evolutionary psychology

[evolcon]

That would mean that speech—and, therefore, language—couldn’t have evolved until the arrival of anatomically modern Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago (or, per a fossil discovery from 2017, about 300,000 years ago). This line of thinking became known as laryngeal descent theory, or LDT.

OR

A new review paper, published yesterday in Science Advances, aims to tear down the LDT completely. Its authors argue that the anatomical ingredients for speech were present in our ancestors much earlier than 200,000 years ago. In fact, they propose that the necessary equipment—specifically, the throat shape and motor control that produce distinguishable vowels—has been around as long as 27 million years, when humans and Old World monkeys (baboons, mandrills, and the like) last shared a common ancestor.

Speech had to be an incredible advantage in group hunting, it's easy to believe it evolved originally for this purpose. If not during man's cooperative hunting period, that why and how after many millions of years of evolution did speech evolve ?

[The Grand Nudger]

You must mean human speech, human language.

If you think that making noises to hunt is cool....what were those african hunting dogs doing, again?

[Ahriman]

I recently saw a video of a Christian street preacher at a college campus, arguing with some female student. The preacher was arguing against evolution, and the student was saying something like, "Of course evolution is real, we have advanced technology, look at my iPhone"

[The Grand Nudger]

I recently saw a believer arguing on an internet board, he was saying something like "look at this evolutionist saying dumb stuff".

[Angrboda]

Speech had to be an incredible advantage in group hunting, it's easy to believe it evolved originally for this purpose. If not during man's cooperative hunting period, that why and how after many millions of years of evolution did speech evolve ?

What was that you were saying about just-so stories?

[Ahriman]

Well I wasn't passing any kind of judgment on what the student said.

[evolcon]

Speech had to be an incredible advantage in group hunting, it's easy to believe it evolved originally for this purpose. If not during man's cooperative hunting period, that why and how after many millions of years of evolution did speech evolve ?

What was that you were saying about just-so stories?

Didn't you see the question mark, after the last sentence. I'm asking for opposing theories. doesn't anyone want to discuss science ?  I'll drop the hunting hypothesis, given a better idea

[The Grand Nudger]

You've been given a few in the course of the thread. Adaptations to our jaws, initially, in response to our rapidly changing diet... combined with the breathing control required for gathering food on the coast, left us in possession of the mechanical requirements for human speech. We know we were communicating beforehand by the consistency of artifacts. If we didn't start talking pretty much immediately after those adaptations found their way into a dominant population, it would only have been for lack of trying. This was long after coop hunting, somewhere between anatomic and full modernity. If geneticists can be relied on, ballpark, 100k years ago.

We just don't know. No matter what date range we pick there are issues. If it was early, and supposing language is a crucial factor, why did it then take 90k years before the beginning of civilization? If it was late, say 50k ago...then how the fuck did we manage to limp along all the way up to that moment? What explains the state of artifacts?

[brewer]

Didn't you see the question mark, after the last sentence. I'm asking for opposing theories. doesn't anyone want to discuss science ?  I'll drop the hunting hypothesis, given a better idea

After talking at us for days and days why the hell should we talk to you?

[evolcon]

You've been given a few in the course of the thread.  Adaptations to our jaws, initially, in response to our rapidly changing diet... combined with the breathing control required for gathering food on the coast, left us in possession of the mechanical requirements for human speech.  We know we were communicating beforehand by the consistency of artifacts.  If we didn't start talking pretty much immediately after those adaptations found their way into a dominant population, it would only have been for lack of trying.  This was long after coop hunting, somewhere between anatomic and full modernity.  If geneticists can be relied on, ballpark, 100k years ago.

We just don't know.  No matter what date range we pick there are issues.  If it was early, and supposing language is a crucial factor, why did it then take 90k years before the beginning of civilization?  If it was late, say 50k ago...then how the fuck did we manage to limp along all the way up to that moment?  What explains the state of artifacts?

I like that theory, I have heard it before.  It has the same possibility as the hunting hypothesis. Thanks for posting science.
  What I like about the hunting hypothesis is that hunting large game like hippopotamus or elephant  requires a large number of hunters, if we were living in large groups we had many to feed.  We could not take the hippo to the camp site, we had to go back to the camp site and inform the tribe.
I'm well aware that is a just so theory, but it's not really mine. It was first proposed by Derek Bickerton. I think maybe I like because it make us (mankind) seem badass.