Earliest hominid ear bones found

[RichTravsky]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen. A team of
scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of
the three tiny middle ear bones葉he malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
and stapes ("stirrup")擁n a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus
robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz庸requencies critical to spoken
language, but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive
to.



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/08/1303375110
Early hominin auditory ossicles from South Africa

Abstract

The middle ear ossicles are only rarely preserved in fossil hominins.
Here, we report the discovery of a complete ossicular chain (malleus,
incus, and stapes) of Paranthropus robustus as well as additional ear
ossicles from Australopithecus africanus. The malleus in both early
hominin taxa is clearly human-like in the proportions of the
manubrium and corpus, whereas the incus and stapes resemble African
and Asian great apes more closely. A deep phylogenetic origin is
proposed for the derived malleus morphology, and this may represent
one of the earliest human-like features to appear in the fossil
record. The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus
and stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and
inner ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.

[Paul Crowley]

On 19/05/2013 20:32, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
>
> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.

This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
it is to talk. Think of how hard a person has to
work to become a good musician (say, classical
pianist) and how relatively easy it is for his listeners
to tell when he is playing well or badly. That would
apply even more with any human language. There
are (I believe) dogs that can recognise a thousand
words in English (and presumably in any human
language). Such an ability is hardly beyond many
other species, such as chimps, elephants or
parrots. But no one would ever expect them to be
able to form sentences themselves.

> A team of
> scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of

> the three tiny middle ear bones�the malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
> and stapes ("stirrup")�in a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

> robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
> Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
> well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
> africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
> ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
> The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
> human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
> to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
> sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic

> frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz�frequencies critical to spoken
> language,

What a load of crap.

> but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive to.

I have not paid to read this paper, but I very much
doubt if it presents good (or any) evidence for that
assertion.

The authors have the typically appalling sense
of how evolution works that we see throughout
the 'discipline'. Not one of them stopped to think
what selective mechanisms might be involved
How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
What would kill off those individuals with ear-
drums fractionally less sensitive to the mid-tones
of speech?

But, worse than that is the ever-present notion
that humans (and ancestral hominids) must
necessarily be better -- in whatever ability is
currently under consideration -- than other
roughly-comparable species. In fact, and as we
all know perfectly well, by comparison with other
terrestrial species, human hearing is shockingly
weak.

The ear-bones almost certainly reflect this fact --
over the millions of years, since the taxon came
to occupy the human/hominid niche, there has
(in comparison to other mammals and primates)
been only minimal selection for acuteness in
hearing.

Why? Well the reason is, almost certainly, that
humans (and ancestral hominids) were subject to
minimal levels of predation. In other species, any
deterioration in hearing was rapidly eliminated by
nocturnal (and diurnal) predators.

We can see this in all manner of ways -- the
crying infants; the inability to run faster than any
potential predator; the inability to climb trees at
any speed (especially when carrying infants), and
so on. Such characteristics could never have
evolved (or been maintained) in the presence of
significant predation.

> The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus
> and stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and
> inner ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
> capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.

The difference here is ONLY that human and
hominid ears degenerated -- in the same way
as we have ridiculously fragile bones, and
extraordinarily weak muscles.

Oops -- is anyone allowed to say that?

Sorry, the truth must be the official line that
we are really all supermen (and superwomen).


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

I neglected to mention the other way in which
good hearing could be selected for. A hunter
with good hearing, concealed in a bush, would
know better than (say) his less-well-endowed
brother when a prey animal was coming within
range. He would often return home with more
food, live better, and have more progeny, than
that brother.

BUT, given the weakness of human hearing (and,
as we can now conclude from the evidence, that
of ancestral hominids) such a selective mechanism
had little or no effect. In other words, that kind of
hunting was of minimal importance in hominid
evolution. Our ancestors would have used their
brains; they would have set traps, and dug pits,
and, above all, done their best to avoid physical
confrontation with living and dangerous prey
animals. Acuteness in hearing would rarely have
been a significant factor in their lives.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 22, 3:39 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2013 20:32, RichTravsky wrote:
>
>
>

> >http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ea...

>
> > Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> > Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
>
> This is nonsense.

Nonsense? How so?

> It's MUCH easier to listen than
> it is to talk.

I'm trying to figure out how this assertion is relevant to the
discussion. I'll read on and maybe it will be explained.

> Think of how hard a person has to
> work to become a good musician (say, classical
> pianist) and how relatively easy it is for his listeners
> to tell when he is playing well or badly. That would
> apply even more with any human language. There
> are (I believe) dogs that can recognise a thousand
> words in English (and presumably in any human
> language). Such an ability is hardly beyond many
> other species, such as chimps, elephants or
> parrots. But no one would ever expect them to be
> able to form sentences themselves.

Wouldn't a better argument be to select a third species to use as a
point of comparison? I'm curious how they compart to dog/wolf, cat,
and other hunting species.

Wouldn't it be interesting if they found significant differences
between dog and wolf?

> > A team of
> > scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of

> > the three tiny middle ear bones—the malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
> > and stapes ("stirrup")—in a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

> > robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
> > Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> > Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
> > well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
> > africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
> > ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
> > The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
> > human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
> > to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
> > sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic

> > frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz—frequencies critical to spoken

> > language,
>
> What a load of crap.



>
> > but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive to.
>
> I have not paid to read this paper, but I very much
> doubt if it presents good (or any) evidence for that
> assertion.

Do you have any kind of specific argument to support any kind of
evidence-seeking investigation or did you just come here to vent?

> The authors have the typically appalling sense
> of how evolution works that we see throughout
> the 'discipline'. Not one of them stopped to think
> what selective mechanisms might be involved
> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
> What would kill off those individuals with ear-
> drums fractionally less sensitive to the mid-tones
> of speech?

Uh, isn't it obvious that speaking is a group behavior? Right?
Consequently it's evolutionary benefits are only comprehensible from
the perspective of the group as a whole being a significant part of
their survival and reproductive strategy. Right?

This is really pretty obvious stuff here, Paul.

> But, worse than that is the ever-present notion
> that humans (and ancestral hominids) must
> necessarily be better -- in whatever ability is
> currently under consideration -- than other
> roughly-comparable species.

It seems to me you are fighting windmills here, Paul. Your complaint
is too vague to be taken seriously. I can't figure out what your
point is here, honestly.

> In fact, and as we
> all know perfectly well, by comparison with other
> terrestrial species, human hearing is shockingly
> weak.

?

> The ear-bones almost certainly reflect this fact --
> over the millions of years, since the taxon came
> to occupy the human/hominid niche, there has
> (in comparison to other mammals and primates)
> been only minimal selection for acuteness in
> hearing.
>
> Why? Well the reason is, almost certainly, that
> humans (and ancestral hominids) were subject to
> minimal levels of predation. In other species, any
> deterioration in hearing was rapidly eliminated by
> nocturnal (and diurnal) predators.

I don't think anybody disputes that this is (or could be) a factor.

> We can see this in all manner of ways -- the
> crying infants; the inability to run faster than any
> potential predator; the inability to climb trees at
> any speed (especially when carrying infants), and
> so on. Such characteristics could never have
> evolved (or been maintained) in the presence of
> significant predation.

I agree. The factors you state, in addition to other factors, suggest
that hominids have been living in a state of RELATIVE freedom from
predation for a long, long time now. As I've explained in greater
detail previously on this NG, IMO hominids achieved ecological
dominance in garden habitat going back 2 million years.

> > The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus
> > and stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and
> > inner ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
> > capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.
>
> The difference here is ONLY that human and
> hominid ears degenerated -- in the same way
> as we have ridiculously fragile bones, and
> extraordinarily weak muscles.
>
> Oops -- is anyone allowed to say that?
>
> Sorry, the truth must be the official line that
> we are really all supermen (and superwomen).

Paul, when you resort to these rather obvious strawman tactics it just
makes your argument look weak.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 22, 5:10 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> Our ancestors would have used their
> brains;  they would have set traps, and dug pits,
> and, above all, done their best to avoid physical
> confrontation with living and dangerous prey
> animals. Acuteness in hearing would rarely have
> been a significant factor in their lives.

Paul, you lost track of the whole point of the thread. Nobody doubts
that hominids are relatively intelligent and would have used their
intelligence. Obviously speech and intelligence are complimentary?
Right? Obviously such would be selectively advantageous for a species
whose survival depended so greatly upon their ability to fit within a
group. Right?

Are you following?

[JTEM]

Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> RichTravsky wrote:

> > Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> > Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.

> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
> it is to talk. Think of how hard a person has to
> work to become a good musician (say, classical
> pianist) and how relatively easy it is for his listeners
> to tell when he is playing well or badly.

You're not contradicting the story in the least.

Sure it's easier to listen than to talk, but talking
still requires listening.

It's easier to listen to a concert pianist then to
become one, but it's damn near impossible to become
one if you can't hear...

Though it would be easier to become a concert pianist
after being born deaf than it would be to learn to
talk and the level of a great orator.

After all, many deaf people manage from the vibrations...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 19/05/2013 20:32, RichTravsky wrote:
> >
> > http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
> >
> > Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> > Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
>
> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than

We're talking 9pardon the pun) 2 mya and these bones developing into
something closer to what modern humans have.

> it is to talk. Think of how hard a person has to
> work to become a good musician (say, classical
> pianist) and how relatively easy it is for his listeners
> to tell when he is playing well or badly. That would
> apply even more with any human language. There
> are (I believe) dogs that can recognise a thousand
> words in English (and presumably in any human
> language). Such an ability is hardly beyond many
> other species, such as chimps, elephants or
> parrots. But no one would ever expect them to be
> able to form sentences themselves.
>
> > A team of
> > scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of

> > the three tiny middle ear bones葉he malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
> > and stapes ("stirrup")擁n a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

> > robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
> > Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> > Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
> > well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
> > africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
> > ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
> > The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
> > human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
> > to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
> > sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic

> > frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz庸requencies critical to spoken

> > language,
>
> What a load of crap.

Why?

> > but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive to.
>
> I have not paid to read this paper, but I very much
> doubt if it presents good (or any) evidence for that
> assertion.

The abstract is free

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/08/1303375110
Early hominin auditory ossicles from South Africa


Abstract

The middle ear ossicles are only rarely preserved in fossil
hominins. Here, we report the discovery of a complete ossicular
chain (malleus, incus, and stapes) of Paranthropus robustus as
well as additional ear ossicles from Australopithecus africanus.
The malleus in both early hominin taxa is clearly human-like in
the proportions of the manubrium and corpus, whereas the incus
and stapes resemble African and Asian great apes more closely.
A deep phylogenetic origin is proposed for the derived malleus
morphology, and this may represent one of the earliest

human-like features to appear in the fossil record. The anatomical

differences found in the early hominin incus and stapes, along
with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner ear, are
consistent with the suggestion of different auditory capacities
in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.



>

> The authors have the typically appalling sense
> of how evolution works that we see throughout

The sciencemag article is not done by the authoers.

> the 'discipline'. Not one of them stopped to think
> what selective mechanisms might be involved

You haven't read the paper? How can you claim this?

> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?

How did bats evolve to hear higer frequencies?

[Paul Crowley]

On 26/05/2013 21:03, RichTravsky wrote:

>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
>>>
>>> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
>>> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
>>
>> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
>
> We're talking 9pardon the pun) 2 mya and these bones developing into
> something closer to what modern humans have.

So what -- exactly? The implication of the paper
is that language had evolved substantially before
2 mya (although I bet that they don't spell this
out) and that the evolution of "listening skills"
had already impacted on the physiology of
hominid ear-drums.

>>> but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive to.
>>
>> I have not paid to read this paper, but I very much
>> doubt if it presents good (or any) evidence for that
>> assertion.
>
> The abstract is free

It says little and presents no evidence (except
of the authors' ignorance of evolutionary
processes). Various appendices are also
freely available.

> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/08/1303375110
> Early hominin auditory ossicles from South Africa
>
> Abstract
> The middle ear ossicles are only rarely preserved in fossil
> hominins. Here, we report the discovery of a complete ossicular
> chain (malleus, incus, and stapes) of Paranthropus robustus as
> well as additional ear ossicles from Australopithecus africanus.
> The malleus in both early hominin taxa is clearly human-like in
> the proportions of the manubrium and corpus, whereas the incus
> and stapes resemble African and Asian great apes more closely.
> A deep phylogenetic origin is proposed for the derived malleus
> morphology, and this may represent one of the earliest
> human-like features to appear in the fossil record. The anatomical
> differences found in the early hominin incus and stapes, along
> with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner ear, are
> consistent with the suggestion of different auditory capacities
> in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.
>
>> The authors have the typically appalling sense
>> of how evolution works that we see throughout
>
> The sciencemag article is not done by the authoers.

Did anyone claim it was?

>> the 'discipline'. Not one of them stopped to think
>> what selective mechanisms might be involved
>
> You haven't read the paper? How can you claim this?

My bullshit detectors are well-attuned to this
field. The authors are proposing an evolutionary
mechanism that does not (and cannot) exist.
It's a common error. They think of 'evolutionary
processes' as a kind of magic. I sometimes
refer to it as the "Algis-Kuliukas" syndrome.
He claims that bipedalism evolved as the result
of an ancestral ape wading in waist-deep water.
He accepts that such wading might be an
occasional event (or even a rare event) in the
lives of those apes. But he says that does not
matter. Even if the selective advantage in the
life of each ape is only measured as (say) one
extra death in ten thousand (perhaps caused
by the extra exhaustion of walking around the
lake instead of through it) it would STILL be a
'selective advantage'. Of course, he would
express it differently and not use numbers nor
any kind of semi-realistic example.

It's utter nonsense, of course. Algis has no
grasp of evolutionary processes. But he
picked up this 'thinking' from his Standard
PA peers.

He (and they) should know that 'a selective
advantage' MUST select. It must operate
effectively -- and (in principle) measurably --
within the lives of individuals in the population
Some must die (who lack the genes) and
others (who have them) must live, and pass
them on at a higher rate. There is so much
'noise' involved in the process that the genetic
'signal' in each case has to be between the
'significant' and the 'substantial'.

>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
>
> How did bats evolve to hear higer frequencies?

You show that you are as bright as Algis.
Are you trying to change the subject?
(OK, 'hearing' is involved in both -- so, to
you, it's a "parallel" case.)

Note how you cannot deal with the issue.

>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?

You don't have any kind of answer, and neither
would the authors of this paper. While I might
not want to claim that there is no conceivable
way in which such a sensitivity (to mid-tones)
could evolve, the likelihood of any such
mechanism existing within a typical human or
hominid population is remote in the extreme.

if any person (or any scientist) is going to propose
such a theory, they should first set out possible
mechanisms. These guys did not stop to think
about it. As with Algis, their catastrophically
shallow grasp of evolutionary principles allowed
them to simply assume.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 27, 12:23 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

The implication of the paper is that language
had evolved substantially before 2 mya

The authors are proposing an evolutionary
mechanism that does not (and cannot) exist.

> He (and they) should know that 'a selective
> advantage' MUST select. It must operate
> effectively -- and (in principle) measurably --
> within the lives of individuals in the population
> Some must die (who lack the genes) and
> others (who have them) must live, and pass
> them on at a higher rate.  There is so much
> 'noise' involved in the process that the genetic
> 'signal' in each case has to be between the
> 'significant' and the 'substantial'.

You seem to be arguing based on some kind of misplaced belief in
principles of evolutionary theory. Darwin debated with Whewel (a
philosopher of science) to make evolutionary theory a principle based
science, but failed.

The fact that you can't/won't enunciate your principle tells the whole
story.

>
> >> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
>
> > How did bats evolve to hear higer frequencies?
>
> You show that you are as bright as Algis.
> Are you trying to change the subject?
> (OK, 'hearing' is involved in both -- so, to
> you, it's a "parallel" case.)
>
> Note how you cannot deal with the issue.

And you can't/won't enunciate the issue.

>
> >> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
>
> You don't have any kind of answer, and neither
> would the authors of this paper.

What is the question?

 While I might
> not want to claim that there is no conceivable
> way in which such a sensitivity (to mid-tones)
> could evolve, the likelihood of any such
> mechanism existing within a typical human or
> hominid population is remote in the extreme.

Yet us modern-day hominids do have language, don't we? How do you
propose it to have emerged/evolved since, according to you, the
selective factors underlying it involve, "mechanisms that don't
exist?" Spontaneous generation?

> if any person (or any scientist) is going to propose
> such a theory, they should first set out possible
> mechanisms.  These guys did not stop to think
> about it.  As with Algis, their catastrophically
> shallow grasp of evolutionary principles allowed
> them to simply assume.

Why don't you put forth an argument explaining to all of us why you
believe the situational factors that underlie the origins of language
couldn't possibly exist.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 27, 12:23 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> The implication of the paper
> is that language had evolved substantially before

> 2 mya and that the evolution of "listening skills"

> had already impacted on the physiology of
> hominid ear-drums.

It means that hominids had been experiencing group/communal selection
for millions of years preceding this point at 2mya.

And that means that the simple minded neodarwinistic notion that
natural selection operates at the level of the individual organism is,
well, simple minded--wrong.

It means that language and intelligence preceded the development of
tool usage and not vice versa.

Evolutionary theory wastes no sympathy for people that assume
nonexistent principles. And this is the reason you will never advance
in this discipline, Paul. In evolutionary theory you have to be
willing to kill the beliefs that are most dear to you. You lack that
kind of mental toughness.

> >>> but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive to.
>
> >> I have not paid to read this paper, but I very much
> >> doubt if it presents good (or any) evidence for that
> >> assertion.
>
> > The abstract is free
>
> It says little and presents no evidence (except
> of the authors' ignorance of evolutionary
> processes). Various appendices are also
> freely available.

> The authors are proposing an evolutionary
> mechanism that does not (and cannot) exist.

The fact that you won't enunciate this "mechanism" suggests that you
are not being honest with yourself.

In evolutionary theory the biggest obstacle is your own beliefs. And
that starts with being explicit as possible about what you believe and
why you believe it.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> The implication of the paper is that language
> had evolved substantially before 2 mya

This is not very far fetched. There are many
that argue that erectus and even habilis before
it had speech, and habilis is usually placed
before this 2 million year make (by several hundred
thousand years).

> The authors are proposing an evolutionary
> mechanism that does not (and cannot) exist.

I don't even know what that means.

Could you explain?

> Yet us modern-day hominids do have language, don't we?  How do you
> propose it to have emerged/evolved since, according to you, the
> selective factors underlying it involve, "mechanisms that don't
> exist?"  Spontaneous generation?

The idea that every trait must be "Selected for"
is a fallacy. Not only does "Selected Against"
make much more sense -- weeding out the genes
that aren't good enough -- but many traits appear
to piggy back on others traits.

An example given not too long ago was floppy ears
on dogs, which were never selected for but seem
to have somehow "piggy backed" on the selective
breeding of less aggressive animals. The trait
selected for was lack of aggression, the ears
just happened to go along for the ride.

Now I bring up this example for a reason, as the
discussion is ears here. It's easy to imagine that
a "lack of aggression" in our earliest ancestors
might've lead to more cooperation, larger groups,
a larger (healthier) gene pool and more innovation
regarding that new fangled "Rock" technology that
everyone was grunting about...

Don't like aggression? Fine. The possibilities
are limited only by the extant of your imagination.
The point is that any number of traits could have
arisen NOT by selection but by random mutation
(founder effect) and piggy-back evolution...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On May 29, 1:16 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > The implication of the paper is that language
> > had evolved substantially before 2 mya
>
> This is not very far fetched.  There are many
> that argue that erectus and even habilis before
> it had speech, and habilis is usually placed
> before this 2 million year make (by several hundred
> thousand years).

The sophisticated tool production/usage that is evident around 2mya
proves beyond any doubt that language, cooperation, and intelligence
had been around for a long time already.

>
> > The authors are proposing an evolutionary
> > mechanism that does not (and cannot) exist.
>
> I don't even know what that means.
>
> Could you explain?

Actually these are Paul's words, not mine. (I messed up on the
attributions.)

Once you declare the results of a causal process to be "random" you no
longer have a scientific premise. "Randomness" is used by pseudo-
scientists to explain complexity. It's evolutionary theory's version
of perpetual motion machine logic. It explains everything therefore
it explains nothing.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Once you declare the results of a causal process to be "random" you no
> longer have a scientific premise.  "Randomness" is used by pseudo-
> scientists to explain complexity.  It's evolutionary theory's version
> of perpetual motion machine logic.  It explains everything therefore
> it explains nothing.

You couldn't be more wrong. In fact,
You've got it backwards.

"Random" is required. Anything else is creationism,
an intelligent being directing the appearance of new
traits.

Science == Random

Religion == Not random




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

A "process" that is random is, by definition, not a process.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> A "process" that is random is, by definition, not a process.

Maybe this has something to do with why I've
always argued that "Evolution" is best thought
of as a RESULT instead of a process. We think of
it as a "Process" only because we're seeing it
BACKWARDS. We're looking at the results and
trying to work out how things got that way...

...always forgetting that it didn't have to
turn out that way at all, and most times it doesn't.

In fact, the "Process" -- if there is any --
would be REPRODUCTION. That's the process.
That's what animals are doing. That's all
they're doing. They're simply reproducing.

The DNA centric fools get around this by
defining evolution as "A change in the
frequency of alleles over time"... which
is just another way of saying "Reproduction."

Now here's a funny twist: "Scientific Precedence"
requires that the first/oldest name be used, thus
going by the strict DNA centric view on evolution,
evolution does not scientifically exist! Nope.
Because "Reproduction" came first, it was "Discovered"
and described first, so taking the DNA centric
view would require us to discard "Evolution"
anywhere & everywhere it's used and replace it with
"Reproduction."

An irrelevant aside, yes, but I'm good at that...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com


-- --

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 26/05/2013 21:03, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
> >>>
> >>> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> >>> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
> >>
> >> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
> >
> > We're talking 9pardon the pun) 2 mya and these bones developing into
> > something closer to what modern humans have.
>
> So what -- exactly? The implication of the paper
> is that language had evolved substantially before

No, that is not what it says. It's refering to more sensitivity to
frequency ranges modern humans have. Read the abstract.

> 2 mya (although I bet that they don't spell this
> out) and that the evolution of "listening skills"
> had already impacted on the physiology of
> hominid ear-drums.
>
> >>> but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive to.
> >>
> >> I have not paid to read this paper, but I very much
> >> doubt if it presents good (or any) evidence for that
> >> assertion.
> >
> > The abstract is free
>
> It says little and presents no evidence (except
> of the authors' ignorance of evolutionary
> processes). Various appendices are also
> freely available.

It's an ABSTRACT. IOW, a short summary. DUH

> > http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/08/1303375110
> > Early hominin auditory ossicles from South Africa
> >
> > Abstract
> > The middle ear ossicles are only rarely preserved in fossil
> > hominins. Here, we report the discovery of a complete ossicular
> > chain (malleus, incus, and stapes) of Paranthropus robustus as
> > well as additional ear ossicles from Australopithecus africanus.
> > The malleus in both early hominin taxa is clearly human-like in
> > the proportions of the manubrium and corpus, whereas the incus
> > and stapes resemble African and Asian great apes more closely.
> > A deep phylogenetic origin is proposed for the derived malleus
> > morphology, and this may represent one of the earliest
> > human-like features to appear in the fossil record. The anatomical
> > differences found in the early hominin incus and stapes, along
> > with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner ear, are
> > consistent with the suggestion of different auditory capacities
> > in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.
> >
> >> The authors have the typically appalling sense
> >> of how evolution works that we see throughout
> >
> > The sciencemag article is not done by the authoers.
>
> Did anyone claim it was?

They both say the same thing ;)

> >> the 'discipline'. Not one of them stopped to think
> >> what selective mechanisms might be involved
> >
> > You haven't read the paper? How can you claim this?
>
> My bullshit detectors are well-attuned to this

Well, you ARE a master of bullshit

Note how you fail to see evolution at work in both cases.

> >> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
>
> You don't have any kind of answer, and neither
> would the authors of this paper. While I might
> not want to claim that there is no conceivable
> way in which such a sensitivity (to mid-tones)
> could evolve, the likelihood of any such
> mechanism existing within a typical human or
> hominid population is remote in the extreme.

Then why are the ear bones different across species?

[Claudius Denk]

On Jun 5, 8:43 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:

Paul Crowley:

The implication of the paper is that
language had evolved substantially

before 2 mya . . . <snip>

Rich Travsky:
No, that is not what it says. <snip>

Claudius Denk:
Paul is right: " . . . since the malleus

is attached directly to the eardrum,
the researchers suggest that it might
be an early sign of the high human
sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
frequencies between 2 and 4

kilohertz—frequencies critical to
spoken language, . . . "

Well?

[RichTravsky]

You're both wrong. It says nothing about language being present. Only
that the

The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
human-like malleus means

and

might be an early sign

and most importantly

whereas the incus and stapes resemble African and Asian great apes more
closely

In the future, please try to read for comprehension.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:

Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen. A team of

scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of

the three tiny middle ear bones—the malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
and stapes ("stirrup")—in a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a

human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly

to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz—frequencies critical to spoken

language, but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive
to.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jun 15, 9:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:43 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > Paul Crowley:
> > The implication of the paper is that
> > language had evolved substantially
> > before 2 mya . . . <snip>
>
> > Rich Travsky:
> > No, that is not what it says. <snip>
>
> > Claudius Denk:
> > Paul is right:  " . . . since the malleus
> > is attached directly to the eardrum,
> > the researchers suggest that it might
> > be an early sign of the high human
> > sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
> > frequencies between 2 and 4
> > kilohertz—frequencies critical to
> > spoken language, . . . "
>
> > Well?
>
> You're both wrong. It says nothing about language being present. Only
> that the
>
>  The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
>  human-like malleus means

Read the paper, you idiot.

[RichTravsky]

I did. Idiot.

*From* the paper's abstract

The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus and
stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner
ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.

What part of "different...compared with modern humans" did you not
understand?

[Paul Crowley]

On 05/06/2013 16:43, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
>>>>> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
>>>>
>>>> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
>>>
>>> We're talking 9pardon the pun) 2 mya and these bones developing into
>>> something closer to what modern humans have.
>>
>> So what -- exactly? The implication of the paper
>> is that language had evolved substantially before
>
> No, that is not what it says. It's refering to more sensitivity to
> frequency ranges modern humans have. Read the abstract.

I read the full paper (which is very short), but
as the article states:

" . . the researchers suggest that it might be an early sign of the

high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic frequencies between

2 and 4 kilohertz�frequencies critical to spoken language, but which
apes and other primates are much less sensitive to. . ."

They wrap it up in obscure 'pretend-scientific'
terms in the paper and the abstract, but that's
what they intend to convey. (Insofar, of course,
as they intend to convey anything -- other than
" . . Hey, we've done some work, and we want
money, and other than that, we're not saying
nutting. . . ").

>> It says little and presents no evidence (except
>> of the authors' ignorance of evolutionary
>> processes). Various appendices are also
>> freely available.
>
> It's an ABSTRACT. IOW, a short summary. DUH

The paper itself is not much longer.

>>>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
>>>
>>> How did bats evolve to hear higer frequencies?
>>
>> You show that you are as bright as Algis.
>> Are you trying to change the subject?
>> (OK, 'hearing' is involved in both -- so, to
>> you, it's a "parallel" case.)
>>
>> Note how you cannot deal with the issue.
>
> Note how you fail to see evolution at work in both cases.

Any intelligent child can tell you how the
acute hearing of bats in the ultrasonic is
likely to have been selected for. . . and
how it is maintained. But NO ONE
(including you) can suggest ANY way in
which there could ever have been selection
for better sensitivity to 'mid-tones'.

>>>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
>>

>> You don't have any kind of answer, and neither
>> would the authors of this paper. While I might
>> not want to claim that there is no conceivable
>> way in which such a sensitivity (to mid-tones)
>> could evolve, the likelihood of any such
>> mechanism existing within a typical human or
>> hominid population is remote in the extreme.
>
> Then why are the ear bones different across species?

In fact, they are not much different in most
mammals (except when you get to extreme
specialists, such as bats). Such variations
as there are still provide for far more acute
hearing over a much wider range than we
see in humans. The only thing around here
that needs an explanation is why humans
have such appallingly bad hearing. But no
PA type will even think about the question.
It's not politically acceptable (i.e. "scientifically
interesting"), and the funding bodies would
never provide a grant for research into it.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

As with brain endocasts, this evidence proves that hominids social complexity (which can only be the result of communal selection) goes back many millions of years. My guess is that it first began to evolve about 8 million years ago when the climate changed and the highly seasonal savanna first appeared in East Africa.

Hominid social complexity, being many times more sophisticated than that of any other species, is the characteristic that most thoroughly distinguishes hominids from all other species. Fortunately, due to my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis, we now know how and why this evolved.

[Claudius Denk]

Why don't you look up the word "capacity" in a dictionary.

> What part of "different...compared with modern humans" did you not
>
> understand?

uh, who said it was the same?

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2013 16:43, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> >>>>> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
> >>>
> >>> We're talking 9pardon the pun) 2 mya and these bones developing into
> >>> something closer to what modern humans have.
> >>
> >> So what -- exactly? The implication of the paper
> >> is that language had evolved substantially before
> >
> > No, that is not what it says. It's refering to more sensitivity to
> > frequency ranges modern humans have. Read the abstract.
>
> I read the full paper (which is very short), but
> as the article states:
>
> " . . the researchers suggest that it might be an early sign of the

"might be"

> high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic frequencies between

> 2 and 4 kilohertz—frequencies critical to spoken language, but which

> apes and other primates are much less sensitive to. . ."
>
> They wrap it up in obscure 'pretend-scientific'
> terms in the paper and the abstract, but that's
> what they intend to convey. (Insofar, of course,
> as they intend to convey anything -- other than
> " . . Hey, we've done some work, and we want
> money, and other than that, we're not saying
> nutting. . . ").

You mean, as opposed to you staring into space and dreaming up stuff?

> >> It says little and presents no evidence (except
> >> of the authors' ignorance of evolutionary
> >> processes). Various appendices are also
> >> freely available.
> >
> > It's an ABSTRACT. IOW, a short summary. DUH
>
> The paper itself is not much longer.
>
> >>>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
> >>>
> >>> How did bats evolve to hear higer frequencies?
> >>
> >> You show that you are as bright as Algis.
> >> Are you trying to change the subject?
> >> (OK, 'hearing' is involved in both -- so, to
> >> you, it's a "parallel" case.)
> >>
> >> Note how you cannot deal with the issue.
> >
> > Note how you fail to see evolution at work in both cases.
>
> Any intelligent child can tell you how the
> acute hearing of bats in the ultrasonic is
> likely to have been selected for. . . and
> how it is maintained. But NO ONE
> (including you) can suggest ANY way in
> which there could ever have been selection
> for better sensitivity to 'mid-tones'.

The child is way ahead of you then, because the same processes
of selection are at work in both species.

> >>>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
> >>
> >> You don't have any kind of answer, and neither
> >> would the authors of this paper. While I might
> >> not want to claim that there is no conceivable
> >> way in which such a sensitivity (to mid-tones)
> >> could evolve, the likelihood of any such
> >> mechanism existing within a typical human or
> >> hominid population is remote in the extreme.
> >
> > Then why are the ear bones different across species?
>
> In fact, they are not much different in most
> mammals (except when you get to extreme
> specialists, such as bats). Such variations
> as there are still provide for far more acute
> hearing over a much wider range than we
> see in humans. The only thing around here
> that needs an explanation is why humans
> have such appallingly bad hearing. But no

Bad? Says who?

> PA type will even think about the question.

Except that the current paper is investigating matters
directly related to that! Another one whoosh over Pollie's head.

> It's not politically acceptable (i.e. "scientifically
> interesting"), and the funding bodies would
> never provide a grant for research into it.

It's never occurred to Pollie that ear bones for hominids are rather
rare, thus making study somewhat difficult...

Study of primate hearing has been going on for a while.

In google, the terms primates hearing range gets over a million
hits.

Here's one from 1973 (but put online on this site in 2005)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330380233/abstract
Hearing of old world monkeys (Cercopithecinae)

... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60–70,000 Hz limit for some
prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
sensitive frequency range (1–8 kHz) was about 2 × 10-4 microbars,
comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
...

Search terms primates hearing evolution also gets a million hits.

Here's one from 2012

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22422/abstract
Inner Ear Evolution in Primates Through the Cenozoic: Implications
for the Evolution of Hearing

An interesting looking one:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1597/1860.abstract
Social drive and the evolution of primate hearing

Someone's dissertation

http://gradworks.umi.com/3301482.pdf
The Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Primate Auditory System

What was that again about no one wanting to study such things?

[RichTravsky]

Why? I posted that for your benefit to show the auditory systems
of these hominids were not the same as humans. Perhaps it is you
who should go to the dictionary.

> > What part of "different...compared with modern humans" did you not
> > understand?
>
> uh, who said it was the same?

uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present
"before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...

[Claudius Denk]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:

RT:
If you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...

CD:
I'm going to go with what the paper actually says rather than your delusion based on what you think it didn't say.

[Paul Crowley]

On 04/07/2013 22:10, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

>> I read the full paper (which is very short), but
>> as the article states:
>>
>> " . . the researchers suggest that it might be an early sign of the
>
> "might be"

Gosh, golly, weren't they brave to come out
with such a clear and definite opinion?

>> high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic frequencies between
>> 2 and 4 kilohertz—frequencies critical to spoken language, but which
>> apes and other primates are much less sensitive to. . ."

>> Any intelligent child can tell you how the
>> acute hearing of bats in the ultrasonic is
>> likely to have been selected for. . . and
>> how it is maintained. But NO ONE
>> (including you) can suggest ANY way in
>> which there could ever have been selection
>> for better sensitivity to 'mid-tones'.
>
> The child is way ahead of you then, because the same processes
> of selection are at work in both species.

To you, no doubt, the "process" is merely one of
altering alleles -- and you best 'explanation' for
that is invariably 'drift'.

The acute hearing of bats in the ultra-sonic
evolved by selection, because those best at it
could catch more moths. They fed better and
were able to have more progeny than their
less well-endowed siblings. That ability is
constantly maintained in living bats. Any bat
with less-acute ultra-sonic hearing will do worse
than its siblings.

You should be able to make parallel statements
about humans:

" . . . The [supposed] acute hearing of humans in
the mid-ranges evolved because those best at it
could . . . [DO WHAT ???] . . . . and were able
to have more progeny than their less well-endowed
siblings. That [supposed] ability is constantly
maintained in living humans. Any human with less-
acute hearing in the mid-ranges will do worse than
its siblings . . [AT WHAT ???] . . . "

Of course, any such statements about humans
are transparent nonsense. No one has ever
pointed out such defects. Obviously being deaf
is a handicap, and deaf humans have generally
done less well, and had fewer children. But
who has ever said of X human that he can't hear
so well in the mid-ranges? Or that his brother
is so much better at hearing in the mid-ranges,
and should therefore get the job, or marry the
woman, or rule the country, or WHAT? Was
Richard II or Edward II or Edward VIII de-throned
because he heard less well in the mid-ranges?
Did Kennedy beat Nixon in the election because
he had better hearing in the mid-ranges?

It's pure crap -- so it's no surprise that you think
it's 'good science'.

>>> Then why are the ear bones different across species?
>>
>> In fact, they are not much different in most
>> mammals (except when you get to extreme
>> specialists, such as bats). Such variations
>> as there are still provide for far more acute
>> hearing over a much wider range than we
>> see in humans. The only thing around here
>> that needs an explanation is why humans
>> have such appallingly bad hearing. But no
>
> Bad? Says who?

Have you ever compared your hearing to that
of a dog? Or that of a cat? Or that of a horse?
Or that of any wild or domesticated animal?
Do you live on this planet?

> ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
> extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
> 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60–70,000 Hz limit for some
> prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
> sensitive frequency range (1–8 kHz) was about 2 × 10-4 microbars,
> comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
> the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
> to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
> ...

This supposed difference " . . appears only slightly less
sensitive than man . . ." comes from the fact that the
experimenters can explain what they want to the human
subject, but can't to the animal.

> Search terms primates hearing evolution also gets a million hits.
>
> Here's one from 2012
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22422/abstract
> Inner Ear Evolution in Primates Through the Cenozoic: Implications
> for the Evolution of Hearing
>
> An interesting looking one:
>
> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1597/1860.abstract
> Social drive and the evolution of primate hearing
>
> Someone's dissertation
>
> http://gradworks.umi.com/3301482.pdf
> The Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Primate Auditory System
>
> What was that again about no one wanting to study such things?

You forgot the point. No one wants to find out
how and why humans are so BAD at certain
things. It is so much more 'interesting' and so
much more 'scientific' to show how they are so
good at everything. That the basis for all the
Leiberman crap about super human running, etc.,
etc. It's what sells to the press and what the
foolish public (and dopes like Razib Khan) just
love to drink up. It's what brings in the money.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:32:07 AM UTC-7, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 04/07/2013 22:10, RichTravsky wrote:

The [supposed] acute hearing of humans in the mid-ranges evolved because those best at it could . . . [DO WHAT ???] . . . . and were able to have more progeny than their less well-endowed siblings. That [supposed] ability is constantly maintained in living humans. Any human with less-acute hearing in the mid-ranges will do worse than its siblings . . [AT WHAT ???] . . . "

Poor Paul. Poor Paul is stuck on the simpleminded Darwinistic notion that all selection happens to individuals. Poor Paul is intellectually incapable of comprehending that Darwin's simplistic understanding of selection happening to individuals is/was an artifact of maintaining a simplistic explanation and NOT A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE. Poor Paul is destined to live the rest of his life believing that he is adhering to a scientific principle when in actuality he has just misinterpreted an artifact of explanation.

Humans/hominids have a far higher number of group selected traits than any other mammal of similar size. Communication is a group selected trait. The fact that group selected traits are evident before 2 mya is hardly surprising given the indisputable fact that humans/hominids have a far higher number of group selected traits than any other mammal of similar size.

Things are what they are, deal with it, Paul.

>
>
>
> Of course, any such statements about humans
>
> are transparent nonsense. No one has ever
>
> pointed out such defects. Obviously being deaf
>
> is a handicap, and deaf humans have generally
>
> done less well, and had fewer children. But
>
> who has ever said of X human that he can't hear
>
> so well in the mid-ranges? Or that his brother
>
> is so much better at hearing in the mid-ranges,
>
> and should therefore get the job, or marry the
>
> woman, or rule the country, or WHAT?

LOL. You present a simpleminded argument. You are so thoroughly ignorant about how evolutionary theory actually works that you think all evolutionary theories must fit within the narrow confines of the modern viewpoint that you suggest above. What a loser.

Was
>
> Richard II or Edward II or Edward VIII de-throned
>
> because he heard less well in the mid-ranges?
>
> Did Kennedy beat Nixon in the election because
>
> he had better hearing in the mid-ranges?


>
>
>
> It's pure crap -- so it's no surprise that you think
>
> it's 'good science'.

LOL. Like you have a clue.

>
>
>
> >>> Then why are the ear bones different across species?
>
> >>
>
> >> In fact, they are not much different in most
>
> >> mammals (except when you get to extreme
>
> >> specialists, such as bats). Such variations
>
> >> as there are still provide for far more acute
>
> >> hearing over a much wider range than we
>
> >> see in humans. The only thing around here
>
> >> that needs an explanation is why humans
>
> >> have such appallingly bad hearing. But no
>
> >
>
> > Bad? Says who?
>
>
>
> Have you ever compared your hearing to that
>
> of a dog? Or that of a cat? Or that of a horse?
>
> Or that of any wild or domesticated animal?
>
> Do you live on this planet?
>
>
>
> > ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
>
> > extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
>

> > 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60�70,000 Hz limit for some

>
> > prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
>

> > sensitive frequency range (1�8 kHz) was about 2 � 10-4 microbars,

Human's are good at thing that involve communication, cooperation, consciousness. Your adherence to a non-existent scientific principle is the reason you have failed at explaining the selective origins of these most obvious hominid/human traits. Don't blame others for not seeing what you are incapable of explaining.

Tell us how you explain the selective origins of communication, cooperation, and consciousness (as I have done with my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis) or kindly go away, you whiney loon.

That the basis for all the
>
> Leiberman crap about super human running, etc.,
>
> etc. It's what sells to the press and what the
>
> foolish public (and dopes like Razib Khan) just
>
> love to drink up. It's what brings in the money.

Stop blaming everybody else for you inability to make a point.

[Claudius Denk]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:

RT:

Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...

CD:
The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.

Allow me to explain something about scholarly papers that you, obviously, have failed to grasp. Abstracts are vague by design. This is due to the fact that abstracts must be short. The brevity of abstracts is not an invitation for you anthro-cultists to interpret the findings of a paper so that they match your pre-concieved fairy tale.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

[---snip---]

The problem here is in the collective. Nobody
is placing "the paper" (abstract/etc) within
it's proper context. It's either being viewed
in complete isolation -- that is, while ignoring
all the evidence for language prior to 2 million
years ago -- or it's being viewed entirely within
the context of some daft "Garden Habitat" scheme.

Between the two extremes lies reality, of course...

The paper isn't alone. It does come into a world
with existing arguments, existing evidence, and
it has long been held by many that Homo habilis
(dating to more than 2 million years ago) could
talk, and that erectus could talk. The paper
discussed here (in isolation from any real
evidence & theories) is yet further evidence
consistent with the development of language in
Homo habilis.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Do you have a theory on the selective origins of speech in the hominid lineage other than, "it's obvious."

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Do you have a theory on the selective origins of
> speech in the hominid lineage other than, "it's obvious."

The purpose of a "Theory" is to explain evidence,
not give you something to do while your bed dries.

However, the evidence does not go away if I don't
present a theory. It's still there.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

LOL. It's not like there was ever the slightest chance that an aquatic ape dildo would have an answer to that question that was even remotely plausible.

Your thinking smells so bad that if you were to piss into the wind and sit out in the sun for an hour it would probably be an improvement.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> LOL. It's not like there was ever the slightest chance that an aquatic ape
> dildo would have an answer to that question that was even remotely plausible.

This might mean more if you had the faintest
clue as to what "aquatic ape" is...

Your question is wrong. Entirely.

There isn't an intelligent force selecting traits.
There is no logic to it. If a population lacks the
genetic capacity to adapt in a certain way then they
won't, regardless of how logical or beneficial such
an adaptation might be.

Speech may not be selected for at all. The changes
to our anatomy which allowed speech may have simply
been a consequence of growing a larger brain.

...or even just sexual selection -- they responded
more favorably towards such physical changes.

It's impossible to state which answer is correct, though
we can all state conclusively that your "garden habitat"
is absolutely wrong, as JUST LIKE in the case of the
endurance running idiocy you have the behavior preceding
the adaptations which allowed the behavior.

You have our ancestors FIRST developing cognitive
abilities which THEN allow them to engage in behaviors
which result in the evolution of those very same
cognitive abilities.

your "endurance running" twins have our ancestors
engaging in endurance running which leads to the
evolutionary adaptations which allow endurance running.

you're two peas in a pod, two psychos in a rubber room...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 1:28:29 AM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:

CD:

Do you have a theory on the selective origins of speech
in the hominid lineage other than, "it's obvious."

JTEM:
<inane and evasive response snipped>

CD:

LOL. It's not like there was ever the slightest
chance that an aquatic ape dildo would have an
answer to that question that was even remotely
plausible.

Your thinking smells so bad that if you were to
piss into the wind and sit out in the sun for an
hour it would probably be an improvement.

JTEM:

This might mean more if you had the faintest clue
as to what "aquatic ape" is...

CD:
Is it a secret? Is there some reason you're not
telling us your special secret?

JTEM:

Your question is wrong. Entirely.

CD:
Really? Why? Because human speech is an illusion?
Spontaneous generation? Please tell us your special secret.

JTEM:

There isn't an intelligent force selecting traits.
There is no logic to it.

CD:
Natural selection is the logic underlying the origins
all biological adaptations. The fact that you can't
figure out the details thereof demonstrates the
inadequacy of your approach to the subject.

JTEM:

If a population lacks the genetic capacity to adapt
in a certain way then they won't, regardless of how
logical or beneficial such an adaptation might be.

CD:
Natural selection isn't determined by a predisposition
(preadaptation) you idiot.

JTEM:

Speech may not be selected for at all. The changes to
our anatomy which allowed speech may have simply been a
consequence of growing a larger brain.

CD:
And you have no theory on brain encaphalization either.
Do you?

JTEM:

...or even just sexual selection -- they responded more
favorably towards such physical changes.

It's impossible to state which answer is correct, though
we can all state conclusively that your "garden habitat"
is absolutely wrong, as JUST LIKE in the case of the
endurance running idiocy you have the behavior preceding
the adaptations which allowed the behavior.

You have our ancestors FIRST developing cognitive abilities
which THEN allow them to engage in behaviors which result
in the evolution of those very same cognitive abilities.

Your "endurance running" twins have our ancestors engaging

in endurance running which leads to the evolutionary

adaptations which allow endurance running. You're two peas

in a pod, two psychos in a rubber room...

CD:
So, it'everybody else's fault that you can't answer a
simple question. It couldn't possibly be due to the
fact that your understanding of evolutionary biology is
flawed, could it? Because it's all so obvious to you.
Right?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Natural selection is the logic underlying the origins
> all biological adaptations.

It's not logic. There is no logic what so ever.

You're being dumb. You're spewing creationism and
thinking that you're discussing evolution. You can't
tell the difference, you're so thick.

You should stick to misunderstanding "aquatic ape"
and not performing what tests you can on your idiot
"Theories." You do those things well.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 10:49:00 AM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Natural selection is the logic underlying the origins
>
> > all biological adaptations.
>
>
>
> It's not logic. There is no logic what so ever.
>
>
>
> You're being dumb. You're spewing creationism

Creationism? You are a complete dufus.

and
>
> thinking that you're discussing evolution. You can't
>
> tell the difference, you're so thick.
>
>
>
> You should stick to misunderstanding "aquatic ape"
>
> and not performing what tests you can on your idiot
>
> "Theories." You do those things well.

LOL.

[RichTravsky]

The excerpt is for real. Your delusion is also real.

*From* the paper's abstract

The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus and
stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner
ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.

And

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen. A team of
scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of

the three tiny middle ear bones葉he malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
and stapes ("stirrup")擁n a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.

The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a

human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly

to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic

frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz庸requencies critical to spoken

language, but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive
to.

Note the word "suggest".

And from the paper's conclusion

Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...

which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
capabilities are *not* known.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2013 22:10, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
>
> >> I read the full paper (which is very short), but
> >> as the article states:
> >>
> >> " . . the researchers suggest that it might be an early sign of the
> >
> > "might be"
>
> Gosh, golly, weren't they brave to come out
> with such a clear and definite opinion?

Because that would not be supported by the evidence as known so far.

> >> high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic frequencies between
> >> 2 and 4 kilohertz�frequencies critical to spoken language, but which
> >> apes and other primates are much less sensitive to. . ."
>
> >> Any intelligent child can tell you how the
> >> acute hearing of bats in the ultrasonic is
> >> likely to have been selected for. . . and
> >> how it is maintained. But NO ONE
> >> (including you) can suggest ANY way in
> >> which there could ever have been selection
> >> for better sensitivity to 'mid-tones'.
> >
> > The child is way ahead of you then, because the same processes
> > of selection are at work in both species.
>
> To you, no doubt, the "process" is merely one of
> altering alleles -- and you best 'explanation' for
> that is invariably 'drift'.
>
> The acute hearing of bats in the ultra-sonic
> evolved by selection, because those best at it
> could catch more moths. They fed better and
> were able to have more progeny than their
> less well-endowed siblings. That ability is
> constantly maintained in living bats. Any bat
> with less-acute ultra-sonic hearing will do worse
> than its siblings.

So, you're agreeing with me.

The crap part is that, well, it isn't in the paper or the sciencemag
article. IN fact, it isn't in the thread at all

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.anthropology.paleo/KkCWHyOL8x4

So, you wrote it and putting it in quotes implies it was in the thread.

> >>> Then why are the ear bones different across species?
> >>
> >> In fact, they are not much different in most
> >> mammals (except when you get to extreme
> >> specialists, such as bats). Such variations
> >> as there are still provide for far more acute
> >> hearing over a much wider range than we
> >> see in humans. The only thing around here
> >> that needs an explanation is why humans
> >> have such appallingly bad hearing. But no
> >
> > Bad? Says who?
>
> Have you ever compared your hearing to that
> of a dog? Or that of a cat? Or that of a horse?
> Or that of any wild or domesticated animal?
> Do you live on this planet?

Yes. You should try it. Nice place. As far as why is it bad, then
how come humans have done so well?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330380233/abstract
Hearing of old world monkeys (Cercopithecinae)

> > ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
> > extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
> > 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60�70,000 Hz limit for some
> > prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
> > sensitive frequency range (1�8 kHz) was about 2 � 10-4 microbars,
> > comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
> > the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
> > to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
> > ...
>
> This supposed difference " . . appears only slightly less
> sensitive than man . . ." comes from the fact that the
> experimenters can explain what they want to the human
> subject, but can't to the animal.

What part of "tested" did you not understand? In fact, your dismissal
also applies to your statement the other animals' hearing is
better than humans - as in, how was that determined?

> > Search terms primates hearing evolution also gets a million hits.
> >
> > Here's one from 2012
> >
> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22422/abstract
> > Inner Ear Evolution in Primates Through the Cenozoic: Implications
> > for the Evolution of Hearing
> >
> > An interesting looking one:
> >
> > http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1597/1860.abstract
> > Social drive and the evolution of primate hearing
> >
> > Someone's dissertation
> >
> > http://gradworks.umi.com/3301482.pdf
> > The Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Primate Auditory System
> >
> > What was that again about no one wanting to study such things?
>
> You forgot the point. No one wants to find out

No, you forgot to have one.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> RT:
> Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
>
> CD:
> The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.

Provide exact quote ->

Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion

Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...

which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
capabilities are *not* known.

[Paul Crowley]

On 17/07/2013 03:49, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>> Then why are the ear bones different across species?
>>>>
>>>> In fact, they are not much different in most
>>>> mammals (except when you get to extreme
>>>> specialists, such as bats). Such variations
>>>> as there are still provide for far more acute
>>>> hearing over a much wider range than we
>>>> see in humans. The only thing around here
>>>> that needs an explanation is why humans
>>>> have such appallingly bad hearing. But no
>>>
>>> Bad? Says who?
>>
>> Have you ever compared your hearing to that
>> of a dog? Or that of a cat? Or that of a horse?
>> Or that of any wild or domesticated animal?
>> Do you live on this planet?
>
> Yes. You should try it. Nice place. As far as why is it bad, then
> how come humans have done so well?

As I have explained to you before, there is
minimal selection in humans for acuteness
of hearing; whereas in most other animals
such selection is intense. Individuals with
less than acute hearing will be predated.
The hominid line has suffered only a minor
degree of predation since it found its original
niche 5-6 mya.

>>> ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
>>> extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
>>> 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60–70,000 Hz limit for some
>>> prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
>>> sensitive frequency range (1–8 kHz) was about 2 × 10-4 microbars,
>>> comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
>>> the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
>>> to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
>>> ...
>>
>> This supposed difference " . . appears only slightly less
>> sensitive than man . . ." comes from the fact that the
>> experimenters can explain what they want to the human
>> subject, but can't to the animal.
>
> What part of "tested" did you not understand?

The animals were 'tested' by means of 'operant
conditioning'. Do you think they did the same
with their human subjects?

> In fact, your dismissal
> also applies to your statement the other animals' hearing is
> better than humans - as in, how was that determined?

Nonsense. It is easy to see when an animal
responds to a sound that a human simply can't
hear.

Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

> RT:
> If you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
>
> CD:
> I'm going to go with what the paper actually says rather than your delusion based on what you think it didn't say.

the researchers suggest that it might be an early
sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic

frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz—frequencies critical to spoken

language, but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive
to.

Note the word "suggest".

CD:
It would appear you lack an alternate explanation.

[Claudius Denk]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> RT:
> Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
>
> CD:
> The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.


Provide exact quote ->

Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion

Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...

which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
capabilities are *not* known.

CD:
So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.

Can't you pretty much say that about all fossil evidence?

BTW: the stone tool evidence alone indicates a level of sophistication consistent with speech in early hominids.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> [snip]

Aquatic ape.

Sound travels much better in the water, and
human hearing itself is vastly improved:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110516-people-hearing-aids-ears-science/

Chimps can't hold their breath underwater.
Our closest living relatives -- so close
that they may have evolved from us, not
the other way around -- can't hold their
breath under water.

Control of our breath is CRITICAL to
speech.

Put us under the water and we have to
control our breath -- necessary for
speaking -- and we have an entirely
different set of priorities as far as
hearing goes.

...evolutionarily speaking, of course.


Once again "Aquatic ape" proves the
answer.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Did it never occur to you that, possibly, the evolution of speech might have something to do with communication being beneficial?

[JTEM]

And it wouldn't be beneficial in the case of every other
social animal because... ???



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Jim McGinn]

On Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:17:14 AM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did it never occur to you that, possibly, the evolution
>
> > of speech might have something to do with communication
>
> > being beneficial?
>
>
>
> And it wouldn't be beneficial in the case of every other
>
> social animal because... ???
>
>

Sure, which is why all social animals communicate. But humans have language which is very unique. Why do you think humans/hominids evolved language?

Are all social animals agricultural?

What do you think would have been the earliest form of agriculture and how did it actually manifest itself in a survival advantage?

What situational factors do you think might have made it (agriculture) necessary? (And, for the time being, let's assume they kept their heads above water.)

Why (how) did agriculture make language adaptive (necessary)?

[JTEM]

Jim McGinn wrote:


> Sure, which is why all social animals communicate. But humans have language > which is very unique. Why do you think humans/hominids evolved language?

Humans evolved language because that's the way it
worked out. It didn't have to work out this way,
in no other case EVER has it worked out this way,
but it just did.

I believe that it was something of an emergent
trait, that it resulted as a consequence of
sorts from other traits.

Pretty much any animal can vocalize, but once
our ancestors could control their breathing
things really got rolling...

> Are all social animals agricultural?

Agriculture wasn't developed until millions
of years after the earliest evidence for
speech.

> What do you think would have been the earliest form of agriculture and how
> did it actually manifest itself in a survival advantage?

Once symbolic thought emerged, simple observation
over time would have told out ancestors that seeds
produce plants, and eventually that they could get
the plants to grow where they wanted but distributing
the seeds themselves.

I would suspect that we would have to be speaking
of plants they regularly consumed themselves, plants
they wanted a regular supply of, and I'm afraid
the most likely suspects would be intoxicants and/or
medicines.

Generally, you don't need large quantities of
either medicines or intoxicants, while food stocks
or animal feed would require a major investment
in land & labor.

Certainly there was little or no survival advantage
at first -- perhaps something of a survival
disadvantage (in the case of intoxicants).

Even when agriculture finally got into full swing,
many claim that life expectancy DROPPED. Food
sources were LESS varied, so nutrition suffered,
and of course as communities grew so did the
danger of disease.

All diseases are at some level a "Social Disease"
in that they have to be passed to you by someone
else...

> What situational factors do you think might have made it (agriculture)
> necessary?

It was never "Necessary." If it were, out ancestors
would have gone extinct millions of years earlier.

We make agriculture "Necessary" with technology and
social development -- CIVILIZATION.

We need agriculture to free some people to be builders,
artists, priests, soldiers, etc.

"All wealth comes from the land" is as true today
as it was in ancient times. Without Agriculture
there would have been nobody to build the pyramids.

> Why (how) did agriculture make language adaptive (necessary)?

It didn't. You've got the tail wagging the dog.

Agriculture is only "Necessary" in the context of
civilization, and language is far older than either
of those.

Now if you want to talk about "Writing," on the
other hand, you might have a point...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Jim McGinn wrote:

CD:

> Sure, which is why all social animals communicate. But humans have language > which is very unique. Why do you think humans/hominids evolved language?

Humans evolved language because that's the way it
worked out.

CD:
LOL. It just happened? That's your explanation?

Look up the term spontaneous generation.

It didn't have to work out this way,
in no other case EVER has it worked out this way,
but it just did.

I believe that it was something of an emergent
trait, that it resulted as a consequence of
sorts from other traits.

CD:
Emergent?

Pretty much any animal can vocalize, but once
our ancestors could control their breathing
things really got rolling...

CD:
Things got rolling. That is your explanation?

> Are all social animals agricultural?

Agriculture wasn't developed until millions
of years after the earliest evidence for
speech.

CD:
Proof?

> What do you think would have been the earliest form of agriculture and how
> did it actually manifest itself in a survival advantage?

Once symbolic thought emerged, simple observation
over time would have told out ancestors that seeds
produce plants, and eventually that they could get
the plants to grow where they wanted but distributing
the seeds themselves.

CD:
Explain how symbolic thought emerged, or kindly go away.

CD:
It's obvious that you don't know enough to know how little you know. All of your explanations involve obvious circular reasoning and plainly non-scientific notions like spontaneous generation.

So, uh, how do you explain why seals aren't more chatty?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> CD:
>
> LOL. It just happened? That's your explanation?

That is what science demands. Anything else is
creationism.

> Look up the term spontaneous generation.

Not the same thing as "emergent trait" at all.

> Pretty much any animal can vocalize, but once
> our ancestors could control their breathing
> things really got rolling...
>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Things got rolling. That is your explanation?

That's the scientific -- as opposed to creationist
-- view, yes.

Nobody said, "I want them to talk, so I guess they're
going to need to control their breathing..."

Bigger brains were changing the shape of our skulls,
making us more agreeable with the needs of speaking,
and control of our breath was also necessary.

Neither of those two things require speaking, but
speaking requires them. And once those traits
evolved our ancestors were capable of expanding
their vocalizations well beyond any mammal, and they
had the brain power to use this new ability.

Speaking was an emergent trait.

> Agriculture wasn't developed until millions
> of years after the earliest evidence for
> speech.
>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Proof?

Exactly. There is zip, zero & nil evidence
for any agriculture -- no "Proof" -- until
well after so called "Modern" man was on the
scene.

If you're going to claim agriculture you might
as well claim submarines and computers, because
there's EXACTLY as much reason to assume that
our pre modern ancestors had either of those
as there is for agriculture...

> Once symbolic thought emerged, simple observation
> over time would have told out ancestors that seeds
> produce plants, and eventually that they could get
> the plants to grow where they wanted but distributing
> the seeds themselves.
>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Explain how symbolic thought emerged, or kindly go away.

No. It emerged, we know this, with the earliest
evidence dating to about 400 thousand years ago,
and with it undisputed going back... oh... I dunno...
100 thousand years ago or so.

It's sheer idiocy to dispute the screaming obvious.

> CD:
>
> It's obvious that you don't know enough to know how little
> you know. All of your explanations involve obvious
> circular reasoning and plainly non-scientific notions
> like spontaneous generation.

I am *So* glad that I didn't have a drink to my lips
as I read that... the resulting spray would have been
difficult to clean up.

My, you certainly are nuts.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:41:07 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > CD:
>
> >
>
> > LOL. It just happened? That's your explanation?
>
>
>
> That is what science demands. Anything else is
>
> creationism.

Science is easy for idiots.

>
>
>
> > Look up the term spontaneous generation.
>
>
>
> Not the same thing as "emergent trait" at all.

They way you use it the word,"emergent" is meaningless.

Proof? Evidence? Anything?

>
>
>
> If you're going to claim agriculture you might
>
> as well claim submarines and computers, because
>
> there's EXACTLY as much reason to assume that
>
> our pre modern ancestors had either of those
>
> as there is for agriculture...

And yet you think that aquaticism better explains the origins of language. Considering that hominids are not currently aquatic and no aquatic species has language wouldn't an explanation of early agriculture make more sense considering that hominids are currently agricultural and have language. Try being rational.

>
>
>
> > Once symbolic thought emerged, simple observation
>
> > over time would have told out ancestors that seeds
>
> > produce plants, and eventually that they could get
>
> > the plants to grow where they wanted but distributing
>
> > the seeds themselves.

The earliest form of agriculture didn't involve planting or farming.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > CD:
>
> >
>
> > Explain how symbolic thought emerged, or kindly go away.
>
>
>
> No. It emerged, we know this, with the earliest
>
> evidence dating to about 400 thousand years ago,
>
> and with it undisputed going back... oh... I dunno...
>
> 100 thousand years ago or so.

I asked how, not when.

>
>
>
> It's sheer idiocy to dispute the screaming obvious.

If it's obvious it should be easy for you to explain. Well, present your explanation or just go away.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Science is easy for idiots.

....says the creationist.

Such idiocy!

What you're describing is directed evolution,
"Intelligent Design" or as it is better known:

Creationism.

That's not nature. Nature has no plan. Nature
isn't directed. Emergent traits are the norm;
traits that are more or less a consequence of
other traits -- indirect selective pressure.

I'm not going to argue with you. You either get
this or you don't, and if you don't there is no
point in any further discussion.

It's not my job to educate you, and at the moment
I haven't the patience to even try.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

The concept of emergence is relevant to the field of Complexity theory, which is an offshoot of Chaos Theory. To use it interchangeably with the terminology of evolutionary biology does nothing but expose how unsophisticated is your understanding of both.

Present a theory on how, when, and why hominids evolved from an ape or go away.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:
> Did it never occur to you that, possibly, the evolution of speech might have something to do with communication being beneficial?

As I already pointed out -- thanks for not
noticing -- it would be just as beneficial
to every last species of social animal to
have ever existed, but as far as we know it
has never evolved... ever... in billions of
years... with the lone exception of humans.

"Beneficial" explains why a trait was retained,
not how it was acquired.

If your "But it was beneficial" idiocy could
do it then no population would ever go
extinct, now would they? They'd simply "Evolve"
new beneficial traits on demand...

Traits PERSIST because they are beneficial, or
even just because they are good enough to get
by, but they don't evolve for that reason...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 6:02:29 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Did it never occur to you that, possibly, the evolution of speech might have something to do with communication being beneficial?
>
>
>
> As I already pointed out -- thanks for not
>
> noticing -- it would be just as beneficial
>
> to every last species of social animal to
>
> have ever existed,

We've been over this already. Try to follow. All social animals have communication. Humans have something other social species don't have, a sophisticated language. Try to follow.

but as far as we know it
>
> has never evolved... ever... in billions of
>
> years... with the lone exception of humans.
>
>
>
> "Beneficial" explains why a trait was retained,
>
> not how it was acquired.

Beneficial means it resulted in survival and or reproductive success.

>
>
>
> If your "But it was beneficial" idiocy could
>
> do it then no population would ever go
>
> extinct, now would they? They'd simply "Evolve"
>
> new beneficial traits on demand...
>
>
>
> Traits PERSIST because they are beneficial, or
>
> even just because they are good enough to get
>
> by, but they don't evolve for that reason...

Do you have any arguments that don't pivot of some kind of semantic triviality?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> We've been over this already. Try to follow. All social animals have
> communication.

I keep forgetting that you're a retard without who
can't follow a straight line, let alone a conversation,
but let me try to explain:

The subject isn't communication, it's speech. It's
language, and no animals in the entire history of the
planet earth developed it with the lone exception of
humans!

Speech did NOT develop because it was beneficial. being
"Beneficial" has nothing to do with the evolution of
traits. It may very well have a lot to do with why a
trait is retained, but it has nothing to do with
the evolution of said traits...

In this case the trait in question -- speaking -- has to
be an emergent trait. our language skills are 100%
dependent on a great many physical changes, such as the
changes to our brains and our ability to control our
breathing.

Speaking requires us to be able to control our breathing,
so once we could do that we had the ability to perform
limited speaking (though hardly with the range of sounds
we have today). But we also needed larger brains. We
needed to be smarter to build a vocabulary.

Now you can't accept reality because it obviously
points to "Aquatic Ape."

With "Aquatic Ape" we selective pressures favoring a
population which can control it's breath (allowing it
to, say, exploit food sources during high tide) even
as their seafood diet supplies OODLES of the best
brain-building food known to man.

The sea can also sustain a larger population than
hunter-gatherer groups on dry land, supporting a
larger gene pool, which means greater genetic
diversity (making evolution faster/more likely).

This is in conflict with your dumb ideas which are
so whacked that you dare not even attempt to test
them...

Language, speaking is an emergent trait. It has to
be. there's no question here. Sure, it was
probably subjected to MICRO EVOLUTION for a very,
very (Very, *Very*) long time -- improving it,
refining it -- but we are discussing the appearance
of the trait and not it's evolutionary path after
that event.

I imagine that habilis had something of a proto
language -- able to use sounds as much and as
well as chimps have been taught to use sign language.

Or, who knows? Maybe the first of habilis could
use sounds only as good as chimps (and gorillas)
can use sign language, and hundreds of thousands
of years later they were much more adept...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> We've been over this already. Try to follow. All social animals have
> communication.

I keep forgetting that you're a retard without who
can't follow a straight line, let alone a conversation,
but let me try to explain:

The subject isn't communication, it's speech.

cd:
Gee golly.

It's
language, and no animals in the entire history of the
planet earth developed it with the lone exception of
humans!

CD:
And the reason you know that is because I just told you.

Speech did NOT develop because it was beneficial. being
"Beneficial" has nothing to do with the evolution of
traits. It may very well have a lot to do with why a
trait is retained, but it has nothing to do with
the evolution of said traits...

CD:
Wrong. All things that evolve (emerge) are beneficial/adaptive. All things that evolve provide a survival and/or reproductive advantage.

CD:
You've presented a lot of hand waving. But you haven't presented an explanation.

It's plainly observable that other aquatic mammals don't have language (or, at least, not language that is as sophisticated as ours). How do you explain that?

Hominids are the only species with language. And hominids are the only species with agriculture. Do you think that's a coincidence?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> And the reason you know that is because I just told you.

As entertaining as I find your child like views and
comments, they can grow tiresome.

You haven't a grasp of evolution. You're a creationist.
You see directed development, the hand of God or aliens
choosing "Beneficial" traits.

I doubt very much you could even offer a sensible definition
for this "Beneficial," within the present context, and to
prove it I hereby challenge you to do so:


{crickets chirping}


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:
> Do you have any arguments that don't pivot of some kind of semantic triviality?

[RichTravsky]

And produces the same results.

> > In fact, your dismissal
> > also applies to your statement the other animals' hearing is
> > better than humans - as in, how was that determined?
>
> Nonsense. It is easy to see when an animal
> responds to a sound that a human simply can't
> hear.

IOW, TESTED. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[RichTravsky]

It would appear your desperation is showing.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> >
> > RT:
> > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
> >
> > CD:
> > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
>
> Provide exact quote ->
>
> Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
>
> Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
> hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
> in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
> additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
> middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
> These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
> possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
>
> which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
> capabilities are *not* known.
>
> CD:
> So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.

Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.

> Can't you pretty much say that about all fossil evidence?
>
> BTW: the stone tool evidence alone indicates a level of sophistication consistent with speech in early hominids.

Why? Chimps learn termite fishing without speech.

[Claudius Denk]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> >
> > RT:
> > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
> >
> > CD:
> > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
>
> Provide exact quote ->

Read upthread.

>
> Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
>
> Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
> hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
> in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
> additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
> middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
> These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
> possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
>
> which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
> capabilities are *not* known.
>
> CD:
> So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.

Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.

CD:
It must be frustrating for you that the rule of reality prevent you from providing a link to your imagination.

> Can't you pretty much say that about all fossil evidence?

CD:
I knew you wouldn't answer this question.

> BTW: the stone tool evidence alone indicates a level of sophistication consistent with speech in early hominids.

Why? Chimps learn termite fishing without speech.

Yeah, so?

[Paul Crowley]

On 22/07/2013 05:44, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>> ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
>>>>> extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of

>>>>> 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60�70,000 Hz limit for some

>>>>> prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most

>>>>> sensitive frequency range (1�8 kHz) was about 2 � 10-4 microbars,

>>>>> comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
>>>>> the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
>>>>> to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> This supposed difference " . . appears only slightly less
>>>> sensitive than man . . ." comes from the fact that the
>>>> experimenters can explain what they want to the human
>>>> subject, but can't to the animal.
>>>
>>> What part of "tested" did you not understand?
>>
>> The animals were 'tested' by means of 'operant
>> conditioning'. Do you think they did the same
>> with their human subjects?
>
> And produces the same results.

The 'results' produced by such methods
can only be those that the experimenters
decided, in advance, they wanted to see.

>>> In fact, your dismissal
>>> also applies to your statement the other animals' hearing is
>>> better than humans - as in, how was that determined?
>>
>> Nonsense. It is easy to see when an animal
>> responds to a sound that a human simply can't
>> hear.
>
> IOW, TESTED. Thanks for agreeing with me.

The problem (which you fail to grasp) is how
to establish that other primates were

"less sensitive than man to small changes in
intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation".

-- more sensitive,or the same. There would be
huge problems in any serious investigation in
this field. Humans themselves have an
enormous range of sensitivities, largely
dependent on their 'training', especially in
the native language they learned as infants.
Non-native listeners often fail to hear tones
and other vocalisations that a native speaker
finds obvious.

The investigators in this 'study' clearly had no
interest in doing anything serious, and only a
fool would be taken in by their 'results'.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html


Paul.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> > >
> > > RT:
> > > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
> > >
> > > CD:
> > > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
> >
> > Provide exact quote ->
>
> Read upthread.

I have the whole paper. It says no such thing. If it does, provide the quote.

> > Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
> >
> > Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
> > hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
> > in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
> > additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
> > middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
> > These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
> > possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
> >
> > which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
> > capabilities are *not* known.
> >
> > CD:
> > So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.
>
> Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.

No response.

> CD:
> It must be frustrating for you that the rule of reality prevent you from providing a link to your imagination.

It's your imagination that's claiming this paper implies speech.

> > Can't you pretty much say that about all fossil evidence?
>
> CD:
> I knew you wouldn't answer this question.

I knew you would dodge again.

> > BTW: the stone tool evidence alone indicates a level of sophistication consistent with speech in early hominids.
>
> Why? Chimps learn termite fishing without speech.
>
> Yeah, so?

It's your claim language was needed...

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 22/07/2013 05:44, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>>> ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
> >>>>> extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of

> >>>>> 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60�70,000 Hz limit for some

> >>>>> prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most

> >>>>> sensitive frequency range (1�8 kHz) was about 2 � 10-4 microbars,

> >>>>> comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
> >>>>> the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
> >>>>> to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> This supposed difference " . . appears only slightly less
> >>>> sensitive than man . . ." comes from the fact that the
> >>>> experimenters can explain what they want to the human
> >>>> subject, but can't to the animal.
> >>>
> >>> What part of "tested" did you not understand?
> >>
> >> The animals were 'tested' by means of 'operant
> >> conditioning'. Do you think they did the same
> >> with their human subjects?
> >
> > And produces the same results.
>
> The 'results' produced by such methods
> can only be those that the experimenters
> decided, in advance, they wanted to see.

How ->

> >>> In fact, your dismissal
> >>> also applies to your statement the other animals' hearing is
> >>> better than humans - as in, how was that determined?
> >>
> >> Nonsense. It is easy to see when an animal
> >> responds to a sound that a human simply can't
> >> hear.
> >
> > IOW, TESTED. Thanks for agreeing with me.
>
> The problem (which you fail to grasp) is how
> to establish that other primates were
> "less sensitive than man to small changes in
> intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation".

The facts (which you fail to grasp) is that the same methods are
used as for other animals - like dogs.

> -- more sensitive,or the same. There would be
> huge problems in any serious investigation in
> this field. Humans themselves have an
> enormous range of sensitivities, largely
> dependent on their 'training', especially in
> the native language they learned as infants.
> Non-native listeners often fail to hear tones
> and other vocalisations that a native speaker
> finds obvious.
>
> The investigators in this 'study' clearly had no
> interest in doing anything serious, and only a
> fool would be taken in by their 'results'.
>
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

That's not the actual paper, Pollie.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:27:08 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > RT:
>
> > > > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
>
> > > >
>
> > > > CD:
>
> > > > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
>
> > >
>
> > > Provide exact quote ->
>
> >
>
> > Read upthread.
>
>
>
> I have the whole paper. It says no such thing. If it does, provide the quote.

I quoted you quoting the paper. Read upthread.

>
>
>
> > > Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
>
> > >
>
> > > Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
>
> > > hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
>
> > > in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
>
> > > additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
>
> > > middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
>
> > > These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
>
> > > possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
>
> > >
>
> > > which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
>
> > > capabilities are *not* known.
>
> > >
>
> > > CD:
>
> > > So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.
>
> >
>
> > Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.
>
>
>
> No response.
>
>
>
> > CD:
>

> > It must be frustrating for you that the rules of reality prevent you from providing a link to your imagination.

>
>
>
> It's your imagination that's claiming this paper implies speech.

Apparently not.

>
>
>
> > > Can't you pretty much say that about all fossil evidence?
>
> >
>
> > CD:
>
> > I knew you wouldn't answer this question.
>
>
>
> I knew you would dodge again.
>
>
>
> > > BTW: the stone tool evidence alone indicates a level of sophistication consistent with speech in early hominids.

Another dodge.

>
> >
>
> > Why? Chimps learn termite fishing without speech.
>
> >
>
> > Yeah, so?
>
>
>
> It's your claim language was needed...

Relevance?

[RichTravsky]

Clodius Denk wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:27:08 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> > > > > RT:
> > > > > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
> > > > > CD:
> > > > > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
> > > > Provide exact quote ->
> >
> > > Read upthread.
> >
> > I have the whole paper. It says no such thing. If it does, provide the quote.
>
> I quoted you quoting the paper. Read upthread.

You're lying. The paper and the article say no such thing. See below where I
paste
back the quotes I posted...

> > > > Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
> >
> > > > Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
> > > > hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
> > > > in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
> > > > additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
> > > > middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
> > > > These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
> > > > possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
> >
> > > > which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
> > > > capabilities are *not* known.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > CD:
> >
> > > > So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.
> >
> >
> >
> > No response.
> >
> >
> >
> > > CD:
> >
> > > It must be frustrating for you that the rules of reality prevent you from providing a link to your imagination.
> >
> > It's your imagination that's claiming this paper implies speech.
>
> Apparently not.

Then provide exact quotes. Here is what I posted:

From the paper's abstract

The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus and
stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner
ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.

And

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen. A team of
scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of
the three tiny middle ear bones葉he malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
and stapes ("stirrup")擁n a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus
robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early

sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic

frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz庸requencies critical to spoken

language, but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive
to.

Note the word "suggest".

And from the paper's conclusion

Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...

which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
capabilities are *not* known.

> > > > Can't you pretty much say that about all fossil evidence?
> >
> > > CD:
> >
> > > I knew you wouldn't answer this question.
> >
> > I knew you would dodge again.
> >
> > > > BTW: the stone tool evidence alone indicates a level of sophistication consistent with speech in early hominids.
>
> Another dodge.

I didn't write that - YOU did. Can't follow attributions? Here's
the google groups link!

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.anthropology.paleo/KkCWHyOL8x4/tFhT94oT8xoJ

Now everyone can see you making a fool of yourself.

> > > Why? Chimps learn termite fishing without speech.
> >
> > > Yeah, so?
> >
> > It's your claim language was needed...
>
> Relevance?

Your claim, you tell us...

[Claudius Denk]

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:35:08 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> Clodius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:27:08 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> > > > > > RT:
>
> > > > > > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
>
> > > > > > CD:
>
> > > > > > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
>
> > > > > Provide exact quote ->
>
> > >
>
> > > > Read upthread.
>
> > >
>
> > > I have the whole paper. It says no such thing. If it does, provide the quote.
>
> >
>
> > I quoted you quoting the paper. Read upthread.
>
>
>
> You're lying. The paper and the article say no such thing. See below where I
>
> paste
>
> back the quotes I posted...

Uh, okay.

>
>
>
> > > > > Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
>
> > > > > hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
>
> > > > > in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
>
> > > > > additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
>
> > > > > middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
>
> > > > > These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
>
> > > > > possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
>
> > >
>
> > > > > which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
>
> > > > > capabilities are *not* known.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > CD:
>
> > >
>
> > > > > So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > No response.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > CD:
>
> > >
>
> > > > It must be frustrating for you that the rules of reality prevent you from providing a link to your imagination.
>
> > >
>
> > > It's your imagination that's claiming this paper implies speech.
>
> >
>
> > Apparently not.
>
>
>
> Then provide exact quotes. Here is what I posted:

Okay . . . uh, your point?

>
>
>
> From the paper's abstract
>
>
>
> The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus and
>
> stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner
>
> ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
>
> capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.
>
>
>
> And
>
>
>
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
>
>
>
> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
>
> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen. A team of
>
> scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of
>

> the three tiny middle ear bones�the malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
>
> and stapes ("stirrup")�in a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

>
> robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
>
> Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
>
> Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
>
> well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
>
> africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
>
> ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
>
> The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
>
> human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
>
> to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
>
> sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
>

> frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz�frequencies critical to spoken

I'm not following. Are you saying this has something to do with your long distance running thingee? Or what?

[RichTravsky]

> > the three tiny middle ear bones�the malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
> >
> > and stapes ("stirrup")�in a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

> >
> > robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
> >
> > Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> >
> > Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
> >
> > well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
> >
> > africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
> >
> > ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
> >
> > The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
> >
> > human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
> >
> > to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
> >
> > sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
> >

> > frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz�frequencies critical to spoken

This is yhour dodge? Changing the subject?

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:35:08 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> > Clodius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:27:08 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> >
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > RT:
> >
> > > > > > > Uh, if you're claiming that this paper implies language being present "before 2mya" then that excerpt shows otherwise...
> >
> > > > > > > CD:
> >
> > > > > > > The paper does more than just imply it, you simpleton. It pretty much states it outright.
> >
> > > > > > Provide exact quote ->
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Read upthread.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I have the whole paper. It says no such thing. If it does, provide the quote.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I quoted you quoting the paper. Read upthread.
> >
> >
> >
> > You're lying. The paper and the article say no such thing. See below where I
> >
> > paste
> >
> > back the quotes I posted...
>
> Uh, okay.

You're welcome.

> > > > > > Be sure to include this from the paper's conclusion
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > Although the relationship between individual auditory structures and
> >
> > > > > > hearing performance is complex, the suggestion of an auditory difference
> >
> > > > > > in early hominins based on the ear ossicles is further supported by
> >
> > > > > > additional anatomical differences noted previously in their outer,
> >
> > > > > > middle, and inner ear, some of which have clear auditory implications.
> >
> > > > > > These anatomical differences in the early hominin ear highlight the
> >
> > > > > > possibility of reconstructing their auditory capacities ...
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > which clearly says the ear bones are different and the exact auditory
> >
> > > > > > capabilities are *not* known.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > CD:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > So, your dispute is that fossil evidence is not perfect.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Which makes your claim pretty much nonsense.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > No response.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > CD:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > It must be frustrating for you that the rules of reality prevent you from providing a link to your imagination.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > It's your imagination that's claiming this paper implies speech.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Apparently not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then provide exact quotes. Here is what I posted:
>
> Okay . . . uh, your point?

To educate you

> > From the paper's abstract
> >
> >
> >
> > The anatomical differences found in the early hominin incus and
> >
> > stapes, along with other aspects of the outer, middle, and inner
> >
> > ear, are consistent with the suggestion of different auditory
> >
> > capacities in these early hominin taxa compared with modern humans.
> >
> >
> >
> > And
> >
> >
> >
> > http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> >
> > Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen. A team of
> >
> > scientists now reports recovering the earliest known complete set of
> >

> > the three tiny middle ear bones�the malleus ("hammer"), incus ("anvil"),
> >
> > and stapes ("stirrup")�in a 2.0-million-year-old skull of Paranthropus

> >
> > robustus, a distant human relative found in South Africa (see photo).
> >
> > Reporting online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> >
> > Sciences, the researchers found that the malleus of P. robustus, as
> >
> > well one found earlier in the early human relative Australopithecus
> >
> > africanus, is similar to that of modern humans, whereas the two other
> >
> > ear bones most closely resemble existing African and Asian great apes.
> >
> > The team is not entirely sure what this precocious appearance of a
> >
> > human-like malleus means. But since the malleus is attached directly
> >
> > to the eardrum, the researchers suggest that it might be an early
> >
> > sign of the high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic
> >

> > frequencies between 2 and 4 kilohertz�frequencies critical to spoken

> >
> > language, but which apes and other primates are much less sensitive
> >
> > to.
> >
> >
> >
> > Note the word "suggest".

Did you see that word "suggest"?

You're the only one who brought up running. Is this your new way of evasion?

[RichTravsky]

RichTravsky wrote:
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:

> >
> > On 05/06/2013 16:43, RichTravsky wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
> > >>>>> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
> > >>>>

> > >>>> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than
> > >>>
> > >>> We're talking 9pardon the pun) 2 mya and these bones developing into
> > >>> something closer to what modern humans have.
> > >>
> > >> So what -- exactly? The implication of the paper
> > >> is that language had evolved substantially before
> > >
> > > No, that is not what it says. It's refering to more sensitivity to
> > > frequency ranges modern humans have. Read the abstract.
> >
> > I read the full paper (which is very short), but
> > as the article states:
> >
> > " . . the researchers suggest that it might be an early sign of the
>
> "might be"

>
> > high human sensitivity to middle-range acoustic frequencies between
> > 2 and 4 kilohertz—frequencies critical to spoken language, but which

> > apes and other primates are much less sensitive to. . ."
> >
> > They wrap it up in obscure 'pretend-scientific'
> > terms in the paper and the abstract, but that's
> > what they intend to convey. (Insofar, of course,
> > as they intend to convey anything -- other than
> > " . . Hey, we've done some work, and we want
> > money, and other than that, we're not saying
> > nutting. . . ").
>
> You mean, as opposed to you staring into space and dreaming up stuff?
>
> > >> It says little and presents no evidence (except
> > >> of the authors' ignorance of evolutionary
> > >> processes). Various appendices are also
> > >> freely available.
> > >
> > > It's an ABSTRACT. IOW, a short summary. DUH
> >
> > The paper itself is not much longer.
> >
> > >>>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
> > >>>
> > >>> How did bats evolve to hear higer frequencies?
> > >>
> > >> You show that you are as bright as Algis.
> > >> Are you trying to change the subject?
> > >> (OK, 'hearing' is involved in both -- so, to
> > >> you, it's a "parallel" case.)
> > >>
> > >> Note how you cannot deal with the issue.
> > >
> > > Note how you fail to see evolution at work in both cases.
> >
> > Any intelligent child can tell you how the
> > acute hearing of bats in the ultrasonic is
> > likely to have been selected for. . . and
> > how it is maintained. But NO ONE
> > (including you) can suggest ANY way in
> > which there could ever have been selection
> > for better sensitivity to 'mid-tones'.
>
> The child is way ahead of you then, because the same processes
> of selection are at work in both species.
>
> > >>>> How could 'better sensitivity to mid-tones' evolve?
> > >>
> > >> You don't have any kind of answer, and neither
> > >> would the authors of this paper. While I might
> > >> not want to claim that there is no conceivable
> > >> way in which such a sensitivity (to mid-tones)
> > >> could evolve, the likelihood of any such
> > >> mechanism existing within a typical human or
> > >> hominid population is remote in the extreme.

> > >
> > > Then why are the ear bones different across species?
> >
> > In fact, they are not much different in most
> > mammals (except when you get to extreme
> > specialists, such as bats). Such variations
> > as there are still provide for far more acute
> > hearing over a much wider range than we
> > see in humans. The only thing around here
> > that needs an explanation is why humans
> > have such appallingly bad hearing. But no
>
> Bad? Says who?
>

> > PA type will even think about the question.
>
> Except that the current paper is investigating matters
> directly related to that! Another one whoosh over Pollie's head.
>
> > It's not politically acceptable (i.e. "scientifically
> > interesting"), and the funding bodies would
> > never provide a grant for research into it.
>
> It's never occurred to Pollie that ear bones for hominids are rather
> rare, thus making study somewhat difficult...
>
> Study of primate hearing has been going on for a while.
>
> In google, the terms primates hearing range gets over a million
> hits.
>
> Here's one from 1973 (but put online on this site in 2005)
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330380233/abstract
> Hearing of old world monkeys (Cercopithecinae)

>
> ... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
> extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
> 20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60–70,000 Hz limit for some
> prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
> sensitive frequency range (1–8 kHz) was about 2 × 10-4 microbars,
> comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
> the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
> to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
> ...
>

> Search terms primates hearing evolution also gets a million hits.
>
> Here's one from 2012
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22422/abstract
> Inner Ear Evolution in Primates Through the Cenozoic: Implications
> for the Evolution of Hearing
>
> An interesting looking one:
>
> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1597/1860.abstract
> Social drive and the evolution of primate hearing
>
> Someone's dissertation
>
> http://gradworks.umi.com/3301482.pdf
> The Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Primate Auditory System
>
> What was that again about no one wanting to study such things?

Silence ;)

[Claudius Denk]

> Did you see that word "suggest"?

And I think I speak for everybody that
is a regular participant in this newsgroup
in saying that you should feel free to
"suggest" an alternate explanation, should
you develop one, ever.

[Paul Crowley]

On 05/08/2013 04:33, RichTravsky wrote:

> RichTravsky wrote:
>>
>> Paul Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/06/2013 16:43, RichTravsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Researchers debate when language first evolved, but one thing is sure:
>>>>>>>> Language requires us not only to talk but also to listen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than

[..]

>> Someone's dissertation
>>
>> http://gradworks.umi.com/3301482.pdf
>> The Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Primate Auditory System
>>
>> What was that again about no one wanting to study such things?
>
> Silence ;)

You're clearly not taking your medication. This was _way_back_
in our 'conversation'. I replied to it, and you replied to me, and
I then replied to you, and you to me, and then me to you, and
then -- the last post in the exchange, you repeated a couple of
very minor inanities which did not merit (nor seem to expect)
any further reply.


Paul.

[RichTravsky]

post your evidence, should yhou ever have any.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/scienceshot-earliest-ear-bones-s.html

Here's one from 1973 (but put online on this site in 2005)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330380233/abstract
Hearing of old world monkeys (Cercopithecinae)

... The frequency range of hearing of all the cercopithecoids tested
extended from 60 to 40,000 Hz, an octave above the upper bound of
20,000 Hz for man but well below the 60–70,000 Hz limit for some
prosimians. Absolute sensitivity for tonal stimulation in the most
sensitive frequency range (1–8 kHz) was about 2 × 10-4 microbars,
comparable to that of other primates tested, including man. Thus,
the Old World monkey appears only slightly less sensitive than man
to small changes in intensity and frequency of acoustic stimulation.
...

Search terms primates hearing evolution also gets a million hits.

Here's one from 2012

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22422/abstract
Inner Ear Evolution in Primates Through the Cenozoic: Implications
for the Evolution of Hearing

An interesting looking one:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1597/1860.abstract
Social drive and the evolution of primate hearing

[RichTravsky]

Wrong. Your idea of a reply is hand waving.

The 'results' produced by such methods
can only be those that the experimenters
decided, in advance, they wanted to see.

This is nonsense. It's MUCH easier to listen than

The investigators in this 'study' clearly had no
interest in doing anything serious, and only a
fool would be taken in by their 'results'.

Etc

[Claudius Denk]

Read the thread before you post.

[RichTravsky]

You first. I posted that as a review for you since you're a slow learner.

[Claudius Denk]

Maybe science isn't your thing.

[Tom McDonald]

On 8/24/2013 6:34 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Maybe science isn't your thing.

We know it's not yours.

[RichTravsky]

Maybe reading and thinking aren't your thing