30,000+ hours using more computing power than the fastest computer on the planet to get the a 3 year olds grasp of language is hardly 'fast'.

PS: Language acquisition starts before birth, and continues 24/7 after that until we 'learn' it.

"Pinker explains that a universal grammar represents specific structures in the human brain that recognize the general rules of other humans' speech, such as whether the local language places adjectives before or after nouns, and begin a specialized and very rapid learning process not explainable as reasoning from first principles or pure logic. This learning machinery exists only during a specific critical period of childhood and is then disassembled for thrift, freeing resources in an energy-hungry brain."

Having read the book, his arguments are far more convincing than your assertions.

However, unlike his arguments I limited myself to using actual facts.

If you just want a compelling argument: Biology is a vary important component in the creation and evolution of language, because the fine motor control required to say "linguistic" vs "mommy" or "stop" has a lot to do with how languages are learned and evolve. As baby's practice how to say thing babble converts to simple words but in doing so there are pattern as to which sounds are easier to produce and therefore enable them to probe their environment by reproducing. This paralls the evolution of language where the most important and simplist ideas where the first to be communicated and therefore take up the 'root' address space in the language with more complex words and ideas like 'chemist' being tacked on over time.

PS: Sure, it sounds great. But how many assumptions am I stringing together in just those few sentences.

I have read most of the language instinct. I get why people find it compelling, but that has little to do with being accurate. My point was his style tends to be convincing vs. his actual evidence being compelling.

PS: Think of it like this A -> B, B -> C therefore A -> C is all well in good most of the time. A -> B .... Y -> Z therefore A -> Z only really works with math, build a chain that long and it's unlikely for all those steps to be accurate.

That seems overly rude. It's also a ridiculous appeal to authority at the same time.

If I where to attack the book I could say something like: "In chapter 2 'Chatterboxes' he states humans are the only animal that uses language which is complex issue by it's self. He goes further and says every group of humans in remote areas we encountered have had complex language. He then runs with that line of reasoning. However this ignores not just other animals that use simple forms of language but human ancestors that where close to us anatomically and probably also used language. If homo sapiens's ancestors also used language then you would expect the earliest humans to also use language therefore language would spread from it's origins to all those remote areas vs. being created from scratch in those remote areas."

Now, I could get 10 PHD's to say the same thing and use quotes etc, but what's important is the accuracy of the statement not who says it. http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/

Are you mentally handicapped, what part of "Goodbye" was unclear to you? And no, it's not an argument from authority, I specifically headed off that critique when I said I wasn't making any fucking argument. Learn to read.

Saying you found his argument convincing is in no way important either it's a factual statement it it's not, what you believe is meaningless. Suggesting it matters in any way who made the argument is an appeal to authority even if your next sentience says it's not. Reality does not care what you think it just is.

PS: You clearly lack the courage of your convictions to actually leave an argument when you say 'Goodbye'. However, I realize trying to reason with a fool is a waste of time, so best of luck and 'Goodbye'.