Evolution of Language (General)

by David Turell , Monday, October 28, 2019, 14:22 (1642 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Sadly we have now digressed from the evolution of language to the evolution of the brain, but I will assume that you now accept the unlikelihood of the claim that language “lay fallow” for 100,000 years, and language evolved, just as physical organs evolved, in response to new demands.

Language appeared only in the last stage of brain evolution. Learning to use it took time and simple sounds came first without real grammatical organization which slowly developed. i agree.

DAVID: What demands do you think were present? They were in pure survival mode, and earlier forms could only use the brain they were given to solve those immediate problems. You are forgetting that a larger brain needs a larger skull by 200 cc. Design required for expansion.

dhw: We have covered this before, but there's no harm in repeating the argument. Earlier you mentioned tools as possible examples of the authors’ “indirect proxy evidence furnished principally by archaeology”. Then imagine a smaller-brained pre-sapiens out hunting. In order to kill his prey with a sharpened piece of stone, he has to get close up, and this is dangerous, so he suddenly has an idea (formulated in his own “language”, of course): “Maybe me can throw sharp thing from distance.” And so he invents the spear – but as we know from our modern studies, any new task requires adjustments within the brain, and in this case there are unprecedented concepts to be put into practice: attaching the sharpened stone to a shaft, getting the weapon properly balanced, learning to throw with accuracy etc. The implementation of the concept is what expands the brain – and this same process continues for thousands of years until the brain can expand no more (H. sapiens), and then complexification takes over. In brief, the brain does not expand until new concepts demand expansion.

DAVID: Same argument: the brain expansion jumped 200 cc with each new fossil development in the homo line, Complexification in the only brain we know caused shrinkage!

dhw: I have suggested that each jump was due to new demands which exceeded the capacity of the existing brains, and I have explained that complexification would have taken over completely when the brain had reached optimum size, and it proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk. What is it that you object to?

The same opposite point. Bigger brain first, then use of it learned over time.

dhw: And of course the skull must expand once the brain demands more space. This is how cell communities work together – whether your God preprogrammed them to do so, or (theistic version) gave them the autonomous ability to do so (remember what you said: “from the outside of cells one cannot tell primary decision making from automatic programmed responses”). Is this not a more logical progression than the brain expanding for no particular reason (chance mutations) or your God adding a bunch of extra cells to enable my guy to receive His (God’s) brilliant idea?

DAVID: Good idea! You have brain cell committees telling skull bone cell committees what to do in unison. Just like the birth problems of bigger brains by 200 cc, requiring the committee cells of the father, the mother and the baby to cooperate. Only a designer in full control, and you have no answer.

dhw: Of course they must all work in unison, as above and regardless of whether your God preprogrammed or dabbled them, or gave them the ability to organize themselves! I haven’t read James Tour, but I like what you say about him: “Read James Tour and recognize the extreme difficulty of creating something new in organic chemistry, a job cells do easily all the time.” I am quite prepared to acknowledge the possibility that your God designed these innovative, intelligent cells, but as always I acknowledge that this is an unproven theory, as is your own.

We are only arguing theory. Absolute proof is not available.