Evolution: a different view (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, May 18, 2015, 22:41 (3256 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: McCrone says that todays' refined language requires the preparation of the prior anatomic changes we now use. If you accept the gaps in time indicated, it makes perfect sense to me, the anatomy came well before the current result we use.[/-dhw: [i]Of course no one has such a record. “Has descriptions of how he thinks...”, “current theory says...” = pure speculation. And of course today's language requires the anatomy we now have. But why should anyone accept the gaps in time indicated, when they are nothing but theory and somebody's opinion? -DAVID: They are based upon fossil record from apes to now, and preceded modern spoken language by millions of years-The observations of anatomical changes may be based upon fossil records, but statements about how those changes were used are pure speculation. Of course the fossils preceded MODERN spoken language by millions of years - you might as well say million-year-old fossils preceded you and me by a million years. But we don't know what language was spoken millions of years ago.-dhw: I am pleased that you are now repeatedly using the words “theory” and “theoretical”. I am in no position to discuss how or when or how quickly the anatomy developed, but you know as well as I do that NOBODY can tell us what sort of language that anatomy was used for.-DAVID: McCrone's descriptions talk about handling bursts of air and how a few words could have been produced. He is the expert, I'm not, and I'm simply reporting his discussion. Since I have no other, I accept it as realistic.-Nobody can possibly be an expert on what languages were spoken 100,000 years ago, let alone millions of years ago. Perhaps you accept it because you would like to see it as evidence of pre-planning, just as some atheists accept multiverse theories because they help the atheist cause. Pots and kettles.