Evolution: a different view (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, May 17, 2015, 12:26 (3478 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How do you know that the variety of sounds did not increase as the anatomy changed? Or that the anatomy was not changed by the need our ancestors had for a wider variety of sounds to communicate their ever increasing knowledge? What record do you have of language that was used 150,000 years ago? 200,000 years ago? 500,000 years ago? 
DAVID: No one has such a record, but McCrone has descriptions of how he thinks H h. and H e. spoke. You are right that monkey hoots and howls gave way to some type of slightly more advanced sounds at some point in the process. Again H. sapiens arrived about 250,000 years ago and current theory says more complex language began about 50,000 years ago becoming what we have today. McCrone says that todays' refined language requires the preparation of the prior anatomic changes we now use. If you accept the gaps in time indicated, it makes perfect sense to me, the anatomy came well before the current result we use.-Of course no one has such a record. “Has descriptions of how he thinks...”, “current theory says...” = pure speculation. And of course today's language requires the anatomy we now have. But why should anyone accept the gaps in time indicated, when they are nothing but theory and somebody's opinion? You are quick to reject bacterial intelligence - a theory which is based fairly and squarely on direct observation - but when someone comes up with a theory which you like and which cannot be based on any direct evidence or observation, you don't even question it.
 
dhw: How can you or anyone know that when the vocal structure reached its present state, our ancestors did not use it in precisely the same way that we do, but the sounds they then produced increased in complexity in exactly the same way as the languages we now speak and write have increased in complexity since we were first able to record them?
DAVID: I know you don't have the time to read McCrone's theoretical descriptions, based on his knowledge of the anatomy as it developed, but I have and he makes it seem very logical to me.-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.-DAVID: I still point to the theoretical gaps in time, anatomic changes well before current complex use of speech.-“Theoretical”. Pure speculation. No possibility of evidence. I am reminded of the tirade against “bad science” under “Current science: fraudulent thinking”. (This may be unfair, as I haven't read the book, but I can only comment on what you tell us.)