Your assumption that India AND its people managed to migrate from Africa simultaneously strikes me as extremely unlikely. And believe it or not, it turns out that there is quite a bit of research into the origins of India's population, and you'll have to look not quite to Africa or South Asia*, but to the Middle East if you want to know where the people of India came from.

*Note, I suspect you meant to say Southeast Asia, since South Asia is largely commensurate with India and its neighbours.

(May 6, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Your assumption that India AND its people managed to migrate from Africa simultaneously strikes me as extremely unlikely. And believe it or not, it turns out that there is quite a bit of research into the origins of India's population, and you'll have to look not quite to Africa or South Asia*, but to the Middle East if you want to know where the people of India came from.

*Note, I suspect you meant to say Southeast Asia, since South Asia is largely commensurate with India and its neighbours.

The fact that the departure of India from Africa occurred 100 times farther back in the mist of geological antiquity compared to the departure of the ancestors of Indians from Africa doesn’t suffice to put his story slightly on the impossible side of improbable?

It does, I just know Haipule is less likely to think so. Plus, the assumption about the Indians going to Asia along with their continent was brought up first as a supporting premise, and the 50,000 years stuff was a conclusion, so it made sense to go after that first.

(May 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm)Haipule Wrote: Aloha AF:

Puzzle: No doubt the India Plate broke off from Africa and Madagascar and eventually smashed into South Asia absorbing some islands on the way. The geology and minerology of the India Plate is radically different than the Eurasian Plate but similar to Africa and Madagascar--but when did they collide? Also radically different is the ethnicity and the cultural differences between the people of India and South Asia to this day. It appears to me that the people of India did not migrate there but where migrated there through plate tectonics.

Now, if I establish that a man is man only because of the ability of complex language. Then man, with the ability of complex language, according to most, is about 50,000yrs old.

Therefore, the people of the India Plate, who went for a ride, and the people of the Eurasian plate, both must of had the ability of complex language at the time the plates collided making it much later than the 40M years ago that current geologic studies suggest.

I wouldn't place too much weight on the first land mass "Pangea" and the subsequent tectonic plate shifts to our modern map, as being the magic bullet as to why different language exist.

Plate shifts are obvious to science for sure. But the biggest reason humans speak differently, isn't because of plate shifts over millions of years, but because of migration. 

To get from Pangea to today's map didn't happen in a day, or week or a century. The differences in culture and language was because of migration, not plate tectonics.

Nobody used a language when Pangea was a thing.

(May 7, 2020 at 4:40 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Nobody used a language when Pangea was a thing.

Well, that depends on how one defines language.

---

(May 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm)Haipule Wrote: Aloha AF:

Puzzle: No doubt the India Plate broke off from Africa and Madagascar and eventually smashed into South Asia absorbing some islands on the way. The geology and minerology of the India Plate is radically different than the Eurasian Plate but similar to Africa and Madagascar--but when did they collide? Also radically different is the ethnicity and the cultural differences between the people of India and South Asia to this day. It appears to me that the people of India did not migrate there but where migrated there through plate tectonics.

Now, if I establish that a man is man only because of the ability of complex language. Then man, with the ability of complex language, according to most, is about 50,000yrs old.

Therefore, the people of the India Plate, who went for a ride, and the people of the Eurasian plate, both must of had the ability of complex language at the time the plates collided making it much later than the 40M years ago that current geologic studies suggest.

I think you should know by now that the only feasible way for you to not say anything monumentally ignorant is to not say anything at all. 


Btw, the people on east coast of North America tend to be culturally and linguistically similar to those on the other side of North America, and they even remember being on the other side of Atlantic as little as a few hundred years ago.   So clearly the opening of North Atlantic must have happened within a few hundred years.

(May 7, 2020 at 6:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 7, 2020 at 4:40 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Nobody used a language when Pangea was a thing.

Well, that depends on how one defines language.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:Pangaea or Pangea ( /pænˈdʒiːə/[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.[2][3] It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago.[4] In contrast to the present Earth and its distribution of continental mass, Pangaea was centred on the Equator and surrounded by the superocean Panthalassa. Pangaea is the most recent supercontinent to have existed and the first to be reconstructed by geologists.

(May 7, 2020 at 8:16 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 7, 2020 at 6:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Well, that depends on how one defines language.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:Pangaea or Pangea ( /pænˈdʒiːə/[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.[2][3] It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago.[4] In contrast to the present Earth and its distribution of continental mass, Pangaea was centred on the Equator and surrounded by the superocean Panthalassa. Pangaea is the most recent supercontinent to have existed and the first to be reconstructed by geologists.

Maybe dinosaur language?

(May 7, 2020 at 8:16 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 7, 2020 at 6:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Well, that depends on how one defines language.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:Pangaea or Pangea ( /pænˈdʒiːə/[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.[2][3] It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago.[4] In contrast to the present Earth and its distribution of continental mass, Pangaea was centred on the Equator and surrounded by the superocean Panthalassa. Pangaea is the most recent supercontinent to have existed and the first to be reconstructed by geologists.

I know when Pangea assembled and when it fragmented.   The question is what level of communication sophistication are animals of that era capable of, and at what level of sophistication would we call the communication language.

---

(May 7, 2020 at 8:39 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(May 7, 2020 at 8:16 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: No, it doesn't.

Maybe dinosaur language?

Well, 3 things.  

1.   Many dinosaurs have anatomical features interpreted to support specialized vocalization. 

2.   One branch of dinosaurs is directly ancestral to birds, and likely possessed brains organized similarly to birds.

3.   Of all animals ever studied, babbler birds come closest to having a human like auditory language.  Closer than possessed by any extent primate.   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...152230.htm


This doesn’t prove any dinosaurs had language precursors.    But if you were to ask me whether it is plausible that babbler like capability for language precursors may have existed in bird lineage all the way back to non-avian dinosaurs,  I would say nothing rules it out.

(May 8, 2020 at 2:38 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I know when Pangea assembled and when it fragmented.   The question is what level of communication sophistication are animals of that era capable of, and at what level of sophistication would we call the communication language.

LOL. They were animals with no capacity for language. Give it a rest.