone?), etc, and thinking that that qualifies.

In order to be consistent, you've got to keep it apples and apples.  You can't demand as Stathei and Dooface are doing that only human speech counts as 'talking' if we are working animal to human, but then allow human attempts that are still only mimicry to count as 'talking' working human to animal.

So that brings us back to my point that if we are indeed the more intelligent species, then we should be able to decode these lower language systems, master them ourselves, and do the Dr. Doolittle.

My four year old still speaks some gibberish now and then, but with some effort I can figure it out and I could- if I wanted- use his words to communicate with him.  I don't, because I want him to learn how to speak properly, but I could.  That would be me 'descending' to his level.   I'm not mimicing him- I'm conversing.  But can we descend to the level of animals who allegedly have even less complex language systems then a four year old human boy?