Evolution: a different view (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 19, 2015, 01:02 (3264 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The observations of anatomical changes may be based upon fossil records, but statements about how those changes were used are pure speculation. Of course the fossils preceded MODERN spoken language by millions of years - you might as well say million-year-old fossils preceded you and me by a million years. But we don't know what language was spoken millions of years ago.
> 
> dhw: I am pleased that you are now repeatedly using the words “theory” and “theoretical”. I am in no position to discuss how or when or how quickly the anatomy developed, but you know as well as I do that NOBODY can tell us what sort of language that anatomy was used for.-Of course not, but can you deny that it was very primitive?
> 
> DAVID: McCrone's descriptions talk about handling bursts of air and how a few words could have been produced. He is the expert, I'm not, and I'm simply reporting his discussion. Since I have no other, I accept it as realistic.
> 
> dhw: Nobody can possibly be an expert on what languages were spoken 100,000 years ago, let alone millions of years ago. Perhaps you accept it because you would like to see it as evidence of pre-planning, just as some atheists accept multiverse theories because they help the atheist cause. Pots and kettles.-Do you imply that there was a Will S. among the H. erectus folks? Simple language, of course, and from the scientific observation that their anatomy only allowed a few words at a time. Full anatomy for speech appeared only 250,000 years ago., Neanderthals did not have a fully formed palate arch and a weaker chin than we have. They appeared somewhat before us, and I'm sure had language and speech, but it looks as if not at our level of development,