Re: The evolution of human speech explained
- From: "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:31:23 -0500 (EST)
<actgn@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gpm3c7$c35$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.....
There are two new theories why humans developed speech. One
is that speech aided in scavenging. The other is that a human
mother, not having body hair on which an infant could cling,
needed to put the baby down and then speak to it (presumably to
tell the baby to stay close).
Unless some evidence is presented for these theories they would
seem to me to have no value except as pure speculations.
I think we could think of 50 speculative reasons about why humans
evolved language, from courtship, to teaching skills to children,
to child's play, to hunting, gathering, scavenging, building
friendships, strengthening internal thought processes, and on and
on and on. On what basis are we to choose between these? How
can we know which, if any, were significant?
Lewis Thomas argued that adults would not have evolved language,
children would have. He bases that on the fact that children
today learn language much more quickly than adults. He argues
that they have better brains for it. If true, that casts doubt
on both of the two new "theories".
The evolution of language and language capability is an
enormously interesting topic but I fear that we won't make
progress with it by simple-minded speculation.
Alan
.
- References:
- The evolution of human speech explained
- From: actgn
- The evolution of human speech explained
- Prev by Date: Re: Cost of natural selection revisited
- Next by Date: Re: Percolation theory
- Previous by thread: Re: The evolution of human speech explained
- Next by thread: Re: The evolution of human speech explained
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
