No, it is not as weak a form of evidence that you want to believe it is. The
only known function for broca's area is speech. I quite agree that we can
not tell how much speech it allows, but by rejecting the ancient men as human
you are basing a definition of humanity on whether or not certain levels of
speech occur. My wife's Down's syndrome uncle can not speak very well either,
but he is human none the less!!! Is he not human? He has a broca's region
but is very slow in speech. I wish you would answer this but I don't think
you will.
>>In the same way, the bumps and fissures in fossilized crania are "not much
help." It's a speculative read. However, limitation on larynx and pharynx
can RULE OUT function. <<
I note that you totally ignored the data point I provided that modern people
with the larnyx of a Homo Erectus are quite capable of speaking modern
languages. Does this not count at all? I cite it again,
>> "Although some of the earlier sterotyped notions about Neanderthals
now seem to be passe, a controversial idea has been introduced that may
revive them, it has been claimed that Neanderthals could not speak very well.
Philip Lieberman, Edmund S. Crelin, and Dennis H. Klatt (1972) have made
measurements of the neck vertebrae and the base of the skull of the man of La
Chapelle aux Saints and have concluded that Neanderthals were unable to
pronounce a number of vowels and consonants that we can pronounce today.
This does not mean that Neanderthals had no language, but Lieberman et al.
believe that linguistic communication among Neanderthals was considerably
slower and less efficeint than among ourselves.
"Criticism of the findings of Lieberman and his associates has come from
two articles in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, in which the
following points re made: (1) the brains of Neanderthals were at least as
large as those of modern humans; (2) the Sylvian fissures of the brain, as
seen in the endocranial cast of the skull of La Chapelle aux Saints, resemble
those of modern humans, implying that speech was present, (3) MODERN ADULTS
WHO HAVE FEATURES LIKE THOSE DESCRIBED BY lIEBERMAN ET AL., SUCH AS
PROGNATHISM AND FLATTENING OF THE BASE OF THE SKULL ARE QUITE ABLE TO SPEAK
COMPLEX MODERN LANGUAGES; and (4) Lieberman and his associates have
reconstructed the hyoid bone of the La Chapelle aux Saints individual in a
position TOO HIGH TO PERMIT SWALLOWING, not taking into account the influence
of upright posture and bipedalism on the position of the larnyx."~Victor
Barnouw, An Introduction to Anthropology: Physical Antrhopology and
Archaeology, Vol. 1, (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1982) p. 151
Two things, first, even Lieberman believes Neanderthal had speech, just poor
speech. So what? My cat does not even engage in slow speech!!!!! Speech is
a HUMAN trait, even slow speech. The reasons for your rejection of
Neanderthal from the human race would also exclude my
wife's uncle!
Secondly, the larnyx issue does not apply to Homo erectus. I quote again,
Phillip Tobias studied the larynx of various fossil men. Fagan comments:
"He was unable to study the base of Homo habilis crania as they are
fragmentary, but Homo erectus had a larynx with an equivalent position to
that of an 8-year-old modern child. He beleives that it was only after
300,000 years ago, with the appearance of archaic Homo sapiens, that the
larynx assumed its modern position, giving at least mechanical potential for
the full range of speech sounds used today."~Brian M. Fagan, The Journey From
Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p. 87
8-year old children have broca's area and speak just fine. This is no piece
of weak evidence for speech here. But as I noted yesterday, your theology
seems to require that anything which contradicts it is automatically to be
excluded and rejected. I think your entire theological position must depend
on the concept that mankind was created only a few thousand years ago. And to
acknowledge speech in these hominids would implicitly acknowledge their
humanity.
Jim wrote:
>>Thus, the conclusion of Dr. Tattersall, who is a known heavyweight in the
paleontological world, and thus deserves to be cited whenever he is "on
point," as he is here.<<
I agree with you Jim. Those I cited, Barnouw, Fagan, Schick and Toth are
considered lightweights. That is why And who exactly is it that determines
that Tattersall is "on point" here anyway? You?
Jim wrote:
>>I agree with Jim Foley's "middle position":<<
Jim Foley wrote:
>> Broca's region is indicative
that early hominids had some form of speech, but it certainly doesn't
prove it, or give us much idea of how good their speech was. Similarly,
the studies showing that Neandertals may have been able to make a
limited range of sounds are controversial, and should not be accepted as
a done deal. Even if they are correct, a more limited range of sound
production does not necessarily equate to a limited language capability<<
O.K. Then you acknowledge that fossil man engaged in speech even if slow and
cumbersome. I will accept that. If he spoke, then he must have been human,
and thus a descendant of Adam (unless you now believe that fossil man evolved
into Adam).
glenn