<<Your assertion that you know of know experts who believe that language
occurred prior to 30,000 years ago says more about your reading list than
anything else. I have given you 7 experts who say that some kind of language
existed long before 30,000 years ago.>>
Take a look at what I actually wrote:
<< But there is no evidence for the
complex mode of lingual communication necessary for this to occur, either
anatomically or mentally. No expert to my knowledge believes there was such
complex communication back then. The beginnings of lingual capacity, perhaps,
but not modern language.>>
So you see, I was talking about the kind of complex language necessary to plug
what appears to be a gaping (aping?) hole in your theory. EVEN IF we grant the
"capability of language" (e.g., Falk) or "some kind of language" (Morton,
above) to Neanderthal, your theory demands much more, stretching back to homo
erectus and complex lingual capacity. That's clearly what I was talking about,
and you missed it.
But with that kind of language the culture would have been more complex than
we find it. That's called predictability, a word you like so much. Well, your
theory fails on this point. Perhaps that's why you tilted your lance down
from the windmills to my backside with things like:
<<You don't know of any experts who disagree with your position because I have
never seen you quote anyone who disagrees with you. I presume that means
that you don't read anyone who disagrees with your position.>>
Yadda yadda yadda (that's hominid for kvetch kvetch kvetch). It was only a
couple of weeks ago you expressed how "proud" you were of me for reading and
citing more books (e.g., Shreeve). I even did that with some EVOLUTIONARY
titles in my last post. There's just no pleasing some people.
To Paul your wrote:
<< Why don't you ask me instead of depending upon Jim who really doesn't like
nor does he want my view to succeed.>>
C'mon, Tex. I like your imagination, and have said so in the past. And if it
succeeds it will be because the evidence supports it. But it doesn't. You
tacitly admit as much. For example, you yell:
<< I DO NOT BELIEVE IN AN INCIPENT, EVOLVING HUMANNESS/IMAGE OF GOD>>
But that is just what the experts YOU call in AT MOST believe. Read them,
Glenn. That's just what they say. They do not believe, for example, homo
erectus to be "fully human." Or neanderthal. No evolutionist does. That's why
they call modern man MODERN man. That's why it's called evolution. "By 300,000
years ago Homo erectus was evolving toward fully modern man..." [Lambert @
134, someone who DISAGREES with me about human evolution]
What does "evolving toward fully modern man" mean, Glenn?
So the evolutionary experts believe in incipient humanity. Fine. Yet you have
no qualms in trotting out these guys to support your theory. But since they
believe in incipient humanity, evolving upward, how can you in the same breath
shout from the rooftops that you don't? You are at cross purposes with your
own experts. No wonder your theory has such trouble on the factual side.
Jim