Re: [tied] Re: Evolution of Language

--- Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
>
> >In the meantime, I'd point out that the difference
> between "rudimentary
> >language"/ "limited signaling of some animals" and
> human language has not
> >been qualitatively or functionally distinguished in
> any real scientific
> >sense.
>
> What really doesn't make sense is this lingering
> notion that language
> could possibly have "exploded" into existence.
> Anybody who takes just
> five minutes to think about it should finally
> realize that this is
> just not possible for a multitude of reasons.
> Language formed in a
> slow evolutionary process over tens of thousands of
> years.

*****GK: 40,000 BC homosapiens A says "ugh"=== 39,000
BC homosapiens A* makes a "breakthrough". Instead of
"ugh" it says "ugh ugh" thus demonstrating bigger
brain power and attracting a following of grateful
"ughs". Do we really have to wait another one thousand
years for some other homosapiens to figure oput that
"ugh ugh ugh" will do it for him (:=))))?****

Why are

> we still hoping and praying for some magic
> "explosion"? As a species,
> we seem to need some magical, non-existent past to
> glorify our existence.
> Why is that?
>
>
> - gLeN
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________

> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months
> FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com