https://www.iflscience.com/did-homo-erectus-speak-almost-certainly-say- scientists-82250
Of all the traits that set humans apart from the
rest of the animal kingdom, language is arguably
the most significant. Despite this, we still donrCOt
know when the unique ability for symbolic verbal
communication arose, although the authors of a new
study suggest that one of our extinct ancestors may
have already possessed the gift of the gab 2 million
years ago.
On 1/17/26 1:18 AM, Primum Sapienti wrote:So the fact that scientific journals change their ideas and acceptable assumptions over the decades makes you think their contents are bull
https://www.iflscience.com/did-homo-erectus-speak-almost-certainly-
say- scientists-82250
Of all the traits that set humans apart from the
rest of the animal kingdom, language is arguably
the most significant. Despite this, we still donrCOt
know when the unique ability for symbolic verbal
communication arose, although the authors of a new
study suggest that one of our extinct ancestors may
have already possessed the gift of the gab 2 million
years ago.
Academia is so corrupted by itself. The need for publication
forces people to perform useless to near useless work,
rehashing very old topics, just to get something in print.
This is an example.
Quite frankly, I have heard/seen far more people speculate
on the language capacity of habilis than claim that nobody
before AMH could speak.
Even the definition of AMH is ridiculously fluid!
Don't believe me?-a Google it. Find 50 year old cites on when
so called "Moderns" began. Compare them to 40 year old cites,
approximately, when they started throwing out number for
"Mitochondrial Eve." Then Google & discover how much THAT
number changed... and now they're up to, what? At least 300
thousand years at this point?
It's all bullshit.
There's probably only been a single human "Species" from more
than a million years already. They all interbred. And although
you can argue that interbreeding is not a perfect test, it is
the only real test we have. So we can base opinions on what we
have or evidence that doesn't exist, and everyone is in a
hurry to base it on evidence that doesn't exist.
So the fact that scientific journals change their ideas and acceptable assumptions over
On 1/18/26 4:29 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:Journals do, indeed "have opinions" and ideas. Different journals in
So the fact that scientific journals change their ideas and acceptable
assumptions over
Journals don't have ideas.
They're not people. Only people have ideas.
I'm going to stop here, at the very first critical error, for
reason that should be obvious to anyone familiar with the
definition of "Critical."
I'm just going to reiterate:
#1. Academia imposes a need -- not a desire but a need -- to be
published REGARDLESS of work, of findings.
#2. To meet their requirements, and unable to achieve constant breakthroughs/discoveries, academics here rehash old stuff.
#3. This nonsense about language is a very obvious example.
Don't you think that publication of well thought out ideas, experiments
and proposals, and debates are worth while?
https://www.iflscience.com/did-homo-erectus-speak-almost-certainly-say-scientists-82250
Of all the traits that set humans apart from the
rest of the animal kingdom, language is arguably
the most significant. Despite this, we still donrCOt
know when the unique ability for symbolic verbal
communication arose, although the authors of a new
study suggest that one of our extinct ancestors may
have already possessed the gift of the gab 2 million
years ago.
Homo erectus, the researchers say, possessed all the
tools necessary for speech and language, building
their argument around various lines of anatomical,
genetic, and archaeological evidence. For instance,
they explain that rCLHomo erectus was the first Homo
species to have a greatly expanded brainrCY, adding
that certain key regions like the frontal and parietal
lobes were morphologically similar to those of modern
humans.
...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-025-00521-8
Did Homo Erectus Have a (Vocal) Language?
Abstract
After the humanrCochimpanzee split, the human-related
lineage evolved into different species of Homo.
However, only one of these species, or anatomically
modern humans (AMHs), has survived, leading to what
we are. A question of language evolution that has
remained both appealing and controversial is whether
AMHs were the first and only species of Homo to have
a vocal language. Although there are viewpoints in
favor of the emergence of such linguistic capability
only in AMHs, or also in Neanderthals, this review
argues for a much earlier emergence of it in Homo
erectus by accumulating evidence from anatomy,
genetics, archaeology, and social cooperation. The
article ends with a discussion that defends the vocal
hypothesis of language origin based on a critique of
the gestural hypothesis.
And one more question: Do you know enough about
Perhaps I will live to see it.
All fossil and comparative evidence point to an absence of bilateral laryngeal airsacs in the common ancestor of hominoids and hominins.
Parsimoniously, simple speech developed gradually amongst hominins, initiated by the
nesting change from arboreal bowl nests to terrestrial dome nests
On 1/22/26 2:05 PM, DDeden wrote:
All fossil and comparative evidence point to an absence of bilateral laryngeal airsacs in the common ancestor of hominoids and hominins.
You do know the story is talking about erectus, don't you?
Parsimoniously, simple speech developed gradually amongst hominins, initiated by the
nesting change from arboreal bowl nests to terrestrial dome nests
Oh, GAWD...
Oh, GOODY ... Newsgrouper allows me to block trolls
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:05:55 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,396 |