On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:09:37 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>There is a report in today's New York Times entitled "New
>findings suggest Neanderthals Had Gift of Speech". It can be found
>at
>http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/sci-human-
speech.html
I was unable to access this page. Perhaps you can post a copy of it
to the Reflector?
GM>The article reports a study of the nerves going to the tongue.
>They studied the hypoglossal canals
The hypoglossal canals are the openings in the skull through which
pass from the spinal column the hypoglossal nerves. The latter
control muscles in the neck, as well as muscles in the tongue:
"The hypoglossal nerves leave the anterior surface of the medulla as a
series of rootlets and pass out of the skull through the hypoglossal
canals of the occipital bone. As their name indicates, they are located
beneath the tongue, where they travel anteriorly in close relationship
with the first cervical spinal nerve (Figure 15.13, Table 15.1). The
hypoglossal nerves consist of motor neurons that supply the intrinsic
and extrinsic muscles of the tongue, as well as some sensory neurons
from proprioceptors. The first three cervical nerves send motor fibers
to some of the muscles of the neck through branches called the ansa
cervicalis, which appear to arise from the hypoglossal nerves."
(Spence A.P., "Basic Human Anatomy," Benjamin/Cummings:
Redwood City CA, Third Edition, 1990, p424)
Because the hypoglossal nerve controls the muscles of the tongue and
neck, its growth in size may be unrelated to speech, at least in the first
instance. It may be a related more to the growth of the large hominid
brain, and the need for extra motor control to neck muscles.
GM>of apes, australopithecines, archaic Homo sapiens, Neanderthal,
>and modern man, and found that by the time one gets to Kabwe
>man, 400 kyr ago, the hypoglossal canal was modern in size.
"Kabwe man" (aka Rhodesia Man) was *African Archaic Homo
sapiens* and may have had no direct connection with Neandertal
man.
"Archaic Forms: Archaic sapiens Early archaics made some advances
toward the sapiens stage. These advances beyond H. erects are
reflected in brain expansion; increased parietal breadth (the basal
portion of the skull is no longer the widest area) and, therefore, the
rear view of the skull is no longer pentagonal; decrease in size of
molars and increase in size of anterior teeth; and general decrease in
cranial and postcranial robusticity. Archaic sapiens are found on the
three continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. In Europe, the well-
known Neandertals are included in this category. (Neandertals are not
found anywhere except Europe and western Asia.) In our discussion,
we shall start with the archaic sapiens of Africa. In Africa, change
toward the sapiens grade can be seen at several sites. One of the best
known is Broken Hill (Kabwe). Found in a shallow Broken Hill mine
shaft, at Kabwe, Zambia, South Africa, were a complete cranium and
other cranial and postcranial material belonging to several
individuals." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
Anthropology," 1991, pp503-504)
Indeed the latest molecular evidence is that Neandertals and Modern
Humans last shared a last common ancestor 550-690 kya:
"Age of the Neandertal/Modern Human mtDNA Ancestor To
estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common
to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we
used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees
of 4-5 million years ago (Takahata et al., 1995) and corrected the
observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same
nucleotide site (Tamura and Nei, 1993). This yielded a date of
550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the
Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the
age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the
same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in
agreement with previous estimates (Cann et al., 1987; Vigilant et al.,
1991). Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the
chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown
magnitude associated with them, they indicate that the age of the
common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human
sequences is about four times greater than that of the common
ancestor of modern human mtDNAs." (Krings M., Stone A., Schmitz
R.W., Krainitski H., Stoneking M. & Paabo S., "Neandertal DNA
Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, Vol. 90, July
11, 1997, p25)
If this early date holds up, then at your figure of 400 kya, this
would make Kabwe (Rhodesian) Man either a possible ancestor of
Modern Humans or of Neandertals, but not both.
GM>While the article does not go into this, one thought which
>occurs to me is that Kabwe was most likely not the first person with
>language.
As you say, this is not what the article says, but "one thought which
occurs to" you! The fact is that there is no good evidence that
Neandertals or any other hominid had a "language" like Modern
Humans have:
"However the hyoid argument works out, however, when you put the
skull-base evidence together with what the archaeological record
suggests about the capacities of the Neanderthals and their
precursors, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that articulate language,
as we recognize it today, is the sole province of fully modern
humans." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail," 1995, p212)
GM>Language may have been gradually different the further
>one goes back. This would take the view that language, the
>usefulness of language, acted to produce strong selection pressure
>on better speakers, thus acting to select for individuals with larger
>hypoglossal canals.
The problem with this "just-so" story is that your line starts with
"apes" and there is no evidence that they have any "language" at
all! If there was any "strong selection pressure" among apes for
"language" then we should expect them to be speaking some sort of
language as well.
GM>I would say that this study strongly supports what I have been
>contending for the past few years, that spiritual mankind has been
>on this planet for a long, long time.
You make this claim by tacitly defining "spiritual" as the lowest
common denominator. On this basis Darwin thought his dog was
"spiritual":
"Perhaps even more disturbing than any particular faults of argument
was Darwin's tendency to resolve all issues at their lowest level. This
was apparent in his discussion of religion. As he had earlier denied
that language was a unique attribute of man, so he was also
constrained to deny that the religious impulse was unique to man. He
conceded that if religion be taken to mean a "belief in unseen or
spiritual agencies," then it would appear to be almost universal among
men. He also conceded that the elements that went into the making of
a religious sense-love, submission, fear, reverence, gratitude-required
at least a moderate development of the intellectual and moral
faculties. Yet he professed to find "some distant approach to this
state of mind" in the love of a dog for his master or of a monkey for
his keeper; and he cited a German professor who held that "a dog
looks on his master as on a god." (Descent of Man", II, p68). Thus,
as he earlier reduced language to the grunts and growls of a dog, he
now contrived to reduce religion to the lick of the dog's tongue and
the wagging of his tail." (Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution," 1996 reprint, p373)
Even an atheist like Bertrand Russell realised the fallacy of this
aspect of evolutionists thinking in trying to blur the distinction
between man and the other animals. On that basis, he pointed out,
it would be hard "to resist an argument in favour of Votes for
Oysters"!:
"Would the Piltdown Man have written Shakespeare's poetry if there
had been anybody to convict him of poaching? A resolute egalitarian
who answers these questions in the affirmative will find himself
forced to regard apes as the equals of human beings. An why stop
with apes? I do not see how he is to resist an argument in favour of
Votes for Oysters. An adherent of evolution should maintain that not
only the doctrine of the equality of all men, but also that of the rights
of man, must be condemned as unbiological since it makes too
emphatic a distinction between men and other animals."
(Russell B., "History of Western Philosophy", George Allen &
Unwin: London, 1961, p698)
As I have pointed out to you many times (but which you just ignore),
the real acid test of "spirituality" is being able to form a relationship
with God:
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only
adham, as being made in His image. The point is emphasized by
repetition. Clearly, as man's story unfolds through subsequent
chapters, one discovers that what makes him different is a quality
called "spirit." Man is unique among all species of life. By "spirit" the
Bible means "aware of God and capable of forming a relationship
with Him." Evidence of man's spiritual dimension would include
divine worship, shown by religious relics, altars, and temples. From
the Bible's perspective, decorating, burial of dead, or use of tools
would not qualify as conclusive evidence of the spirit. Moreover,
nonspirit creatures such as bower birds decorate their nests elephants
bury their dead, and chimpanzees use tools. (Ross H., "The
Fingerprint of God," 1991, pp159-160).
The fact that you don't seem to comprehend this is disturbing.
GM>This study would also weaken support for views which place
>the origin of spiritual man and thus language, at either 40 kyr or
>100 kyr ago. This also weakens the concept that the image of God
>somehow resides in the anatomically modern human form.
Since this is what the Bible explicitly says, (Gn 9:6 - "Whoever sheds
the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of
God has God made man.", by trying to "weaken the concept that the
image of God...resides in the anatomically modern human form", you
are trying to weaken the Bible.
If you deny that Genesis 9:6 refers exclusively to "modern man" then
the consequence of your argument would seem to be that "the image
of God...resides in" not only in "modern man" but also in "apes,
australopithecines, archaic Homo sapiens" and "Neanderthals". On
this basis, if a man kills an "ape" then the man should be
executed for murder!
GM>>Someone who looked quite a bit different from us, 400 kyr
>ago apparently had the nerves for speech.
That in "Kabwe man, 400 kyr ago, the hypoglossal canal was modern
in size" at best only proves that the *potential* for later "speech" in
Homo sapiens was being prepared, assuming that the latter was
ancestral to modern man.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------