>> Let's perform a Foleyesque thought experiment. Let's say there was a
>> brain region that is used in modern human beings for motor skills
>> such as driving, playing tennis or typing on the computer. If we
>> found a similar structure in homo habilis, would this mean that they
>> had all of the advances of modern technology? No one would argue
>> that this was the case. Rather, they would argue that the same
>> structure was used for different purposes.
So far, so good.
>> So unless we are prepared to believe that homo habilis had syntax and
>> grammar, we should conclude that these structures were used for
>> something else.
In the case of tennis and driving, we would have excellent reason to
assume the (hypothetical) regions were used for something else, given
how hard it is to construct tennis racquets and cars with stone tools.
In the case of Broca's region, we don't have any reason to believe that
early hominids did not speak, so it's a reasonable inference that
Broca's region had the same purpose in their brains that it does in
ours. Yet again, I point out that is not *proof* that they could speak,
merely supporting evidence.
>> After all, concluding that homo habilis had essentially modern
>> language capabilities on the basis of these cranial endocasts is
>> stretching it just a little, don't you think?
And who has ever said that? I think every reference I've seen on the
subject has been of the opinion that if habilis had language, it was
rudimentary compared to ours.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder