Man began using words 1 million years ago


Blackleaf
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
The riddle of how ancient humans first began to speak may have been solved.

It was invented to help them mess about in boats, a leading academic controversially suggests.

Man 'began using words 1 million years ago': Researchers believe humans would not have been able to build boats and sail the world to populate the planet without speech


A radical rethink of history has said Homo Erectus must have been able to speak

Homo Erectus is our earliest ancestor and it was believed he was unable to talk

Without language he could never have built the boats needed to reach islands

By Colin Fernandez, Science Correspondent In Austin, Texas, For The Daily Mail
20 February 2018

The riddle of how ancient humans first began to speak may have been solved.

It was invented to help them mess about in boats, a leading academic controversially suggests.

Our earliest ancestor Homo Erectus took a huge step forward by walking upright just like us one 1 million years ago.

But while he could walk the walk, he has never been believed to talk the talk.

Language was not thought to have been within his capabilities.


Our earliest ancestor Homo Erectus took a huge step forward by walking upright just like us one 1 million years BC (stock image)

This view is based on both anatomy – he did not have a bone in his throat called the hyoid which anchors the tongue like Homo Sapiens.

The best he would do would be to grunt and howl, it's usually been thought.

Language is thought to have begun with the arrival of Homo Sapiens that language began.

Now a radical rethink of history says Homo Erectus must have been able to speak.

As without language he could never have been able to build the boats needed to reach remote islands across mighty oceans.

Without speech, the primitive species of man would not have been able to sail the world in large numbers to populate the planet.

Daniel Everett, Professor of Global Studies, at Bentley University, Massachusetts, made the claims at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

He said: 'What is the greatest technology we have ever had as a species? The answer is language. Who invented it? Homo Erectus, about one million years ago or more. Those are controversial claims.'

'Everybody talks about Homo Erectus as a stupid ape-like creature which, of course, describes us just as well, and yet what I want to emphasize is that Erectus was the smartest creature that had ever walked the Earth.'

Explaining why the call of the ocean led to language he said: 'Oceans were never a barrier to the travels of Erectus.

He travelled all over the world, travelled to the island of Flores [in Indonesia], across one of the greatest ocean currents in the world, then and now, the great Pacific throughflow, the Indonesia throughflow.


Without speech, the primitive species of man would not have been able to sail the world in large numbers to populate the planet (stock image)

'They sailed to the island of Crete and various other islands. It was intentional they needed craft and they needed to take groups of twenty or so at least to get to those places. And this is the consensus of the archaeological evidence.'

He added: 'Erectus needed language when they were sailing to the island of Flores. They couldn't have simply caught a ride on a floating log because then they would have been washed out to see when they hit the current.

'They needed to be able to paddle. And if they paddled they needed to be able to say "Paddle there" or "Don't paddle."

'You need communication with symbols not just grunts. They accomplished too much for this to simply be the sort of communication that we see in other species without symbols.'

Professor Everett said he believes that Homo Erectus would have had limited language compared to modern humans.

He said: 'Homo Erectus spoke and invented the Model T Ford of language. We speak the Tesla form, but their Model T form was not a proto-language, it was a real language.'

But Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, an expert in early humans, said he 'did not accept' the idea Homo Erectus could have built and piloted rafts.

He said: 'Tsunamis could have moved early humans on rafts of vegetation.'

Read more: Humans would not have been able to build boats | Daily Mail Online
 
taxslave
+1
#2
But the earth is only 6000 years old.
 
Danbones
#3
What have I been saying all along about language, and why we say "to *cross* an ocean"?

Say why does queen elizabeth the second claim descent from the last king who still had this knowledge at 3200 BC? ( it was lost at about 2700 BC)

The working cross THEY say, was given to man at the very beginning by the so called
(neanderthal denisovan human hybrids ) gawds.
 
Blackleaf
#4
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b56eAUCTLok
 
Hoid
#5
homo erectus is/was not an ancestor of Man.

This would be science if you could just invent science.

Species move around the ocean on debris today just as they always have. All homo erectus needed to be was floatsam.
 
Blackleaf
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

homo erectus is/was not an ancestor of Man.

Well we don't know that for sure.
 
Hoid
#7
Of course we know that for sure
 
Torch light
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Man began using words 1 million years ago

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

But the earth is only 6000 years old.

This is only a misunderstanding; the earth certainly is older than 6000 years; but in the Quran as in the Bible: the heavens and the earth were created in six days, each day equals 1000 years, and so they were created in six thousand years.

It means: the earth and the planets were created in six thousand years, i.e. were transformed from a flaming sun to an earth with a cold crust in 6000 years.

Anyhow, this process of transforming the past sun into the present planets happened long time ago, certainly more than 6000 years.

In addition, the appearance of man on earth happened long time ago, but certainly not 1 million years ago. This is only exaggeration of things.

http://www.quran-ayat.com/universe/i...f_the_Planets_
quran-ayat.com/universe/index.htm#Formation_of_the_Planets_
 
Blackleaf
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Of course we know that for sure

It's debated amongst palaeontologists whether or not Homo Erectus was a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens.
 
Danbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

homo erectus is/was not an ancestor of Man.

This would be science if you could just invent science.

Species move around the ocean on debris today just as they always have. All homo erectus needed to be was floatsam.

You really have NO idea.
 
Jinentonix
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

homo erectus is/was not an ancestor of Man.

This would be science if you could just invent science.

You wouldn't know science if it jumped up in your face and said, "Yoohoo, here I am!" The verdict is still out as to whether Homo Erectus is a direct ancestor of modern humans. The scientific community as a whole have basically given a firm "We don't know" when it comes to an answer. Some say yes, others say no, others say yes they were but explain that it's also rather convoluted.
Once scientist explained it this way. "I would put it as an ancestral to living humans," Van Arsdale said. "That doesn't mean that every [Homo Erectus] fossil is an ancestor to humans, but the species as a whole is."
 
Curious Cdn
#12
Ungnh
 
Danbones
#13
But DNA evidence NOW shows man bred with neanderthals and denisonans up to 30,000 years ago. That's why there are people with RED hair, WHITE skin and BLUE eyes.

and ROYALTY is the further inbred apeman result of those bloodlines. So are certain other groups who claim to be chosen because they are "super special".

Only blacks who didn't leave africa for the middle east and asia didn't interact in that way. I guess that's why they are being evicted from one of those walled in super special countries as we speak.
Last edited by Danbones; Feb 21st, 2018 at 06:18 AM..
 
Curious Cdn
#14
"Apeman" is not an accurate description of a Neanderthal any more than it is of any other different racial group, because that is pretty much what they were. If they really were a different species, viable offspring of Neanderthal and Cro Magnon wouldn't have been possible. "Apeman" is really a racial stereotype of a branch of humanity that survived for a few hundred thousand years ... something that we have not managed to do, yet.We may very well not, either.

Were they really a different species? Good article:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...als-human.html
Last edited by Curious Cdn; Feb 21st, 2018 at 06:38 AM..