Evolution: a different view (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, May 08, 2015, 02:06 (3275 days ago) @ dhw

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.
> dhw: If McCrone has convinced you that these changes hung around for (hundreds of) thousands of years doing nothing, surely you can summarize his evidence.-McCrone uses the same evidence as other scholars: I present a group of articles defending the descended larynx:-http://asifg.mycpanel.princeton.edu/publications/pdfs/Ghazanfar&Rendall_Evolutionofvocalproduction.pdf-"The descended larynx One of the most conspicuous differences in vocal anatomy between human and nonhuman primates is the descended position of the larynx in the human vocal tract relative to its position higher in the vocal tract of nonhuman
primates. The result is, effectively, a two-tube vocal tract in humans composed of the oral cavity common to all primates, and an additional enlarged pharyngeal cavity seen only in humans. This two-tube configuration, coupled with an agile tongue and a capacity for rapid mandible and lip movements, allows humans
considerable articulatory latitude when vocalizing."-And another:-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129083762-"The reason the neck started getting longer, Lieberman says, is that the tongue moved down, pulling the larynx lower, requiring more room for it all in the neck. "The first time we see human skulls — fossils — that have everything in place is about 50,000 years ago where the neck is long enough, the mouth is short enough, that they could have had a vocal tract like us," he says."-It is the accepted theory. I could spend hours finding quotes to support me.
> 
> dhw: Please give us proven examples of the unused parts.-I'm sorry but I am quoting accepted wisdom of scholars in print I have presented.
> 
> dhw: 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.-Tattersall, an accepted paleontologist expert states it. I'm only a scientific reader of these folks.
> 
> dhw: 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. -There are scholarly items all over the internet. When you get time, read some about H. erectus and what he might have been able to say. Short bursts of speech, nothing prolonged as our capabilities.-> dhw: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.-Sorry, you need to read the literature. The changes started over 1.5 million years ago and the accepted start for our style of speaking is 50,000 years ago in scholarly articles.