<<Jim, your approach is one of "explain everything away that disagrees with my
view" Why can't you ever explain how something fits into a theoretical
framework? >>
The problem is that Broca's is not a good fit. Why? Because it is far more
difficult to read function than lack of function. This makes the Broca's
contention a weak form of evidence.
Here is an illustration. Remember our pal Ambulocetus? Just what were those
things in the front, with the semi-pronated elbows? What selective advantage
did they contain? (This question has never been answered). The same problem
arises with Basilosaurus appendages. Were they used for better sex, or what?
It's virtually impossible to figure out the function. One can speculate, but
that's what the "evidence" will be, speculation.
Now turn it around. Suppose we found NOTHING in front of Ambulo. Nothing in
back of Basil. We could immediately RULE OUT any function because nothing is
there to function.
Take it a step further. We do find something. Basil's teeny vestiges. But they
could not possibly have been used for land support. So we can RULE OUT that
function quite easily.
In the same way, the bumps and fissures in fossilized crania are "not much
help." It's a speculative read. However, limitation on larynx and pharynx can
RULE OUT function.
Thus, the conclusion of Dr. Tattersall, who is a known heavyweight in the
paleontological world, and thus deserves to be cited whenever he is "on
point," as he is here.
I agree with Jim Foley's "middle position":
<< Broca's region is indicative
that early hominids had some form of speech, but it certainly doesn't
prove it, or give us much idea of how good their speech was. Similarly,
the studies showing that Neandertals may have been able to make a
limited range of sounds are controversial, and should not be accepted as
a done deal. Even if they are correct, a more limited range of sound
production does not necessarily equate to a limited language capability.>>
This seems to me a fair representation of the state of the evidence.
Jim