Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
This makes no sense about early hominins
56 views
Skip to first unread message
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 10:41:51 AM5/14/13
to
"Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-have-heard-modern-speech.html
This makes no sense.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-have-heard-modern-speech.html
This makes no sense.
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 11:02:33 AM5/14/13
to
John Harshman
May 14, 2013, 12:28:51 PM5/14/13
to
Gary Bohn
May 14, 2013, 12:41:40 PM5/14/13
to
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 12:43:41 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 11:02 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
> >This makes no sense.
>
> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
"This" refers to the article in the link that I provided. Read the
> >This makes no sense.
>
> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
article and let me know if you think that it makes sense.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 12:44:17 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 12:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 5/14/13 8:02 AM, Richard Norman wrote:> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
> > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/14/13 8:02 AM, Richard Norman wrote:> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
> >>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
> >> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
>
> >> This makes no sense.
>
> > What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
>
> Obviously it was a self-referential title. This sentence no verb.
Nope. Note the link. Duh.
> >> This makes no sense.
>
> > What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
>
> Obviously it was a self-referential title. This sentence no verb.
jillery
May 14, 2013, 12:55:15 PM5/14/13
to
posts.
As far as the cited article itself, I have some questions. Do
non-human apes as a group have ear bones distinctly different from
humans? How was it established that these alleged differences
correlate with speech recognition?
I am no expert, but I assume that most animals capable of making
vocalizations, whether or not they qualify as speech, are equally
capable of hearing them. Since the environment is capable of
producing a range of sounds greater than a species' vocalizations,
it's likely that our ancestors' auditory apparatus was capable of
hearing a range greater than its vocal apparatus could produce.
Assuming the article's conclusion correct, that modern speech uses
sounds different from its ancestral form, that suggests the vocal
apparatus evolved to increase its range over time, to convey
additional nuance. But what would be the driving force to change the
auditory apparatus from its ancestral form?
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 1:05:09 PM5/14/13
to
article except the title. You are like a student who shows up in
class without doing any of the reading expecting the professor to
explain everything without the student's having to lift a finger doing
some actual work.
Burkhard
May 14, 2013, 1:11:35 PM5/14/13
to
On 14 May, 16:02, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
> >This makes no sense.
>
> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
I always thought that "this" makes no sense. Come on, a word that
> >This makes no sense.
>
> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
picks a different referent in every context it is used, what kind of
sense can it have?
John Bode
May 14, 2013, 1:18:42 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 9:41�am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> This makes no sense.
Here's the meat of the article (seriously, it's all of five sentences
long):
> A combination of ape-like and human-like features in the bones indicate
> some australopiths lacked sensitivity to the midrange frequencies that
> modern humans use for speech.
What about that makes no sense?
> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> This makes no sense.
Here's the meat of the article (seriously, it's all of five sentences
long):
> A combination of ape-like and human-like features in the bones indicate
> some australopiths lacked sensitivity to the midrange frequencies that
> modern humans use for speech.
What about that makes no sense?
Harry K
May 14, 2013, 1:22:07 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 7:41 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> This makes no sense.
Other than adding a bit of knowledge about our ancestors, so what?
> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> This makes no sense.
Since we weren't around why should they
have been capable of hearing in that range. One presumes (yes I know)
that they heard jsut fine all
frequencies that were important to their survival.
Harry K
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 1:24:48 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:55:15 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
I appreciate your questions which indicate that you indeed read the
article and thought about it. I only wish I could reply in a way that
wiki couldn't also read.
I can't tell whether the gist of that article is pure New Scientist
sensationalism, something they are very experienced at, or whether
Rolf Quam, the first author of the paper cited agrees at all.
The paper itself (I will email a copy to anyone who requests it)
really concludes that the middle ear structure of these fossils is
intermediate between those of modern non-human apes and modern humans.
The interpretation is that the hearing is similarly intermediate.
Modern non-human apes hear a range of frequencies very similar to
humans but generally have a sensitivity "notch" around 2 kHz - 4 kHz
where their hearing is anywhere from 10 db to 30 or 40 db worse than
humans. That happens to be the range where human hearing is
particularly acute and is also the range which contains important
speech cues especially related to recognizing different vowel sounds.
No hominid is deaf to those middle frequencies and many modern humans,
myself included, are hearing impaired with far worse sensitivity at,
say, 4 kHz than those early Apiths. But I can hear and understand
human speech though not well if there is a lot of background noise.
As for evolution, I believe it is now well established that the
acoustical vocal apparatus of humans was modified from non-human apes
to allow the production of formant frequencies, exactly those
mid-frequency range sounds that differentiates one vowel sound from
another -- ooh vs. aah vs. eee plus many far more subtle differences.
So the ability to produce subtle changes in vocalizations at these
frequencies probably was associated with increase in sensitivity to
sounds at those frequencies all associated with the development of
speech. It also was probably associated with ability to recognize
slight variations in dialect and regional accent which is important in
identifying friend (kin) from foe (stranger).
The simple answer is clearly "early hominins could never understand
modern speech for the simple reason that there were no modern speakers
present." If you go back in a time machine with recordings of modern
speech, they could hear it perfectly well especially if you bumped up
the mid range by upping the volume slightly but cutting back on the
bass and volume, hence emphasizing the midrange. If you do exactly
that while listening to the radio, you hear very little difference but
audiophile purists, not to mention careful experimental tests, would
show that speech recognition is altered just a bit.
article and thought about it. I only wish I could reply in a way that
wiki couldn't also read.
I can't tell whether the gist of that article is pure New Scientist
sensationalism, something they are very experienced at, or whether
Rolf Quam, the first author of the paper cited agrees at all.
The paper itself (I will email a copy to anyone who requests it)
really concludes that the middle ear structure of these fossils is
intermediate between those of modern non-human apes and modern humans.
The interpretation is that the hearing is similarly intermediate.
Modern non-human apes hear a range of frequencies very similar to
humans but generally have a sensitivity "notch" around 2 kHz - 4 kHz
where their hearing is anywhere from 10 db to 30 or 40 db worse than
humans. That happens to be the range where human hearing is
particularly acute and is also the range which contains important
speech cues especially related to recognizing different vowel sounds.
No hominid is deaf to those middle frequencies and many modern humans,
myself included, are hearing impaired with far worse sensitivity at,
say, 4 kHz than those early Apiths. But I can hear and understand
human speech though not well if there is a lot of background noise.
As for evolution, I believe it is now well established that the
acoustical vocal apparatus of humans was modified from non-human apes
to allow the production of formant frequencies, exactly those
mid-frequency range sounds that differentiates one vowel sound from
another -- ooh vs. aah vs. eee plus many far more subtle differences.
So the ability to produce subtle changes in vocalizations at these
frequencies probably was associated with increase in sensitivity to
sounds at those frequencies all associated with the development of
speech. It also was probably associated with ability to recognize
slight variations in dialect and regional accent which is important in
identifying friend (kin) from foe (stranger).
The simple answer is clearly "early hominins could never understand
modern speech for the simple reason that there were no modern speakers
present." If you go back in a time machine with recordings of modern
speech, they could hear it perfectly well especially if you bumped up
the mid range by upping the volume slightly but cutting back on the
bass and volume, hence emphasizing the midrange. If you do exactly
that while listening to the radio, you hear very little difference but
audiophile purists, not to mention careful experimental tests, would
show that speech recognition is altered just a bit.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 1:38:56 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:05 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:41 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:41 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
one claim it does make makes no sense. Read it and give your opinion
if you are interested. Otherwise shut up.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 1:40:35 PM5/14/13
to
see the speaker's finger. Less useful on a ng, I agree.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 1:43:03 PM5/14/13
to
the midrange frequencies that modern humans use for speech, and
therefore, could not, hypothetically, "hear" modern speech. If that
were true then other apes today, being more distantly related to us,
would not be able to be trained to follow spoken commands, which is
false.
eridanus
May 14, 2013, 1:53:18 PM5/14/13
to
El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 17:43:41 UTC+1, wiki trix escribi�:
It is a simple speculation. It is difficult to appraise its value,
for the information about the ear bones can be incomplete. But it
does not look absurd since hose hominids evolved from some primates.
If I think correctly chimps and gorillas emit acute sounds, in their
utterances. Then, it is easy to assume they hear mostly acute sounds.
Eridanus
for the information about the ear bones can be incomplete. But it
does not look absurd since hose hominids evolved from some primates.
If I think correctly chimps and gorillas emit acute sounds, in their
utterances. Then, it is easy to assume they hear mostly acute sounds.
Eridanus
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 2:11:05 PM5/14/13
to
sensationalism perpetuated by New Scientist instead of to the actual
content of the research.
Roger Shrubber
May 14, 2013, 2:32:30 PM5/14/13
to
were you referring to the joke about assume?
jillery
May 14, 2013, 3:06:18 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:24:48 -0400, Richard Norman
This is the first part that surprises me, that non-human apes as a
group have different auditory sensitivity than humans.
>No hominid is deaf to those middle frequencies and many modern humans,
>myself included, are hearing impaired with far worse sensitivity at,
>say, 4 kHz than those early Apiths. But I can hear and understand
>human speech though not well if there is a lot of background noise.
So the New Scientist title, that modern speech would be "inaudible" is
an exaggeration. "Unintelligible" might better convey the original
author's intent.
I understand some people have that limitation. I also heard they have
less problem with higher-pitched female and children's voices than
with lower-pitched male voices. Is that your experience also?
>As for evolution, I believe it is now well established that the
>acoustical vocal apparatus of humans was modified from non-human apes
>to allow the production of formant frequencies, exactly those
>mid-frequency range sounds that differentiates one vowel sound from
>another -- ooh vs. aah vs. eee plus many far more subtle differences.
>So the ability to produce subtle changes in vocalizations at these
>frequencies probably was associated with increase in sensitivity to
>sounds at those frequencies all associated with the development of
>speech. It also was probably associated with ability to recognize
>slight variations in dialect and regional accent which is important in
>identifying friend (kin) from foe (stranger).
Which raises additional questions. Your description above suggests
the nature of the human vocal apparatus is such that it's "obliged" to
create formant frequencies of that specific mid-frequency range, which
just happens to fall into an ancestral auditory limitation. Given the
physics of the vocal and auditory apparatus, I'm surprised that
evolution found it easier to adjust the ear than the voice, either to
raise or lower its fundamental frequencies, or to change its
harmonics, especially since evolution was already working to produce
speech in the first place. So I mean no personal disrespect, but your
explanation above strikes me as a just-so story of the kind
anti-evolutionists like to pick on.
group have different auditory sensitivity than humans.
>No hominid is deaf to those middle frequencies and many modern humans,
>myself included, are hearing impaired with far worse sensitivity at,
>say, 4 kHz than those early Apiths. But I can hear and understand
>human speech though not well if there is a lot of background noise.
an exaggeration. "Unintelligible" might better convey the original
author's intent.
I understand some people have that limitation. I also heard they have
less problem with higher-pitched female and children's voices than
with lower-pitched male voices. Is that your experience also?
>As for evolution, I believe it is now well established that the
>acoustical vocal apparatus of humans was modified from non-human apes
>to allow the production of formant frequencies, exactly those
>mid-frequency range sounds that differentiates one vowel sound from
>another -- ooh vs. aah vs. eee plus many far more subtle differences.
>So the ability to produce subtle changes in vocalizations at these
>frequencies probably was associated with increase in sensitivity to
>sounds at those frequencies all associated with the development of
>speech. It also was probably associated with ability to recognize
>slight variations in dialect and regional accent which is important in
>identifying friend (kin) from foe (stranger).
the nature of the human vocal apparatus is such that it's "obliged" to
create formant frequencies of that specific mid-frequency range, which
just happens to fall into an ancestral auditory limitation. Given the
physics of the vocal and auditory apparatus, I'm surprised that
evolution found it easier to adjust the ear than the voice, either to
raise or lower its fundamental frequencies, or to change its
harmonics, especially since evolution was already working to produce
speech in the first place. So I mean no personal disrespect, but your
explanation above strikes me as a just-so story of the kind
anti-evolutionists like to pick on.
John Bode
May 14, 2013, 4:01:27 PM5/14/13
to
features" in
australopithecene ear bones; IOW, different from both modern humans
*and*
modern apes. So what modern apes can or cannot hear *has no bearing*
on
what australopithecenes could or could not hear.
The paper is behind a paywall, so I only have access to the abstract,
in which
the authors merely state that "[t]he anatomical differences...are
consistent with the
suggestion of different auditory capacities in these early hominin
taxa compared with
modern humans."
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 4:21:52 PM5/14/13
to
members of the human clade after splitting off from the Panini (chimps
et al). So actually, you are wrong.
eridanus
May 14, 2013, 4:43:44 PM5/14/13
to
El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 18:24:48 UTC+1, Richard Norman escribi�:
that were very reasonable considerations. they look pretty logical.
Eridanus
Eridanus
eridanus
May 14, 2013, 4:54:53 PM5/14/13
to
El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 21:21:52 UTC+1, wiki trix escribi�:
all this is speculative since the times that hominids split from their
arboreal ancestors they had a lot of time to evolve in the question of
hearing. Unless it can be proved that both humans and chimps have the
same sensibility to audible frequencies. If they have the same range and
sensibility, the argument of the link makes not any sense. But if chimps
and humans have different sensibility to those sounds makes sense.
In other consideration, both species humans and chimps evolved the same
sensibility in the past 10 million years. But this speculation is very
daring for we would had been speculation with a former audible sensibility
we do not know anything about. The bones of the ear are rather small,
and some are even smaller. What is the probability that we would have
all the bones implicated in fossil form?
This speculation is just another one. We need time to clear this out.
Eridanus
arboreal ancestors they had a lot of time to evolve in the question of
hearing. Unless it can be proved that both humans and chimps have the
same sensibility to audible frequencies. If they have the same range and
sensibility, the argument of the link makes not any sense. But if chimps
and humans have different sensibility to those sounds makes sense.
In other consideration, both species humans and chimps evolved the same
sensibility in the past 10 million years. But this speculation is very
daring for we would had been speculation with a former audible sensibility
we do not know anything about. The bones of the ear are rather small,
and some are even smaller. What is the probability that we would have
all the bones implicated in fossil form?
This speculation is just another one. We need time to clear this out.
Eridanus
Mark Isaak
May 14, 2013, 5:20:58 PM5/14/13
to
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
May 14, 2013, 5:24:28 PM5/14/13
to
ago. One cannot hear what isn't there.
Burkhard
May 14, 2013, 6:00:30 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 10:20 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/14/13 10:11 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On 14 May, 16:02, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
> >>>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> >>> This makes no sense.
>
> >> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
>
> > I always thought that "this" makes no sense. Come on, a word that
> > picks a different referent in every context it is used, what kind of
> > sense can it have?
>
> That evolutionism for you, ever pushing its athist agenda.
>
It would only be an athist agenda if it picked a different reverend,
> On 5/14/13 10:11 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On 14 May, 16:02, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
> >>>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> >>> This makes no sense.
>
> >> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
>
> > I always thought that "this" makes no sense. Come on, a word that
> > picks a different referent in every context it is used, what kind of
> > sense can it have?
>
> That evolutionism for you, ever pushing its athist agenda.
>
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 6:23:11 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:06:18 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
I prefer to put all my answers together at the bottom.
1) That different apes have different hearing abilities: The paper
under discussion (the real paper, not the New Scientist blurb) cites
"What Do Primates Hear? A Meta-analysis of All Known Nonhuman
Primate Behavioral Audiograms"
Mark N. Coleman
Int J Primatol (2009) 30:55�91
DOI 10.1007/s10764-008-9330-1
Unfortunately, that too is paywalled. The abstract says "phylogenetic
comparisons of the data show that superfamilies of primates display
unique patterns of hearing sensitivity, particularly at frequencies in
the lower range." That "lower" range is really the midrange under
discussion. The paper itself includes the statement: "note the
presence of the midfrequency notch in the audiogram for chimpanzees,
which is generally absent from human audiograms." That is the hearing
"deficit" which the Apith paper infers from the inner ear bone
structure. Another statement of this is: "The case becomes even
worse if the prominent acoustic energy of a sound occurs
at ca. 4 kHz: in the region of best sensitivity of humans but in the
midfrequency notch for other anthropoids."
The Quam paper itself says: "More importantly, a short incus
functional length (as in P. robustus) is consistent with the presence
of a decrease in auditory sensitivity (a �notch� in the audiogram)
in the midrange frequencies across primates (35). Such
a notch characterizes the audiograms of the vast majority of
haplorhine taxa tested to date, including chimpanzees, but is
generally not found in humans (36, 37). This is one of the most
salient distinctions in the hearing pattern of humans compared
with other primates."
So, yes, the evidence is that different animals have somewhat
different hearing abilities.
2) You suggest that the New Scientist might "exaggerate" and touch up
the wording quite appropriately. I go much further and have several
times now referred to the New Scientist as "sensationalistic." They
want to sell magazines. They are not a scientific research
publication.
3) you suggest some people have less problem with higher pitched
female and children's voices. That might be true for some but far
more common is what I have: high frequency hearing loss which makes
some women and many children almost unintelligible. I was finally
forced to accept I had hearing loss and see an audiologist was when I
had to ask men in class to repeat the question that some women
students would ask. I just couldn't hear what they were saying.
4) As to the evolution of speech: the production of speech sounds,
the hearing of speech sounds, and the interpretation of those sounds
in terms of communicating information all must have proceeded
hand-in-hand. Note: the ear didn't have to change much. The mid
frequencies were already audible. It just had to be tweaked to
increase the sensitivity.
One source writes: "Human hearing is also adapted to speech.
Humans are very sensitive to sounds between 1kHz and 4kHz. This range
is very important for speech. It is approximately the range of the
important resonance frequencies of the human vocal tract. These
resonance frequencies (formants) determine the acoustic character of a
speech sound."
de Boer, B. (to appear)
The Evolution of Speech, in: Brown, K (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics 2nd edition,
Elsevier.
http://uvafon.hum.uva.nl/bart/papers/deBoerEncyclopedia2006.pdf
It is exactly those formant resonance frequencies that I was referring
to that allow us to distinguish vowels. Wikipedia says: "Formants are
the distinguishing or meaningful frequency components of human speech
and of singing. By definition, the information that humans require to
distinguish between vowels can be represented purely quantitatively by
the frequency content of the vowel sounds. In speech, these are the
characteristic partials that identify vowels to the listener. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formant
The special anatomical features human have to produce three separate
formant frequencies is largely due to the work of Phil Lieberman
starting in the late 60's. A more recent paper of his discusses this
work in general and provides an excellent bibliography.
On the Evolution of Human Speech:
Its Anatomical and Neural Bases
Philip Lieberman
http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg195/pdf_files/fall06/CG195Lieberman.pdf
I don't know where that paper is from but it seems to be dated around
3006.
Yes, my argument is a "just-so" story: an argument about evolution for
which not every piece is absolutely and completely validated. However
it is the "good" kind of just-so story; one for which all the major
pieces have excellent published justification and which holds together
according to all known processes of biology. Further, it is the
generally accepted model for the evolution of human speech -- at least
from the acoustical phonetic perspective.
1) That different apes have different hearing abilities: The paper
under discussion (the real paper, not the New Scientist blurb) cites
"What Do Primates Hear? A Meta-analysis of All Known Nonhuman
Primate Behavioral Audiograms"
Mark N. Coleman
Int J Primatol (2009) 30:55�91
DOI 10.1007/s10764-008-9330-1
Unfortunately, that too is paywalled. The abstract says "phylogenetic
comparisons of the data show that superfamilies of primates display
unique patterns of hearing sensitivity, particularly at frequencies in
the lower range." That "lower" range is really the midrange under
discussion. The paper itself includes the statement: "note the
presence of the midfrequency notch in the audiogram for chimpanzees,
which is generally absent from human audiograms." That is the hearing
"deficit" which the Apith paper infers from the inner ear bone
structure. Another statement of this is: "The case becomes even
worse if the prominent acoustic energy of a sound occurs
at ca. 4 kHz: in the region of best sensitivity of humans but in the
midfrequency notch for other anthropoids."
The Quam paper itself says: "More importantly, a short incus
functional length (as in P. robustus) is consistent with the presence
of a decrease in auditory sensitivity (a �notch� in the audiogram)
in the midrange frequencies across primates (35). Such
a notch characterizes the audiograms of the vast majority of
haplorhine taxa tested to date, including chimpanzees, but is
generally not found in humans (36, 37). This is one of the most
salient distinctions in the hearing pattern of humans compared
with other primates."
So, yes, the evidence is that different animals have somewhat
different hearing abilities.
2) You suggest that the New Scientist might "exaggerate" and touch up
the wording quite appropriately. I go much further and have several
times now referred to the New Scientist as "sensationalistic." They
want to sell magazines. They are not a scientific research
publication.
3) you suggest some people have less problem with higher pitched
female and children's voices. That might be true for some but far
more common is what I have: high frequency hearing loss which makes
some women and many children almost unintelligible. I was finally
forced to accept I had hearing loss and see an audiologist was when I
had to ask men in class to repeat the question that some women
students would ask. I just couldn't hear what they were saying.
4) As to the evolution of speech: the production of speech sounds,
the hearing of speech sounds, and the interpretation of those sounds
in terms of communicating information all must have proceeded
hand-in-hand. Note: the ear didn't have to change much. The mid
frequencies were already audible. It just had to be tweaked to
increase the sensitivity.
One source writes: "Human hearing is also adapted to speech.
Humans are very sensitive to sounds between 1kHz and 4kHz. This range
is very important for speech. It is approximately the range of the
important resonance frequencies of the human vocal tract. These
resonance frequencies (formants) determine the acoustic character of a
speech sound."
de Boer, B. (to appear)
The Evolution of Speech, in: Brown, K (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics 2nd edition,
Elsevier.
http://uvafon.hum.uva.nl/bart/papers/deBoerEncyclopedia2006.pdf
It is exactly those formant resonance frequencies that I was referring
to that allow us to distinguish vowels. Wikipedia says: "Formants are
the distinguishing or meaningful frequency components of human speech
and of singing. By definition, the information that humans require to
distinguish between vowels can be represented purely quantitatively by
the frequency content of the vowel sounds. In speech, these are the
characteristic partials that identify vowels to the listener. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formant
The special anatomical features human have to produce three separate
formant frequencies is largely due to the work of Phil Lieberman
starting in the late 60's. A more recent paper of his discusses this
work in general and provides an excellent bibliography.
On the Evolution of Human Speech:
Its Anatomical and Neural Bases
Philip Lieberman
http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg195/pdf_files/fall06/CG195Lieberman.pdf
I don't know where that paper is from but it seems to be dated around
3006.
Yes, my argument is a "just-so" story: an argument about evolution for
which not every piece is absolutely and completely validated. However
it is the "good" kind of just-so story; one for which all the major
pieces have excellent published justification and which holds together
according to all known processes of biology. Further, it is the
generally accepted model for the evolution of human speech -- at least
from the acoustical phonetic perspective.
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 6:24:18 PM5/14/13
to
paper is far more general. So actually, you are wrong.
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 6:27:18 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:54:53 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 21:21:52 UTC+1, wiki trix escribi�:
<snip all the double and quadruple spacing stuff>
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 21:21:52 UTC+1, wiki trix escribi�:
>
>all this is speculative since the times that hominids split from their
>arboreal ancestors they had a lot of time to evolve in the question of
>hearing. Unless it can be proved that both humans and chimps have the
>same sensibility to audible frequencies. If they have the same range and
>sensibility, the argument of the link makes not any sense. But if chimps
>and humans have different sensibility to those sounds makes sense.
>In other consideration, both species humans and chimps evolved the same
>sensibility in the past 10 million years. But this speculation is very
>daring for we would had been speculation with a former audible sensibility
>we do not know anything about. The bones of the ear are rather small,
>and some are even smaller. What is the probability that we would have
>all the bones implicated in fossil form?
>This speculation is just another one. We need time to clear this out.
chimps have different sensitivity to these sounds. You ask the
probability that we would have all the bones implicated in fossil
form. The answer is that the paper under discussion does have exactly
those fossil bones. We do not need time to clear this out. We only
have to actually read the research papers and put them into context
with past work.
jillery
May 14, 2013, 7:56:07 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:23:11 -0400, Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>I prefer to put all my answers together at the bottom.
Ok
>1) That different apes have different hearing abilities: The paper
>under discussion (the real paper, not the New Scientist blurb) cites
> "What Do Primates Hear? A Meta-analysis of All Known Nonhuman
> Primate Behavioral Audiograms"
> Mark N. Coleman
> Int J Primatol (2009) 30:55–91
> DOI 10.1007/s10764-008-9330-1
>
>Unfortunately, that too is paywalled. The abstract says "phylogenetic
>comparisons of the data show that superfamilies of primates display
>unique patterns of hearing sensitivity, particularly at frequencies in
>the lower range." That "lower" range is really the midrange under
>discussion. The paper itself includes the statement: "note the
>presence of the midfrequency notch in the audiogram for chimpanzees,
>which is generally absent from human audiograms." That is the hearing
>"deficit" which the Apith paper infers from the inner ear bone
>structure. Another statement of this is: "The case becomes even
>worse if the prominent acoustic energy of a sound occurs
>at ca. 4 kHz: in the region of best sensitivity of humans but in the
>midfrequency notch for other anthropoids."
Ok.
>The Quam paper itself says: "More importantly, a short incus
>functional length (as in P. robustus) is consistent with the presence
>of a decrease in auditory sensitivity (a “notch” in the audiogram)
>in the midrange frequencies across primates (35). Such
>a notch characterizes the audiograms of the vast majority of
>haplorhine taxa tested to date, including chimpanzees, but is
>generally not found in humans (36, 37). This is one of the most
>salient distinctions in the hearing pattern of humans compared
>with other primates."
>
>So, yes, the evidence is that different animals have somewhat
>different hearing abilities.
Ok
>2) You suggest that the New Scientist might "exaggerate" and touch up
>the wording quite appropriately.
No. I stated it explicitly. You seem to be in violent agreement with
me on this point. It wouldn't be the first time.
>I go much further and have several
>times now referred to the New Scientist as "sensationalistic." They
>want to sell magazines. They are not a scientific research
>publication.
>
>3) you suggest some people have less problem with higher pitched
>female and children's voices.
No. I stated it was my understanding.
> That might be true for some but far
>more common is what I have: high frequency hearing loss which makes
>some women and many children almost unintelligible. I was finally
>forced to accept I had hearing loss and see an audiologist was when I
>had to ask men in class to repeat the question that some women
>students would ask. I just couldn't hear what they were saying.
Ok. I didn't mean to pry. Since you volunteered relevant personal
information, it seemed to be appropriate to ask a follow-up question.
Thank you for correcting me.
The formant frequencies are necessarily dependent on the fundamental
carrier frequency. Changing the fundamental up or down necessarily
shifts the formant frequencies also. Perhaps doing so doesn't raise
or lower them enough. Perhaps there are other factors which inhibit a
sufficient change of the fundamental range. Perhaps removing the
ancestral ape "notch" provided the necessary frequency response. I
don't claim to be an expert on the subject.
>The special anatomical features human have to produce three separate
>formant frequencies is largely due to the work of Phil Lieberman
>starting in the late 60's. A more recent paper of his discusses this
>work in general and provides an excellent bibliography.
> On the Evolution of Human Speech:
> Its Anatomical and Neural Bases
> Philip Lieberman
>
>http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg195/pdf_files/fall06/CG195Lieberman.pdf
>
>I don't know where that paper is from but it seems to be dated around
>3[2]006.
more in the style of Rudyard Kipling and Aesop.
Thank you for your "excellent published justifications", something
that was missing before. I remain uncertain as to why evolution seems
to have adapted the ear to speech rather than speech to the ear. I
will treat it as an exercise for this reader.
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>I prefer to put all my answers together at the bottom.
>1) That different apes have different hearing abilities: The paper
>under discussion (the real paper, not the New Scientist blurb) cites
> "What Do Primates Hear? A Meta-analysis of All Known Nonhuman
> Primate Behavioral Audiograms"
> Mark N. Coleman
> Int J Primatol (2009) 30:55–91
> DOI 10.1007/s10764-008-9330-1
>
>Unfortunately, that too is paywalled. The abstract says "phylogenetic
>comparisons of the data show that superfamilies of primates display
>unique patterns of hearing sensitivity, particularly at frequencies in
>the lower range." That "lower" range is really the midrange under
>discussion. The paper itself includes the statement: "note the
>presence of the midfrequency notch in the audiogram for chimpanzees,
>which is generally absent from human audiograms." That is the hearing
>"deficit" which the Apith paper infers from the inner ear bone
>structure. Another statement of this is: "The case becomes even
>worse if the prominent acoustic energy of a sound occurs
>at ca. 4 kHz: in the region of best sensitivity of humans but in the
>midfrequency notch for other anthropoids."
>The Quam paper itself says: "More importantly, a short incus
>functional length (as in P. robustus) is consistent with the presence
>of a decrease in auditory sensitivity (a “notch” in the audiogram)
>in the midrange frequencies across primates (35). Such
>a notch characterizes the audiograms of the vast majority of
>haplorhine taxa tested to date, including chimpanzees, but is
>generally not found in humans (36, 37). This is one of the most
>salient distinctions in the hearing pattern of humans compared
>with other primates."
>
>So, yes, the evidence is that different animals have somewhat
>different hearing abilities.
>2) You suggest that the New Scientist might "exaggerate" and touch up
>the wording quite appropriately.
me on this point. It wouldn't be the first time.
>I go much further and have several
>times now referred to the New Scientist as "sensationalistic." They
>want to sell magazines. They are not a scientific research
>publication.
>
>3) you suggest some people have less problem with higher pitched
>female and children's voices.
> That might be true for some but far
>more common is what I have: high frequency hearing loss which makes
>some women and many children almost unintelligible. I was finally
>forced to accept I had hearing loss and see an audiologist was when I
>had to ask men in class to repeat the question that some women
>students would ask. I just couldn't hear what they were saying.
information, it seemed to be appropriate to ask a follow-up question.
Thank you for correcting me.
carrier frequency. Changing the fundamental up or down necessarily
shifts the formant frequencies also. Perhaps doing so doesn't raise
or lower them enough. Perhaps there are other factors which inhibit a
sufficient change of the fundamental range. Perhaps removing the
ancestral ape "notch" provided the necessary frequency response. I
don't claim to be an expert on the subject.
>The special anatomical features human have to produce three separate
>formant frequencies is largely due to the work of Phil Lieberman
>starting in the late 60's. A more recent paper of his discusses this
>work in general and provides an excellent bibliography.
> On the Evolution of Human Speech:
> Its Anatomical and Neural Bases
> Philip Lieberman
>
>http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg195/pdf_files/fall06/CG195Lieberman.pdf
>
>I don't know where that paper is from but it seems to be dated around
>
>Yes, my argument is a "just-so" story: an argument about evolution for
>which not every piece is absolutely and completely validated. However
>it is the "good" kind of just-so story; one for which all the major
>pieces have excellent published justification and which holds together
>according to all known processes of biology. Further, it is the
>generally accepted model for the evolution of human speech -- at least
>from the acoustical phonetic perspective.
My meaning of just-so stories is more restrictive than yours, but is
>Yes, my argument is a "just-so" story: an argument about evolution for
>which not every piece is absolutely and completely validated. However
>it is the "good" kind of just-so story; one for which all the major
>pieces have excellent published justification and which holds together
>according to all known processes of biology. Further, it is the
>generally accepted model for the evolution of human speech -- at least
>from the acoustical phonetic perspective.
more in the style of Rudyard Kipling and Aesop.
Thank you for your "excellent published justifications", something
that was missing before. I remain uncertain as to why evolution seems
to have adapted the ear to speech rather than speech to the ear. I
will treat it as an exercise for this reader.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 8:46:28 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 5:24 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/14/13 7:41 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>
> > "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
> On 5/14/13 7:41 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>
> > "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
>
> > This makes no sense.
>
> How could it be otherwise? Modern speech was not present 100,000 years
> ago. One cannot hear what isn't there.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
I think it may be a hypothetical question? Hence the talk about the
> > This makes no sense.
>
> How could it be otherwise? Modern speech was not present 100,000 years
> ago. One cannot hear what isn't there.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
frequency response of the fossil ear bones they found? Not an issue of
contemporaneity, as is clear from the short article.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 8:51:52 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 6:24 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:21:52 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:21:52 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
any other article. In my original post, I said only the following:
<quote>
"Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
This makes no sense.
</quote>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
This makes no sense.
I knew that the original research more than likely *did* make sense. I
was not referring to that. The newscientist article that I did link to
was what I was talking about that did not make sense.
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 8:52:40 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 6:24 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:21:52 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
article.
jillery
May 14, 2013, 10:09:48 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:51:52 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The newscientist article that I did link to
>was what I was talking about that did not make sense.
and On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The newscientist article that I did link to
>was what I was talking about that did not make sense.
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How could I be wrong. I was never talking about the New Scientist
>article.
This makes no sense 8-)
>How could I be wrong. I was never talking about the New Scientist
>article.
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 10:41:42 PM5/14/13
to
In another post you write: " I was referring to the New Scientist
article, not any other article" Now you write " I was never talking
about the New Scientist article."
This makes as much sense as everything else you write, so I guess I
shoudn't be confused.
Friar Broccoli
May 14, 2013, 10:49:56 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:46:28 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Two popular articles indicating that chimps can understand speech:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056114/Chimps-ability-understand-language--humans-just-practice-say-researchers.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14045206
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056114/Chimps-ability-understand-language--humans-just-practice-say-researchers.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14045206
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 10:52:16 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 10:09 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:51:52 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:51:52 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The newscientist article that I did link to
> >was what I was talking about that did not make sense.
>
> and On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >The newscientist article that I did link to
> >was what I was talking about that did not make sense.
>
> and On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How could I be wrong. I was never talking about the New Scientist
> >article.
>
> This makes no sense 8-)
Ooops. Did I say that??? Yes... I was *only* talking about the New
> >How could I be wrong. I was never talking about the New Scientist
> >article.
>
> This makes no sense 8-)
Scientist article. Thanks for the correction...
wiki trix
May 14, 2013, 10:52:47 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 10:41 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard Norman
May 14, 2013, 10:53:23 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:56:07 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I did understate your emphasis in a few points. I thought it might be
better to underplay your intent in case I misinterpreted what you
wrote rather than overplay it and assign statements to you that you
didn't mean. And, yes, we do seem to agree on a lot of issues very
violently.
I also did raise the issue about my own hearing and I don't mind
talking about it. The way our bodies work -- and the way they fail to
work properly -- are all very suitable subjects for teaching
physiology and I made full use of such personal anecdotes about myself
and, with their explicit permission, about others.
You are mistaken, though, about the nature of the formant frequencies.
They are resonant frequencies due to the shape and size of the vocal
cavities as modified by the position especially of the tongue but also
other structures in the mouth and throat. They are quite independent
of the pitch of the voice -- the fundamental frequency of vibration of
the vocal cords. Basically the size of our throats forces the formant
frequencies to be in a certain range by the laws of physical
acoustics.
It is absolutely clear that chimps have that "notch" in sensitivity of
hearing at those frequencies while humans have particularly acute
hearing in the same range. The coevolution of two different
structures is quite common in adaptive evolution. You could ask the
same questions about the production of, say, pheromones, in very tiny
quantities and the concurrent production of highly specialized sensory
receptors to respond to extremely small concentrations of those
pheromones. Or the production of ultrasonic sounds by bats (and other
animals) and the concurrent highly specialized acoustical apparatus to
detect those particular frequencies. Necessarily, speech production
and speech recognition mechanisms evolved together.
wrote:
better to underplay your intent in case I misinterpreted what you
wrote rather than overplay it and assign statements to you that you
didn't mean. And, yes, we do seem to agree on a lot of issues very
violently.
I also did raise the issue about my own hearing and I don't mind
talking about it. The way our bodies work -- and the way they fail to
work properly -- are all very suitable subjects for teaching
physiology and I made full use of such personal anecdotes about myself
and, with their explicit permission, about others.
You are mistaken, though, about the nature of the formant frequencies.
They are resonant frequencies due to the shape and size of the vocal
cavities as modified by the position especially of the tongue but also
other structures in the mouth and throat. They are quite independent
of the pitch of the voice -- the fundamental frequency of vibration of
the vocal cords. Basically the size of our throats forces the formant
frequencies to be in a certain range by the laws of physical
acoustics.
It is absolutely clear that chimps have that "notch" in sensitivity of
hearing at those frequencies while humans have particularly acute
hearing in the same range. The coevolution of two different
structures is quite common in adaptive evolution. You could ask the
same questions about the production of, say, pheromones, in very tiny
quantities and the concurrent production of highly specialized sensory
receptors to respond to extremely small concentrations of those
pheromones. Or the production of ultrasonic sounds by bats (and other
animals) and the concurrent highly specialized acoustical apparatus to
detect those particular frequencies. Necessarily, speech production
and speech recognition mechanisms evolved together.
Mitchell Coffey
May 14, 2013, 11:01:48 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:41:51 AM UTC-4, wiki trix wrote:
> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-have-heard-modern-speech.html
>
> This makes no sense.
Of course they couldn't. Modern speech wasn't spoken yet.
> "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-have-heard-modern-speech.html
>
> This makes no sense.
Mitchell
Friar Broccoli
May 15, 2013, 12:16:06 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:52:47 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I didn't. I really really didn't. And since you refuse to tell us what
you mean (about anything) I am GUESSING that I know now. There are
LARGE differences in the way people think. We cannot read your mind. If
we are not told what you think, we will guess wrong much more than half
the time.
This is creationist behavior - or perhaps it is common to all people who
lack some critical thinking skills.
wrote:
you mean (about anything) I am GUESSING that I know now. There are
LARGE differences in the way people think. We cannot read your mind. If
we are not told what you think, we will guess wrong much more than half
the time.
This is creationist behavior - or perhaps it is common to all people who
lack some critical thinking skills.
Harry K
May 15, 2013, 12:25:17 AM5/15/13
to
is bad?
They were successful during their time here so...
Harry K
jillery
May 15, 2013, 12:35:18 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 22:53:23 -0400, Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>You are mistaken, though, about the nature of the formant frequencies.
>They are resonant frequencies due to the shape and size of the vocal
>cavities as modified by the position especially of the tongue but also
>other structures in the mouth and throat. They are quite independent
>of the pitch of the voice -- the fundamental frequency of vibration of
>the vocal cords. Basically the size of our throats forces the formant
>frequencies to be in a certain range by the laws of physical
>acoustics.
Ok. I must be confusing formant frequencies with acoustic resonances
in musical instruments which define their musical qualities.
>It is absolutely clear that chimps have that "notch" in sensitivity of
>hearing at those frequencies while humans have particularly acute
>hearing in the same range. The coevolution of two different
>structures is quite common in adaptive evolution. You could ask the
>same questions about the production of, say, pheromones, in very tiny
>quantities and the concurrent production of highly specialized sensory
>receptors to respond to extremely small concentrations of those
>pheromones. Or the production of ultrasonic sounds by bats (and other
>animals) and the concurrent highly specialized acoustical apparatus to
>detect those particular frequencies. Necessarily, speech production
>and speech recognition mechanisms evolved together.
Of course systems co-evolve. That's not the part I'm unsure about.
IIUC it's assumed the ancestral human form started using speech with
the archetypical ape acoustic notch, and that evolution got rid of the
notch in order to improve speech recognition. That sounded like an
overly simple explanation. Since the formant frequencies are formed
by anatomical structures, it seemed to me evolution could adapt those
parts instead. I accept that both structures can co-evolve.
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>You are mistaken, though, about the nature of the formant frequencies.
>They are resonant frequencies due to the shape and size of the vocal
>cavities as modified by the position especially of the tongue but also
>other structures in the mouth and throat. They are quite independent
>of the pitch of the voice -- the fundamental frequency of vibration of
>the vocal cords. Basically the size of our throats forces the formant
>frequencies to be in a certain range by the laws of physical
>acoustics.
in musical instruments which define their musical qualities.
>It is absolutely clear that chimps have that "notch" in sensitivity of
>hearing at those frequencies while humans have particularly acute
>hearing in the same range. The coevolution of two different
>structures is quite common in adaptive evolution. You could ask the
>same questions about the production of, say, pheromones, in very tiny
>quantities and the concurrent production of highly specialized sensory
>receptors to respond to extremely small concentrations of those
>pheromones. Or the production of ultrasonic sounds by bats (and other
>animals) and the concurrent highly specialized acoustical apparatus to
>detect those particular frequencies. Necessarily, speech production
>and speech recognition mechanisms evolved together.
IIUC it's assumed the ancestral human form started using speech with
the archetypical ape acoustic notch, and that evolution got rid of the
notch in order to improve speech recognition. That sounded like an
overly simple explanation. Since the formant frequencies are formed
by anatomical structures, it seemed to me evolution could adapt those
parts instead. I accept that both structures can co-evolve.
eridanus
May 15, 2013, 4:59:00 AM5/15/13
to
El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 23:23:11 UTC+1, Richard Norman escribi�:
you have presented a convincing argument.
Eridanus
Eridanus
wiki trix
May 15, 2013, 10:25:14 AM5/15/13
to
On May 14, 11:01�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
years ago on Teegeeack...
wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:41:51 AM UTC-4, wiki trix wrote:
> > "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
> > "Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
>
>
> > This makes no sense.
>
> Of course they couldn't. Modern speech wasn't spoken yet.
Really? Reminds me of something I heard Xenu say about 75 million
> > This makes no sense.
>
> Of course they couldn't. Modern speech wasn't spoken yet.
years ago on Teegeeack...
wiki trix
May 17, 2013, 8:17:31 AM5/17/13
to
On May 14, 1:05�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:41 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >article and let me know if you think that it makes sense.
>
> You give absolutely no indication that you read anything in that
> article except the title.
I did read the (very short) "article", but you do not need to know
fact that to make sense of my post, and either read the article
yourself and then respond to or ignore it. I made a claim that the
article was silly. That's it. Why you think anyone would make a claim
like that about an article without reading it is beyond me. But the
point here is that that issue it is irrelevant, since the claim was
simply that it was silly. For what it's worth, I might not have
actually read it, but simply heard from a trusted source the opinion
that it was silly, and I posted that opinion in this ng. Whether that
opinion was my own or not should make no difference to your evaluation
of that opinion.
> You are like a student who shows up in
> class without doing any of the reading expecting the professor to
> explain everything without the student's having to lift a finger doing
> some actual work.
Very poor analogy. This was not an "expected reading" assigned by you
or anyone else, and I did not express any desire for you or anyone
else to explain it. I gave no evidence that indicated that I did not
read it, and I said nothing that would imply that I needed any
explanation. I only made the claim that a particular article was
silly. And there is nothing wrong with the rhetorical device of
stating a claim and then waiting for others to provide their own
arguments before offering my own. In fact that is exactly what many
good professors do with students on a regular bases. Your analogy
sucks. Poor analogies are often a sign of either dishonesty or
stupidity or both.
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:41 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 14, 11:02 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
> >> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
> >> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> >> >This makes no sense.
>
> >> >"Early hominins couldn't have heard modern speech" ...
> >> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23532-early-hominins-couldnt-ha...
>
> >> >This makes no sense.
>
> >> What is "this" and what about it makes no sense?
>
> >"This" refers to the article in the link that I provided. Read the
>
> >article and let me know if you think that it makes sense.
>
> You give absolutely no indication that you read anything in that
> article except the title.
I did read the (very short) "article", but you do not need to know
fact that to make sense of my post, and either read the article
yourself and then respond to or ignore it. I made a claim that the
article was silly. That's it. Why you think anyone would make a claim
like that about an article without reading it is beyond me. But the
point here is that that issue it is irrelevant, since the claim was
simply that it was silly. For what it's worth, I might not have
actually read it, but simply heard from a trusted source the opinion
that it was silly, and I posted that opinion in this ng. Whether that
opinion was my own or not should make no difference to your evaluation
of that opinion.
> You are like a student who shows up in
> class without doing any of the reading expecting the professor to
> explain everything without the student's having to lift a finger doing
> some actual work.
Very poor analogy. This was not an "expected reading" assigned by you
or anyone else, and I did not express any desire for you or anyone
else to explain it. I gave no evidence that indicated that I did not
read it, and I said nothing that would imply that I needed any
explanation. I only made the claim that a particular article was
silly. And there is nothing wrong with the rhetorical device of
stating a claim and then waiting for others to provide their own
arguments before offering my own. In fact that is exactly what many
good professors do with students on a regular bases. Your analogy
sucks. Poor analogies are often a sign of either dishonesty or
stupidity or both.
Richard Norman
May 17, 2013, 9:28:12 AM5/17/13
to
conpletely failed in doing the subsequent reading.
I have provided substantial commentary on this paper which you have
chosen to ignore. You claiim: "And there is nothing wrong with the
rhetorical device of stating a claim and then waiting for others to
provide their own arguments before offering my own." Apparently you
are too ignorant to provide any argument of your own.
You are nothing more than a post-and-run troll in this instance.
wiki trix
May 17, 2013, 11:20:19 AM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 9:28�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:17:31 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:17:31 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Period.
0 new messages