All this talk about complex language is not the definition of humanity. My
wife's uncle does not have a complex language, but he is human. The Khosian
languages which are the "Click" languages of the Kalahari Bushmen, are so
unique from all other languages. Since much of the consonant sound
production is accomplished by the tongue, a language like this could have
been spoken by these so-called "mute" neanderthals and homo erectus. Their
larynxes would not have gotten in the way of such sound production. The
argument that fossil man didn't have language is not supported by the lack of
Broca's area.
Stephen wrote:
>>"Among all the events and transformations in human evolution, the
origins of modern humans were, until recently, the easiest to account
for. Around 35,000 years ago, signs of a new, explosively energetic
culture in Europe marked the beginning of the period known as the
Upper Paleolithic. They included a highly sophisticated variety of
tools, made out of bone and antler as well as stone. Even more
important, the people making these tools- usually known as
Cro-Magnons, a name borrowed from a tiny rock shelter in southern
France where their skeletons were first found, in 1868-had discovered
a symbolic plane of existence, evident in their gorgeously painted
caves, carved animal figurines, and the beads and pendants adorning
their bodies. The Neanderthals who had inhabited Europe for tens of
thousands of years had never produced anything remotely as elaborate."
(Shreeve J., "The Neanderthal Peace", Discover, September 1995, p73)
[...]"~Desmond Morris, The Human Animal, (New
>York: Crown Publishing, 1994), p. 186-188.
[...]"~Alexander Marshack, "On
>the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current
>Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495.
I think "September 1995" is more recent "1994" or "June 1995"! I
wonder if Glenn will take his own advice? :-)<<
The above quotation does not say that Neanderthals were unable physically to
have produced the outbreak of art seen about 35,000 years ago. It merely
says that they didn't. To employ this line of reasoning would mean that we
must say that the Amazonian indians are genetically incapable of creating
computers. They aren't genetically or morphologically incapable of creating
computers. They simply didn't do so. Similarly to say that the lack of
technological achievment on the part of the Neanderthal implies that they
werent human would seem to imply that Amazonian Indians aren't human either.
And what do you say about the Azilians who came after the outbreak of art
among the Magdalenians? Dickson reports,
"Many prehistorians take the changes that occurred during the transition
from the Magdalenian to the Azilian and subsequent Mesolithic ass signifying
progressive 'cultural impoverishment.' The most dramatic evidence of this
supposed impoverishment in the Azilian is the disappearance of the
magnificent Upper Paleolithic parietal art tradition. Azilian art, at least
what has survived into our time, consists of small, smooth pebbles painted
(and occasionally engraved) with red and black lines, dots, and borderings.
Less common designs include simple geometric elements such as crosses and
chevrons. Prehistorians have often made invidious comparisons between the
magnificent poolychromatic cave painting and engraving of the Magdalenians
and the paltry pebble art of the Azilians. Suggesitons that he pebbles
merely served as gaming pieces adds to the image of Azilian decline."~D.
Bruce Dickson, The Dawn
of Belief, (Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press, 1990), p. 83.
The Neanderthals and earlier men occassionally scratched similar patterns
into bone and stone. But the Azilians were fully modern human! Were they
less than human also?
Stephen wrote:
>>SJ>Yes. Glenn seems out of step even with modern evolutionary
thinking:<<
>
GM>That should make ICR like me a lot. Thanks for the recommendation.
:-)
Who mentioned the "ICR"? <<
I did.
glenn