Freethought & Rationalism Archive

You Betcha · 01-07-2002, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
"Laryngeal" is an adjective meaning "relating to the larynx."

In linguistics it is a noun refering to a class of sounds found in some languages. In Indo-European linguistics "laryngeal" refers to certain sounds that no longer exist but played an important role in language evolution. (They were once thought to have been laryngeals, and the misnomer has stuck.)

Clearly, You Betcha doesn't understand what he frothing about.

-RvFvS

Yes, and the laryngeal anatomy of Neanderthals shows that it has the capacity for speech.

hyzer · 01-07-2002, 01:03 PM

References please.

RufusAtticus · 01-07-2002, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:


Yes, and the laryngeal anatomy of Neanderthals shows that it has the capacity for speech.

And how do you know this from fossil evidence? If neaderthals lacked this feature would they nolonger be "human?" Why is that?

Would you like to address the evidence that humans and the other great apes are in the same family and, thus, related by common descent in your opinion?

Would you also enlighten us as to how we can tell whether two organisms are similar by common descent or divine fiat?

You must address these holes in your argument; otherwise, you admit that you are wrong.

-RvFvS

Mageth · 01-08-2002, 09:05 AM

Yes, and the laryngeal anatomy of Neanderthals shows that it has the capacity for speech.

I'm not aware of any Neanderthal fossils where the laryngeal anatomy was evident. Those are soft tissues that do not typically fossilize. And I'm not aware of any mummified Neanderthals being found.

Mageth · 01-08-2002, 09:11 AM

Its the difference between being self aware and being aware of self.

This does not relate to any definition of "sentient" I've ever seen. One simple definition of sentient is "able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings." Self-aware beings are sentient, but sentient beings are not necessarily self-aware. Is there a different meaning for "sentient" that you are referring to?

And could you define the difference as you see it between "self-aware" and "aware of self?"

You Betcha · 01-08-2002, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
And how do you know this from fossil evidence? If neaderthals lacked this feature would they nolonger be "human?" Why is that?

Neanderthals' anatomy is consistent with speech like that of modern humans. There is no reason why they were not capable of speech.

It is just another piece of evidence showing they were fully human, and not an ape-like creature.

<a href="http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Wilford_98.html" target="_blank">http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Wilford_98.html</a>

I realize that there are other studies that refute this theory, however there is no proof that Neanderthals do not have linguistic capabilities. I believe they did.

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
Would you like to address the evidence that humans and the other great apes are in the same family and, thus, related by common descent in your opinion?

You can if you like. We could also adddress the evidence that separates great apes from humans, thus, showing they are not related by common descent.

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
Would you also enlighten us as to how we can tell whether two organisms are similar by common descent or divine fiat?

Compare the characteristics of the two organisms to tell, and do not assume that if there are some similarities, that they must have common descent.

Would you like to enlighten us as to what was the common ancestor of humans and lobsters?

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
You must address these holes in your argument; otherwise, you admit that you are wrong.

-RvFvS

What about the holes in your argument?

Mageth · 01-08-2002, 10:23 AM

Compare the characteristics of the two organisms to tell, and do not assume that if there are some similarities, that they must have common descent.

Yeah, instead assume GODDIDIT.

Queen of Swords · 01-08-2002, 10:37 AM

Interestingly, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/9/5417?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titl eabstract=neanderthal+speech&searchid=101051860797 3_1443&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0" target="_blank">the article</a> supports the theory of evolution (in regard to humans). Thanks, You Betcha.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]

hezekiah jones · 01-08-2002, 10:40 AM

Whoops!

Mageth · 01-08-2002, 10:59 AM

YB said:

I realize that there are other studies that refute this theory, however there is no proof that Neanderthals do not have linguistic capabilities. I believe they did.

From YB's posted website:

Cartmill himself cautioned that the new evidence for earlier human speech "is suggestive but, in the present state of our knowledge, it is not proof."

So this study doesn't constitute proof that Neanderthals had linguistic capabilities comparable to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, either. The question remains unanswered.

Your whole point is moot, anyway. As QoS pointed out, the research supports evolution:

To narrow the range, the scientists examined skeletons of Neanderthals and also of species of the Homo genus that lived as much as 400,000 years ago. These included Kabwe specimens from Africa and Swanscombe fossils from Europe. Their hypoglossal canals fell within the range of those of modern Homo sapiens.

"By the time we get to the Kabwe, about 400,000 years ago, you get a canal that's a modern size," Cartmill said. "And that's true of all later Homo species, including Neanderthal."

What the article says, YB, is that the capability of speech may be a characteristic that evolved in the various species of the later Homo genus, including Neanderthal and Sapiens.

Apparently reading comprehension is still in need of further evolution...

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

01-08-2002, 10:37 AM	#198
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Interestingly, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/9/5417?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titl eabstract=neanderthal+speech&searchid=101051860797 3_1443&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0" target="_blank">the article</a> supports the theory of evolution (in regard to humans). Thanks, You Betcha. [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

01-08-2002, 10:59 AM	#200
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	YB said: I realize that there are other studies that refute this theory, however there is no proof that Neanderthals do not have linguistic capabilities. I believe they did. From YB's posted website: Cartmill himself cautioned that the new evidence for earlier human speech "is suggestive but, in the present state of our knowledge, it is not proof." So this study doesn't constitute proof that Neanderthals had linguistic capabilities comparable to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, either. The question remains unanswered. Your whole point is moot, anyway. As QoS pointed out, the research supports evolution: To narrow the range, the scientists examined skeletons of Neanderthals and also of species of the Homo genus that lived as much as 400,000 years ago. These included Kabwe specimens from Africa and Swanscombe fossils from Europe. Their hypoglossal canals fell within the range of those of modern Homo sapiens. "By the time we get to the Kabwe, about 400,000 years ago, you get a canal that's a modern size," Cartmill said. "And that's true of all later Homo species, including Neanderthal." What the article says, YB, is that the capability of speech may be a characteristic that evolved in the various species of the later Homo genus, including Neanderthal and Sapiens. Apparently reading comprehension is still in need of further evolution... [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2002, 01:03 PM	#192
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	References please.

01-08-2002, 09:05 AM	#194
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Yes, and the laryngeal anatomy of Neanderthals shows that it has the capacity for speech. I'm not aware of any Neanderthal fossils where the laryngeal anatomy was evident. Those are soft tissues that do not typically fossilize. And I'm not aware of any mummified Neanderthals being found.

01-08-2002, 09:11 AM	#195
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Its the difference between being self aware and being aware of self. This does not relate to any definition of "sentient" I've ever seen. One simple definition of sentient is "able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings." Self-aware beings are sentient, but sentient beings are not necessarily self-aware. Is there a different meaning for "sentient" that you are referring to? And could you define the difference as you see it between "self-aware" and "aware of self?"

01-08-2002, 10:23 AM	#197
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Compare the characteristics of the two organisms to tell, and do not assume that if there are some similarities, that they must have common descent. Yeah, instead assume GODDIDIT.

01-08-2002, 10:40 AM	#199
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Whoops!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.