When did humans first start to speak? How language evolved in Africa

[Hans Blaster]

Dead people don't tell no tales. Without oxygen, you are not alive. In your high school biology book, go to the section on ecology, then go to the chapter on ecosystems. Then look at the section on abiotic.

The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has basically not varied *AT ALL* in the last few 100 million years. (Almost none in the entire history of land-based quadrapeds.) Variation in the abundance of oxygen HAD NO INFLUENCE on the evolution of primates, and it certainly didn't on the evolution of language.

If you really want to understand the history of oxygen abundance on Earth try this link:

Geological history of oxygen - Wikipedia

Now, can we go back to talking about the OP's topic and stop talking about Babel and oxygen which are irrelevant to the biological evolution of speech.

 

[Tuur]

The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has basically not varied *AT ALL* in the last few 100 million years. (Almost none in the entire history of land-based quadrapeds.) Variation in the abundance of oxygen HAD NO INFLUENCE on the evolution of primates, and it certainly didn't on the evolution of language.

If you really want to understand the history of oxygen abundance on Earth try this link:

Geological history of oxygen - Wikipedia

Now, can we go back to talking about the OP's topic and stop talking about Babel and oxygen which are irrelevant to the biological evolution of speech.

Um....I recall a study around 1980 that maintained oxygen levels were higher during the age of dinosaurs. However, I only got that info from a short write-up in Omni, or, less likely, Science Digest. I didn't read the paper itself.

I did find this, but it's not even close to the study I remember: Earth's Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Continue Long Slide

 

[Diamond72]

Now, can we go back to talking about the OP's topic and stop talking about Babel and oxygen which are irrelevant to the biological evolution of speech.

This is a Christian website. So we do not JUST look at the science perspective, we look at the religious perspective also. In this case, what happened at the Tower of Babel is very much a part of the conversation.

If science had all the answers and all the solutions we would have no need for anything else. Religion can solve problems and answer questions that science is not able to do. By religion, I mean the Bible.

I am well aware of what man and science can not do. That is why I turn to the Bibel for answers and solutions Just turn on the news. They are glad to show you all the problems science can not solve.

With God, He has all the answers and all the solutions. We will never have a problem He can not solve. Or a question that He has no answer for. Although we have to learn how to ask the right questions.

 

[Larniavc]

In simple general terms it just does not
resonate, as shown by that it has never
caught on.

That’s interesting. It never caught on with me neither. Is it specifically Christianity that did not catch on?

Surely Buddhism and Taoism have been going on for thousands of years.

 

[Astrid]

That’s interesting. It never caught on with me neither. Is it specifically Christianity that did not catch on?

Surely Buddhism and Taoism have been going on for thousands of years.

Then there's all sorts of folk- religion /
superstition. Maybe the market is saturated.

 

[Diamond72]

Surely Buddhism and Taoism have been going on for thousands of years.

Just because religions have been around longer than Christianity does not mean their current beliefs were not affected by the teachings of Jesus. They all believe in the Golden rule. That we should treat others the way we want to be treated, or a variation of that.

 

[Larniavc]

Just because religions have been around longer than Christianity does not mean their current beliefs were not affected by the teachings of Jesus. They all believe in the Golden rule. That we should treat others the way we want to be treated, or a variation of that.

Jesus didn’t invent the golden rule.

 

[Lulav]

If you believe you descended from slime and came onto land and then evolved into a hunched over primate then it might be believable. However those of the primate kind today still do not speak. There are a few who have been able to learn sign language but it's not passed on.

However in the Bible when Mankind was created he was created already (programmed) with the ability to speak and the vocabulary to do so. We can see this in the defense the woman and man had to God as to why they didn't listen to him.

However evil things began to be done and to keep things from going the way of the flood (genetic experiments run amok) then the LORD decided to give certain groups of people their own languages. From there have 'evolved' other languages with a base language still known.

Because a language hasn't been written down from the first doesn't mean that it didn't exist much beforehand.

 

[dlamberth]

Just because religions have been around longer than Christianity does not mean their current beliefs were not affected by the teachings of Jesus. They all believe in the Golden rule. That we should treat others the way we want to be treated, or a variation of that.

The Golden Rule is basic Heart Center stuff that is central to a lot of religions that came long before Jesus.

 

[dlamberth]

If you believe you descended from slime and came onto land and then evolved into a hunched over primate then it might be believable. However those of the primate kind today still do not speak. There are a few who have been able to learn sign language but it's not passed on.

Homo Sapiens ARE primates, and we do speak.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[A bunch of stuff deleted]

Because a language hasn't been written down from the first doesn't mean that it didn't exist much beforehand.

Yes, of course. And that's exactly what the article in the OP is trying to address -- the timing of that origination of speech and with it, language. The value quoted in the OP is 70,000 years ago. (A shorter time span than is often quoted.)

 

[Larniavc]

(genetic experiments run amok)

Evidence please

 

[Ligurian]

"From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire straits. It was bankrupt.
The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man’s hand, so people couldn’t pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King’s permission. Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled. The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican.
(1). King John refused to accept The Vatican’s representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to rule England
(2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict. (Interdict means a prohibition.)
King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him.
... On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope"

The Beginning of the Lie: The Secret Treaty of Verona 1213

Once upon a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land. Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe. William the Conquer came in 1066 and sto…

eraoflight.com

It's definitely Ecclesiastical Law.
The Treaty of 1213 aka The Treaty of Verona is all over the web... and just begging to be read.

You're off by a few centuries. None of this is valid US law.

Seriously? Then when was the Verona Treaty of 1213 revoked?

All I can find says that it is "to be forever ratified and valid"... a perpetual offering:

"John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who may see this charter, greeting in the Lord. ... As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter’s pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities. Desiring all these terms, exactly as stated, to be forever ratified and valid, we bind ourselves and our successors not to contravene them; and if we or any of our successors shall presume to contravene them, then, no matter who he be, unless on due warning he come to his senses, let him lose the title to the kingdom, and let this document of offer and concession remain ever valid."
--Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England (1198-1216)

 

[Astrid]

" Bind our successors"

Ha

Nobody gets to rule from beyond the grave

 

[Astrid]

Evidence please

Come now. You've seen "Godzilla
V. Frankenstein!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Seriously? Then when was the Verona Treaty of 1213 revoked?

In this country?

July 4, 1776.

The "laws" of kings, popes, and potentates don't apply here.

 

[Ligurian]

In this country?

July 4, 1776.

The "laws" of kings, popes, and potentates don't apply here.

"I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. ... The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. ... This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. ... The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esqr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
...
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status?
...
THE SECOND VIRGINIA CHARTER ...
THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783)..."
--from the online book: The United States is Still a British Colony

American Patriot Network

www.civil-liberties.com

(Read it and weep?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

--from the online book: The United States is Still a British Colony
American Patriot Network
(Read it and weep?)

why should I care in the slightest about the rantings of an online book from a nutter?

 

[rturner76]

The transformation of Homo sapiens (modern humans) from a “non-speaking” to a “speaking” species happened at about the same time as our hunter-gatherer ancestors migrated out of Africa.

That would make sense as our need to communicate increased as we co-operated with each other in more and more advanced ways and there were multi-generations living together in tight nit communities. As farmers, they brought in more crops than they may have needed as opposed to hunting from sun up to sun down not always catching anything. Having larger stores of food and the change of having more time on our hands has driven all invention. With more time your can study, invent, engineer, and develop more and more advanced ways of thinking.

Just my view on it. Definitely not here to debate young Earth creation but I hope to learn something.

 

[Ligurian]

"I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. ... The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. ... This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. ... The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esqr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
...
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status?
...
THE SECOND VIRGINIA CHARTER ...
THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783)..."
--from the online book: The United States is Still a British Colony

American Patriot Network

www.civil-liberties.com

(Read it and weep?)

why should I care in the slightest about the rantings of an online book from a nutter?

"A country cannot be both ignorant and free..."
Thomas Jefferson