Chris Hardaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Bernard,
> How can we answer that, especially at this point
> where things are changing so fast? Does a full
> language include telepathy? Does telepathy exist?
no and no.

> Is a full language writing?
no, there was full language for a long time before writing evolved.


Is it discussing
> dreams?

Probably, yes.
Is it talking to yourself?

Depends on what you are talking about

A lot of this
>

hinges on consciousness.

Consciousness is hard to pin down to language. If you read linguistics and people who have been exploring the extent of language possible for primates, oneof the key points is that primates who communicate communicate about events that are ongoing, i.e. when a vervet monkey makes the "eagle, eagle" warning cry and the monkeys rush down from the tops of the trees, there really IS an eagle there. They do not yell "snake, snake" or do it when there is nothing there. (i.e. they do not yell "wolf" as in the human story. Full language, involves consciousness, but there may have been consciousness before full language. Full language allows one to tell fictional stories, to imagine life (or something) after death, to refer to past events, and to people who are not present. How can we get some evidence of this kind of thing going on? Burials with objects to presumably be used after death; wall paintings with shamans and hunting scenes; bear worship; artistic representations. There are other approaches to the question that also get tothe same dates.

See the very interesting summary of research Constance Hlden. 2004. "The Evolution of Speech," Science 303: 1316-1319. The FOX2P gene that is associated with language and was a target of natural selection had its final mutation less than 100,000 years ago and not more than 200,000 years ago. By 300,000 years ago, the hominid larynx was located above the trachea, which expanded the range of sounds humans could do but would also allow food to going down the esophagus to slip more easily into the windpipe and cause choking. This modification would have no other purpose than to facilitate speech. Quote from the article:
"Most researchers are inclined to the view
that language gradually emerged over perhaps
a couple of hundred thousand years
(Science, 20 November 1998, p. 1455). But
all we know for certain, says Pinker,{Steven Pinker a leading researcher in this area] is that fully developed language was in place by at
least 50,000 years ago, when humans in Europe
were creating art and burying their
dead, symbolic behaviors that point unequivocally
to fluent language."

The following article provides linguistic and genetic evidencethat the first language was probably a "click language" similar to those spoken by the Khoisan today. The dating is tentatively 70,000-50,000 years ago and roughly coincides with the exodus of human out of Africa.


The idea of group hunting
> of critters is way out of bounds because we
> evolved, apparently, from herbivores, at least I
> think.

Human have been omnivorous from very early on. In the beginning, probably as scavengers similar to hyenas, and later as hunters.


Do you want a hunting party to stalk a
> bush? I am just saying that the whole idea that
> our intelligence levels went astronomical only 40k
> ago does not seem to jibe with the current
> evidence.

See above

To answer your question in an absolute
> sense, I am afraid only a time machine will do.
> With respect to the circular stuff you point to,
> check out what you can from the Morwood group and
> ancillary articles on the Flores erectuses
> floating around on the web. At this point we can
> only ask questions, but questions that seem to
> pierce old paradigms. And please read about
> Bednarik's experiences, who now has National
> Geographic backing.

Please provide complete citations.

Bernard
> All the best,
> Chris
>
> bernard Wrote:
> >
> > Notice I said "full language" which includes
> the
> > ability to refer to events in the past and
> the
> > future. Full language would not be required
> for
> > group hunting, after all animal predators do
> group
> > hunting. The other points are somewhat
> circular
> > since the assumption that H erectus was
> involved
> > in boatmaking and in navigation, for which
> you
> > agree there is little evidence, are supposed
> to be
> > themselves evidence of the existence of full
> > language at the time. Migrations to Australia
> were
> > within the past 100,000 years (not H.
> erectus) and
> > could have been made in rafts (not fully
> > constructed boats). Contrast this with
> evidence of
> > an idea of an after life as in the burials
> at
> > Shanidar.
> >
>