Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Rushtown · Guest

When the jungles in Africa thinned out and more Savannah appeared, our
hominid ancestors had to hunt, and travel in open spaces. One useful
adaptation was bipedalism---so we could travel long distances and free
our hands for carrying meat back to camp and for throwing rocks at
prey.

But why did we start talking? Observe how a young child acquires
speech. And one stage a child will point at everything he sees and
name it.
I believe this replicates a stage in human development when it was
helpful for one member of a band of hunters to point out landmarks and
dangers in order to contributed to group success. Because the members
of the hunting group were genetically related this benefitted the
hominid who did the pointing out and his (and their) genes were passed
on.

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs. Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

Osmium · Guest

On Jul 7, 9:50ï¿½am, "Alan White" <alannc44~nosp...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Rushtown" <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. ï¿½First adjectives are added, then verbs. ï¿½Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
[/quote]
I should have put IMHO after the opinion about past tense.

The Neandertals took up Mousterian tool culture soon after contact
with modern humans. So they seemed almost as smart as HS. But there
was something lacking in their culture. Thousands of years passed
with no innovation. Their were no regional differences as with modern
humans and they did not seem to engage in long range trade. Yet their
brains were bigger than ours.
So what was the crucial cognitive difference? The best guess is some
linguistic difference that gave modern humans an advantage in pre
planning and foresight. Some writers speculate that this advantage
had to do with being able to describe relationships in time (and maybe
it had to do with describing hypothetical events).

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Look how a 1 yr old acquires
language and then follow this through about age 5----this may
illustrate the pattern our hominid ancestors evolved through. I find
it interesting that young children point and name things so much at
about age 3---why do they do it?

Osmium · Guest

On Jul 7, 9:50ï¿½am, "Alan White" <alannc44~nosp...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Rushtown" <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. ï¿½First adjectives are added, then verbs. ï¿½Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
[/quote]
I was just guessing. The Neandertals seemed as smart as HS in many
ways---they took up Mousterian tool culture from the Cro Magnons. But
something was missing as regards innovation compared to modern
humans. Perhaps the problem is their speech did not include the past
and future tenses.
I believe that the stages of language acquisition in a child parallel
that of our hominid line. So I think there is something special about
why 3 years olds point at everything and name it. Maybe there>s
something to this behavior beyond just wanting attention or showing
off.

Alan White · Guest

"Rushtown" <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

[quote]
Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs. Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)
[/quote]
How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Antares 531 · Guest

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:50:32 -0400, "Alan White"
<alannc44~nospam~@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote]
"Rushtown" <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs. Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

I would like to locate some information as to how the FOXP2 gene on[/quote]
chromosome 7 mutated in the hominid line of creatures. As far as I>ve
found, all vertebrates have this FOXP2 gene, and there is very little
difference in the DNA of this gene among all the lower order
vertebrates. That is, very little "evolution" seems to have occurred
over the millions of years since they all branched off a common
ancestor.

But, from the scant bits and pieces of information I>ve been able to
locate, modern humans show a significant change in their FOXP2 gene.
Is this the reason for our enhanced linguistic ability?

Gordon

Occidental · Guest

On Jul 7, 11:16 am, Rushtown <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]When the jungles in Africa thinned out and more Savannah appeared, our
hominid ancestors had to hunt, and travel in open spaces. One useful
adaptation was bipedalism---so we could travel long distances and free
our hands for carrying meat back to camp and for throwing rocks at
prey.

But why did we start talking? Observe how a young child acquires
speech. And one stage a child will point at everything he sees and
name it.
I believe this replicates a stage in human development when it was
helpful for one member of a band of hunters to point out landmarks and
dangers in order to contributed to group success. Because the members
of the hunting group were genetically related this benefitted the
hominid who did the pointing out and his (and their) genes were passed
on.

Gradually there were improvements in speech
[/quote]
....wait a minute, you>ve gone from pointing to speech without saying
where speech came from, as though vocalization were an inevitable
consequence of pointing, which it isn>t. There has to be some
rudimentary kind of speech before there can be "improvements".

[quote]just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs.
[/quote]
Wot, no nouns? And what happened to adverbs?

[quote]Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)
[/quote]
Because they had no past worth talking about?

DK · Guest

In article <jkl474luof1lnobg503a60cajn4qogetul@4ax.com>, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:50:32 -0400, "Alan White"
alannc44~nospam~@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"Rushtown" <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs. Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

I would like to locate some information as to how the FOXP2 gene on
chromosome 7 mutated in the hominid line of creatures. As far as I>ve
found, all vertebrates have this FOXP2 gene, and there is very little
difference in the DNA of this gene among all the lower order
vertebrates. That is, very little "evolution" seems to have occurred
over the millions of years since they all branched off a common
ancestor.

But, from the scant bits and pieces of information I>ve been able to
locate, modern humans show a significant change in their FOXP2 gene.
Is this the reason for our enhanced linguistic ability?
[/quote]
Could be. Here is more information if you want:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/26/41/10376.pdf (review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=605317
(annotated and referenced database entry)

DK

Antares 531 · Guest

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:10:36 GMT, dk@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
wrote:

[quote]In article <jkl474luof1lnobg503a60cajn4qogetul@4ax.com>, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:50:32 -0400, "Alan White"
alannc44~nospam~@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"Rushtown" <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs. Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

I would like to locate some information as to how the FOXP2 gene on
chromosome 7 mutated in the hominid line of creatures. As far as I>ve
found, all vertebrates have this FOXP2 gene, and there is very little
difference in the DNA of this gene among all the lower order
vertebrates. That is, very little "evolution" seems to have occurred
over the millions of years since they all branched off a common
ancestor.

But, from the scant bits and pieces of information I>ve been able to
locate, modern humans show a significant change in their FOXP2 gene.
Is this the reason for our enhanced linguistic ability?

Could be. Here is more information if you want:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/26/41/10376.pdf (review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=605317
(annotated and referenced database entry)

DK

Thanks, DK, those are interesting sites. I>ve downloaded and printed[/quote]
out the information and will spend some time going over it.

I have never been able to find an adequate explanation as to why
modern humans developed such a complex language ability but no other
hominids or primates got beyond the squeals, grunts, roars, etc.,
phase of language development. This must have been the result of a
mutation on some gene such as the FOXP2 that gave the modern humans a
better level of control of their vocal systems.

Parrots can mimic a human phrase, but I don>t know of any examples
where a parrot or any other such creature ever progressed beyond
mimicking a human voice. Mockingbirds mimic other bird calls, and I>ve
teased them with whistling sounds that they started mimicking very
quickly. Gordon

Antares 531 · Guest

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]On Jul 7, 9:50?am, "Alan White" <alannc44~nosp...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
"Rushtown" <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. ?First adjectives are added, then verbs. ?Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

I was just guessing. The Neandertals seemed as smart as HS in many
ways---they took up Mousterian tool culture from the Cro Magnons. But
something was missing as regards innovation compared to modern
humans. Perhaps the problem is their speech did not include the past
and future tenses.
I believe that the stages of language acquisition in a child parallel
that of our hominid line. So I think there is something special about
why 3 years olds point at everything and name it. Maybe there>s
something to this behavior beyond just wanting attention or showing
off.

I>ve read, somewhere, but can>t locate the source now, that the speech[/quote]
center for nouns is not located in the same part of the brain as is
the speech center for other parts of language. This suggests that the
noun speech center developed separately, and is perhaps regulated by a
separate gene/DNA code. Can anyone clear this up for me a bit? Gordon

Geopelia · Guest

"Rushtown" <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
[quote]When the jungles in Africa thinned out and more Savannah appeared, our
hominid ancestors had to hunt, and travel in open spaces. One useful
adaptation was bipedalism---so we could travel long distances and free
our hands for carrying meat back to camp and for throwing rocks at
prey.

But why did we start talking? Observe how a young child acquires
speech. And one stage a child will point at everything he sees and
name it.
I believe this replicates a stage in human development when it was
helpful for one member of a band of hunters to point out landmarks and
dangers in order to contributed to group success. Because the members
of the hunting group were genetically related this benefitted the
hominid who did the pointing out and his (and their) genes were passed
on.

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. First adjectives are added, then verbs. Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)
[/quote]
Adults may be teaching a child to point. Mother says "Look at that
(whatever)" and points to it. When the child does the same, naming something
and pointing to it, he is praised for being such a clever boy.
It>s in the child>s interests to point and name. Perhaps it is a learned
behaviour, not an natural one for that stage of development.

Geopelia

Osmium · Guest

On Jul 7, 4:05ï¿½pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 7, 11:16 am, Rushtown <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote:

When the jungles in Africa thinned out and more Savannah appeared, our
hominid ancestors had to hunt, and travel in open spaces. ï¿½One useful
adaptation was bipedalism---so we could travel long distances and free
our hands for carrying meat back to camp and for throwing rocks at
prey.

But why did we start talking? ï¿½Observe how a young child acquires
speech. ï¿½And one stage a child will point at everything he sees and
name it.
I believe this replicates a stage in human development when it was
helpful for one member of a band of hunters to point out landmarks and
dangers in order to contributed to group success. ï¿½Because the members
of the hunting group were genetically related this benefitted the
hominid who did the pointing out and his (and their) genes were passed
on.

Gradually there were improvements in speech

...wait a minute, you>ve gone from pointing to speech without saying
where speech came from, as though vocalization were an inevitable
consequence of pointing, which it isn>t. There has to be some
rudimentary kind of speech before there can be "improvements".

just as there are with
that of a young child. ï¿½First adjectives are added, then verbs.

Wot, no nouns? And what happened to adverbs?

Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

Because they had no past worth talking about?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Hominid points at a bear and goes "Urghh" or "Barrgh" imitating the
sound. Nouns are invented.
Later hominids change "Urghh" to "Ursus" and "Bargh" to "Bear". Next
step---add adjectives to designate Black or Brown bear. Step after
that add verb to describe "attacking bear". (or maybe this is the
adverb you wanted). Last step add tense to indicate you saw a bear
here yesterday, so keep an eye out. Get it?

Guest · Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: Why humans acquired speech.

On 7 juil, 16:37, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Osmium <Rusht...@aol.com
wrote:

On Jul 7, 9:50?am, "Alan White" <alannc44~nosp...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
"Rushtown" <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:9634be60-2a8a-4b2f-bd67-b2baf1c2a492@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com....

Gradually there were improvements in speech, just as there are with
that of a young child. ?First adjectives are added, then verbs. ?Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

How can you be so sure about Neandertals?

Alan

-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com-*Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

I was just guessing. The Neandertals seemed as smart as HS in many
ways---they took up Mousterian tool culture from the Cro Magnons. But
something was missing as regards innovation compared to modern
humans. Perhaps the problem is their speech did not include the past
and future tenses.
I believe that the stages of language acquisition in a child parallel
that of our hominid line. So I think there is something special about
why 3 years olds point at everything and name it. Maybe there>s
something to this behavior beyond just wanting attention or showing
off.

I>ve read, somewhere, but can>t locate the source now, that the speech
center for nouns is not located in the same part of the brain as is
the speech center for other parts of language. This suggests that the
noun speech center developed separately, and is perhaps regulated by a
separate gene/DNA code. Can anyone clear this up for me a bit? Gordon
[/quote]
The speech abilities are spread out over more than one areas in
the brain.

There is one center for the writing ability, one for the speech
ability
(this one is named the Broca area, where the actual words of the
language(s) are stored), one for reading, one for hearing. All are
heavily interconnected with a central coordinating area, the
Wernicke area.

All of these are located in the left brain hemisphere (except for
about 5% of the population that are true lefthanded).

the Wernicke area interconnect all the other language centers
to the right hemisphere where the non-verbal memories to which
they relate are stored.

What is special about homo-sapiens (maybe the neandertals too,
still a subject of debate) is that all of the verbal areas are
genetically
programmed to not acquire their myelin sheaths before the age of
about 7, which allows intensive dynamic establishment of neutal
interconnection between the various language areas as language
is learned. Also applies when more than one language is learned
in infancy.

After the age of about 7, all further language learning of abilities
not mastered before 7 becomes more difficult due the physical
presence of the myelin sheaths.

P. Flechsig. Anatomie des Menschlichen Gehirns und Rückenmarks
auf Myelogenetischen Grundlage, Leipzig, Thienne, 1920

Antares 531 · Guest

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]On Jul 7, 4:05?pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:16 am, Rushtown <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote:

When the jungles in Africa thinned out and more Savannah appeared, our
hominid ancestors had to hunt, and travel in open spaces. ?One useful
adaptation was bipedalism---so we could travel long distances and free
our hands for carrying meat back to camp and for throwing rocks at
prey.

But why did we start talking? ?Observe how a young child acquires
speech. ?And one stage a child will point at everything he sees and
name it.
I believe this replicates a stage in human development when it was
helpful for one member of a band of hunters to point out landmarks and
dangers in order to contributed to group success. ?Because the members
of the hunting group were genetically related this benefitted the
hominid who did the pointing out and his (and their) genes were passed
on.

Gradually there were improvements in speech

...wait a minute, you>ve gone from pointing to speech without saying
where speech came from, as though vocalization were an inevitable
consequence of pointing, which it isn>t. There has to be some
rudimentary kind of speech before there can be "improvements".

just as there are with
that of a young child. ?First adjectives are added, then verbs.

Wot, no nouns? And what happened to adverbs?

Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

Because they had no past worth talking about?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hominid points at a bear and goes "Urghh" or "Barrgh" imitating the
sound. Nouns are invented.
Later hominids change "Urghh" to "Ursus" and "Bargh" to "Bear". Next
step---add adjectives to designate Black or Brown bear. Step after
that add verb to describe "attacking bear". (or maybe this is the
adverb you wanted). Last step add tense to indicate you saw a bear
here yesterday, so keep an eye out. Get it?

But, why did Hominid do this but none of the other anthropoids did?[/quote]
Can>t a chimp make the same kind of sounds? Gordon

Alan White · Guest

"Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:fqg774hnsbsu0jsthlc8hq6csav6jsav0q@4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com
Hominid points at a bear and goes "Urghh" or "Barrgh" imitating the
sound. Nouns are invented.
Later hominids change "Urghh" to "Ursus" and "Bargh" to "Bear". Next
step---add adjectives to designate Black or Brown bear. Step after
that add verb to describe "attacking bear". (or maybe this is the
adverb you wanted). Last step add tense to indicate you saw a bear
here yesterday, so keep an eye out. Get it?

But, why did Hominid do this but none of the other anthropoids did?
Can>t a chimp make the same kind of sounds? Gordon
[/quote]
Several years ago the news showed someone working on an interesting
dissertation involving garden spiders and their webs. Each day the
researcher put a fly on 10 webs. She put the spider in the same corner of
all the webs. After a day would pass, and after each spider had embalmed its
catch, the researcher would tear down the webs. The very next day, all 10
spiders would rebuild their webs with an over emphasis of webing in the area
where they found the flies from the prior day. The researcher repeated this
several days and each time located the flies in different spots of the web,
and each morning the spiders would rebuild the webs in such a way as to
anticipate where the next fly would wend up.

I>m not suggesting that the spiders communicated, although for mating
purposes I bet they can, but, seems to me they certainly did, and do, have a
concept of past.

Alan

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Geopelia · Guest

"Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:fqg774hnsbsu0jsthlc8hq6csav6jsav0q@4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com
wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:05?pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:16 am, Rushtown <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote:

When the jungles in Africa thinned out and more Savannah appeared, our
hominid ancestors had to hunt, and travel in open spaces. ?One useful
adaptation was bipedalism---so we could travel long distances and free
our hands for carrying meat back to camp and for throwing rocks at
prey.

But why did we start talking? ?Observe how a young child acquires
speech. ?And one stage a child will point at everything he sees and
name it.
I believe this replicates a stage in human development when it was
helpful for one member of a band of hunters to point out landmarks and
dangers in order to contributed to group success. ?Because the members
of the hunting group were genetically related this benefitted the
hominid who did the pointing out and his (and their) genes were passed
on.

Gradually there were improvements in speech

...wait a minute, you>ve gone from pointing to speech without saying
where speech came from, as though vocalization were an inevitable
consequence of pointing, which it isn>t. There has to be some
rudimentary kind of speech before there can be "improvements".

just as there are with
that of a young child. ?First adjectives are added, then verbs.

Wot, no nouns? And what happened to adverbs?

Much
later a past tense (which the Cro Magnons had and the Neandertals did
not.)

Because they had no past worth talking about?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hominid points at a bear and goes "Urghh" or "Barrgh" imitating the
sound. Nouns are invented.
Later hominids change "Urghh" to "Ursus" and "Bargh" to "Bear". Next
step---add adjectives to designate Black or Brown bear. Step after
that add verb to describe "attacking bear". (or maybe this is the
adverb you wanted). Last step add tense to indicate you saw a bear
here yesterday, so keep an eye out. Get it?

But, why did Hominid do this but none of the other anthropoids did?
Can>t a chimp make the same kind of sounds? Gordon
[/quote]
Chimps can>t make many human sounds. It has to do with the position of the
larynx.

A chimp can use words and even simple sentences if given a special computer.
"Give banana" etc.
But saying the actual words is not possible. It>s like a human with a
serious speech impediment.

The Neanderthals may have had the same kind of problem.

Geopelia


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3