Evolution: a different view (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, May 07, 2015, 21:55 (3487 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Can you please point me to just one writer who interprets exaptations in terms of God's pre-planning?
DAVID: Tattersall discusses it in suggestive terms, not as forcefully as I do.-Does ANYONE discuss it as forcefully as you do?-Dhw: ...if you define language as signs, sounds, movements etc. used as means of communication, your whole theory becomes highly problematical. All living creatures have language, right down to bacteria, and you have no idea what sort of sounds were used for communication when the changes took place in the larynx, palate and uvula.
DAVID: Not problematical. If you read McCrone's book, you would understand the logic of my statements. The anatomic adaptations for modern speech came long before language of any simple kind involving words, not grunts, evolved.-How do you know? How can McCrone prove that the anatomic adaptations were not used? Was he around (hundreds of) thousands of years ago with a tape recorder? -dhw: My point here is that whenever the changes took place, we simply have no idea whether they were or were not used to create more complex sounds to allow greater breadth of communication. Once again, I don't see how you can assume they hung around doing nothing for (hundreds of) thousands of years.
DAVID: I am depending upon the book by McCrone and the fact that Tattersall points this out as exaptation. I'm quoting experts, not me.-I also quote experts on the subject of bacterial intelligence, but that doesn't suit your beliefs. Those experts can at least observe their subjects. If McCrone has convinced you that these changes hung around for (hundreds of) thousands of years doing nothing, surely you can summarize his evidence.
 
dhw:Just where do you draw the line between adaptation, exaptation, and innovation? In fact, is there a line? ...The borderlines between these three categories must inevitably remain blurred.
DAVID: I have written there is confusion in the literature about this concept and these terms, but several authors state that exaptation are both used and unused new parts of organisms.-Please give us proven examples of the unused parts.-DAVID: A long and complex article discussing the confusion, Gould's and Tattersall's approaches, with two types of exaptation:
http://www.wcaanet.org/downloads/dejalu/may_2013/pievani.pdf-My apologies, but I am currently under huge time pressure. and am having difficulty keeping up with these exchanges. I will try to read the article soon, but in the meantime, a brief explanation of the evidence for non-use would be much appreciated.-xxxxxxxxxxx-Tony: So, what evidence is there that these anatomic adaptations for modern speech came long before language of any simple kind? Have we found a human with and one without vocal chords? Do we have some kind of historical record of WHEN language developed?-DAVID: McCrone's book describes the major anatomical changes over the millions of years of human evolution. Modern language ability is thought to be about 50,000 years old. But McC describes how H. erectus might have spoken, based on the fossil record. -I'll leave Tony to argue his own case, which is different from mine. What is all this “thought to be about 50,000 years ago” and “how H. Erectus might have spoken”? Pure speculation. Try this for a theory: half a million years ago (or whatever), changes took place in the larynx, uvula etc. Since these changes are essential to human speech as we know it today, there is every possibility that human speech began half a million years ago. But some folk reckon the tools for speech were left unused for 450,000 years, and the poor little hominids just went on grunting incomprehensible gibberish, which somehow proves God's pre-planning.