ps418

I'm not too familiar with evidence bearing on whether Neanderthal spoke or not, but certainly there are paleoanthropologists who think that they did have some speech capability. I've read some claims that a Neanderthal hyoid from Kebara cave in Israel is identical to those of modern humans, suggesting some speech capabiity. There is some dispute about whether the size of the hypoglossal canal is a good indicator of speech. If it is, then Neaderthals probably had speech of some kind. For Pro and Con on the Neanderthal hyoglassal canal as a speech indicator, see:

DeGusta et al, 1999. Hypoglossal canal size and hominid speech. PNAS 96,1800-1804.

Kay et al, 1998. The hypoglossal canal and the origin of human vocal behavior. PNAS 95, 5417-5419.

Also interesting:

Neanderthal's Gift Of Speech

Patrick

cheetah

Well, I was surprised to learn that indications of Broca's area have been found all the way back to Homo habilis! Somehow I have missed that and though Broca's was found only in archaic Homo sapiens and further. With this, and some physical evidence, I think some rudimentary speech may have been possible, but we don't have much evidence of abstract thinking until Homo sapiens. But, just because we don't have the evidence doesn't mean it should be ruled out entirely. So, it's hard to say what kind of communications systems these groups may have had. Fascinating stuff.

A couple of things: Homo sapiens are actually much more ancient than 100,000ya. Archaic Homo sapiens are up to about 700,000, IIRC. Still, obviously much intellectual development came about later, despite little further morphological change. however, if you are talking about intellectual development, you can't really pick a time, because we have so many intellectual advances happening still.

The australopithecines did not appear to use tools. Also, some are not truly bipedal. But, this is what i think is great about what we know. When creationists say, "Yeah, BUT what about the missing link?" I say, what missing link? A. ramidus, afarensis, H. habilis, ergaster, erectus, sapiens, these are all a continuum and you could hardly ask for better links than that! No matter how many links, though, they'd want more links between, until we found the fossil of every hominid that ever lived and even then, they'd find a way to weasel out! not to mention they continually use the Piltdown man, as if that one example of dishonesty disqualifies every future discovery! We have a beautiful continuum of brain development, skull and tooth development, pelvic and leg development and hand development. It's truly amazing and it boggles my mind that it can be ignored.

I think creationists dismiss other hominids, using Piltdown Man, as I mentioned, or other faulty science as an example, they totally dodge the question. When confronted with things like evidence of extinct species' apparent ritualistic burials, well, they are so far behind and removed from even admitting those species existed, that they cannot even have a real convo about that stuff. They will probably tell you that it was actually sapiens misinterpreted by science. Hardcore creationists will go very far to avoid admitting there were any other species of hominids, and use simplified models to deny that, i.e. "we came from chimps/gorillas" they have an easier time making this look ridiculous, so they say that, though this isn't the truth. All the currently extant apes come from a common ancestor, but we did not evolve from chimps.

So, sorry for the long convoluted reply. I probably sound like a creationist myself with the random bits and musings in here. But, the stubborness is frustrating! My best friend when I was young was a YEC, though I didn't know enough to know how extreme she was. I remember her telling me that they just think scientists keep putting all those bones together wrong and early hominids and even dinosaurs are just our mistakes in fitting bones together!!!

EarthGirl

It's possible that Neanderthal spoke using sign language... I would not be at all surprised. I think that many species of animals communicate w/one another.

The other day, I watched a baby robin fly out of the nest, obviously for the first time. Clearly, the poor little thing was nervous. It sat on my porch for a long while and then it started to tweet. It's mother came over to it and tweeted back. It was so obvious that she was coaxing it and telling it to fly. Eventually, she got next to it, and again told it to fly. It did... It was really cool.

cheetah

Yeah, I think the question is primarily about abstract speech. Even though gorillas and chimps can understand information about something not in the room with them at the time, I don't think they have been able to communicate about the past or future (though certainly they rememebr things from the past, as shown by extended grudges and turf wars in chimp groups in the wild). They cannot express, for instance, thoughts regarding, "what would happen IF I sprouted wings and could fly on vacation to Mexico." And that kind of communication, as silly as it sounds, is really the key to the ability of humans to jump so far ahead technically. Apes have been shown to be able to progress to communication similar to approximately a 5 yo, I think, so that's really great, but not as sophisticated as modern humans. Who knows where along the line our own ancestors were at any given point??

Warcraft3

Hi there earthgirl, theist here

What do you want to know specifically?


Russ

EarthGirl

Hi, Steadele. Just because you are a theist doesn't necessarily mean that you don't discount evolution. I was raised Catholic and even before I started to really ponder everything that I had been taught, I had no doubt that we humans evolved...

Do you believe that Adam and Eve really existed, w/a Garden of Eden, etc...? What do you think about the discussion so far in this thread?

Warcraft3

I guess I could best be described as a Theistic Evolutionist with some IDish leanings as well. I am of the Christian persuation and I do think Genesis is true (although I interpret it a bit differently than most......I will start a new thread if you want to discuss that specifically......I started discussing it before with some II folks, but they did not seem willing to even consider my points as valid, so I kind of lost interest in the discussion.......this is significant since my journey out of YECism was fueled mainly by what I saw in scripture....the science came later......so when I say I saw things within the text I am not exaggerating)

Oh, sure I do. I am currently leaning towards Glenn Mortons take on the whole Adam thing though.
Its been interesting..........but I have always been very skeptical about the evolutionary explanations of the development of language and religious beliefs...........I have read several perspectives and I find them rather unconvincing......


Russ