Jim Bell wrote:
>>Glenn writes:
<< 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).>>
Er, no. Read carefully what Mr. Foley wrote. You will not find such a
conclusion. [Key terms: "Doesn't prove it" and "should not be accepted as a
done deal" and "does not necessarily equate to a limited language
capability"]. <<
Well, I see this in what our resident fossil man expert said.
Jim Foley wrote:
>>Given the large brain size of Neandertals and their many modern
behaviours, it seems almost certain (to me at least) that their speech
capability must have been *far* closer to ours than to any ape. We just
don't have the evidence to state dogmatically whether they spoke as well
as us, or less well; both options are plausible. Similarly, although I
tend to agree with Glenn that early hominids (habilis, erectus) probably
had some speech capability, it's impossible to do more than guess how
much exactly.<<
I thought you said you agreed with Jim Foley? Doesn't look to me like you
agree with Jim Foley! :-)
glenn