Real Science Radio: The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever Pt. 2

[One Eyed Jack]

We've already discussed Lieberman extensively in this thread so far, Here, and Here.

Lieberman was not stating that neanderthals couldn't speak, he states in his own words that neanderthal had "linguistic ability inferior to modern man", which to be clear is still a linguistic ability.

I believe this is the entire quote.

from here: It thus is likely that Neanderthal man's linguistic abilites were at best suited to communication at slow rates and at worst markedly inferior at the syntactic and semantic levels to modern man's linguistic ability. Neanderthal man's language is an intermediate stage in the evolution of language. It may well have employed gestural communication as well as vocal signals (Hewes 1971).

I'll grant this would certainly be a level of linguistic ability (although nothing like any human language spoken today), but then again, I think many animals have some degree of linguistic ability -- even if all they ever do is holler out "I'm ready to breed!"

In any case, I think it's fair to say that Neanderthals were once thought to be incapable of communicating on the same level as modern humans. Whether you want to interpret this as "incapable of speech" or "a little better than animals," I don't really care. I just don't think it's worth arguing about.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I'll grant this would certainly be a level of linguistic ability

:e4e:

That's all I was arguing. Unfortunately 6Days is a bit more stubborn.

 

[6days]

You said it is easy to find scientists who said Neanderthals couldn't speak at all...

I did? Perhaps I did say that?...perhaps you are misquoting once again?

Post#29

I said "Evolutionists insisted they were carnivores without any culture and incapable of speech ETC ETC... Science has proven those evolutionary claims were false."

yet you are still to find one. Are you finding it harder than you thought?

Not at all difficult. I have quoted or provided links from evolutionists (and scientists) at the Guardian, LiveScience, PBS, Nova, Cosmosmagazine and more....

EXAMPLE: "We can now move away from this view of Neanderthals as dim-witted big game hunters," Hardy (paleoanthropologist)told LiveScience."...it helps cast doubt on previous assumptions that Neanderthals lacked the abilities of modern humans to plan ahead, innovate, and communicate through language, art, and symbolism. There is a growing weight of evidence that we may have underestimated Neanderthal skills and behavior, and that they were not the lumbering, dim-witted cartoon cavemen..."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defy-stereotypes.html"


Not only have I quoted scientists and evolutionists but you provided a peer reviewed article by evolutionists that *admitted the *belief of Neandertals being inarticulate subhumans .


Science has proven the evolutionary beliefs about Neandertals *was just pseudoscience. *Science had helped confirm the Biblical Creationist model that early man was intelligent.


In the beginning God created....

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I've noted that you've continued to evade the contention here.

6days, can you or can you not name any scientist alive or dead who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, yes or no?

Bump.

 

[6days]

Bump.

I have quoted or provided links from evolutionists (and scientists) at the Guardian, LiveScience, PBS, Nova, Cosmosmagazine and more..
EXAMPLE: "We can now move away from this view of Neanderthals as dim-witted big game hunters," Hardy (paleoanthropologist)told LiveScience."...it helps cast doubt on previous assumptions that Neanderthals lacked the abilities of modern humans to plan ahead, innovate, and communicate through language, art, and symbolism. There is a growing weight of evidence that we may have underestimated Neanderthal skills and behavior, and that they were not the lumbering, dim-witted cartoon cavemen..."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defy-stereotypes.html"

Not only have I quoted scientists and evolutionists but you provided a peer reviewed article by evolutionists that admitted the belief of Neandertals being inarticulate subhumans .


Science has proven the evolutionary beliefs about Neandertals was just pseudoscience. Science had helped confirm the Biblical Creationist model that early man was intelligent.

Re-bump -bump.

 

[gcthomas]

I have quoted or provided links from evolutionists (and scientists) at the Guardian, LiveScience, PBS, Nova, Cosmosmagazine and more..
EXAMPLE: "We can now move away from this view of Neanderthals as dim-witted big game hunters," Hardy (paleoanthropologist)told LiveScience."...it helps cast doubt on previous assumptions that Neanderthals lacked the abilities of modern humans to plan ahead, innovate, and communicate through language, art, and symbolism. There is a growing weight of evidence that we may have underestimated Neanderthal skills and behavior, and that they were not the lumbering, dim-witted cartoon cavemen..."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defy-stereotypes.html"

Not only have I quoted scientists and evolutionists but you provided a peer reviewed article by evolutionists that admitted the belief of Neandertals being inarticulate subhumans .


Science has proven the evolutionary beliefs about Neandertals was just pseudoscience. Science had helped confirm the Biblical Creationist model that early man was intelligent.

Re-bump -bump.

Any evidence that scientists claimed neanderthals were incapable of speach? No? :nono:

Oh well.

 

[6days]

Any evidence that scientists claimed neanderthals were incapable of speach? No? :nono:

Oh well.

I have quoted or provided links from evolutionists (and scientists) at the Guardian, LiveScience, PBS, Nova, Cosmosmagazine and more..
EXAMPLE: "We can now move away from this view of Neanderthals as dim-witted big game hunters," Hardy (paleoanthropologist)told LiveScience."...it helps cast doubt on previous assumptions that Neanderthals lacked the abilities of modern humans to plan ahead, innovate, and communicate through language, art, and symbolism. There is a growing weight of evidence that we may have underestimated Neanderthal skills and behavior, and that they were not the lumbering, dim-witted cartoon cavemen..."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defy-stereotypes.html"

Not only have I quoted scientists and evolutionists but you provided a peer reviewed article by evolutionists that admitted the belief of Neandertals being inarticulate subhumans .


Science has proven the evolutionary beliefs about Neandertals was just pseudoscience. Science had helped confirm the Biblical Creationist model that early man was intelligent

 

[gcthomas]

I have quoted or provided links ...

But NOTHING that says definitively no speach.

(And thanks for changing the source for your sig quote. )

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

6days, can you or can you not name any scientist alive or dead who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, yes or no?

 

[6days]

6days, can you or can you not name any scientist alive or dead who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech, yes or no?

Yes...I have...shall I repeat myself again?
Please read some of the many quotes already provided.
Science has proven the evolutionists wrong.
They were intelligent...not dimwitted.
They walked erect...not stooped like an ape
They were capable of speech...not just grunting noises.
They are are ancestors...we have aneandertal DNA in us.

Etc etc
Evolutionists were wrong and proven wrong by science
There are many distinct people groups in the world, and that is what Neandertals are. They were people like you and me...created and loved by our Creator.

 

[6days]

But NOTHING that says definitively no speach.

(And thanks for changing the source for your sig quote. )

And thank you for pointing out the error!

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yes...I have...

No, you have not. The only scientist I've seen named was Lieberman.

To say that 'scientists' believed X, is not naming them.

 

[6days]

No, you have not. The only scientist I've seen named was Lieberman.

To say that 'scientists' believed X, is not naming them.

Pfffft. Lieberman came later when evolutionists were forced by science to start rehabilitating their beliefs. But even his faulty conclusions had Neandertals no where close to capable of human speech that we are capale of...aqnd that we know Neandertals were capable of.

Please read some of the many quotes already provided of evolutionists and scientists admitting that science has proven their beliefs wrong.
They (Neandertals)were intelligent...not dimwitted.
They walked erect...not stooped like an ape
They were capable of speech...not just grunting noises.
They are are ancestors...we have Neandertal DNA in us.

Etc etc
Evolutionists were wrong and proven wrong by science
There are many distinct people groups in the world, and that is what Neandertals are. They were people like you and me...created and loved by our Creator.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Pfffft. Lieberman came later when evolutionists were forced by science to start rehabilitating their beliefs.

Then the question again arises. Can you or can you not name any scientist who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech?



If you were honest, you would have simply said 'no' by now.

 

[6days]

@D.S.

Its amusing how it is so difficult for you to admit evolutionists were so wrong about Neandertals.

And its amusing how you keep changing your demands. (Fallacy of moving the goalposts)

You at first claimed that I was "making grossly inaccurate allegations as to what "evolutionists believed" and saying you "want credible sources from scientific publications"

When that demand was met, you changed it to wanting proof that scientists had believed or stated incorrectly.

Now that demand was met , and you change yet again asking"Can you name any scientist who himself claims that neanderthals were incapable of speech?" (See quotes and links already provided from GC and myself answering that)


Evolutionists thought Neandertals were incapable of speech because they (Neandertals) "lacked the necessary cognitive capacity and vocal hardware for speech". Science has proven evolutionists were wrong. Why did evolutionists believe in things that were so wrong? Because their belief system tried to deny the humanity of man...and because the Biblical creationists were correct


Associate Professor Stephen Wroe, a zoologist and palaeontologist

"To many, the Neanderthal hyoid discovered was surprising because its shape was very different to that of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo. However, it was virtually indistinguishable from that of our own species. This led to some people arguing that this Neanderthal could speak,"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm

Yes... He is correct... It was at that point some evolutionists started thinking maybe their assumptions were wrong. Lieberman then incorrectly positioned the hyoid stating that Neandertals could make inarticulate sounds closer to what a baby or chimp makes. Science has proven Lieberman wrong. Science has proven the evolutionists wrong who tried to deny the humanity of Neandertals.

BTW... Lieberman himself was reluctant to believe Neandertals were capable of speech. When another scientist said the hyoid suggested Neandertals were capable of speech, Lieberman said that conclusion was not supported by the data.
http://www.academicroom.com/article/kebara-kmh-2-hyoid-and-neanderthal-speech

 

[gcthomas]

"To many, the Neanderthal hyoid discovered was surprising because its shape was very different to that of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo. However, it was virtually indistinguishable from that of our own species. This led to some people arguing that this Neanderthal could speak,"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm

Yes... He is correct... It was at that point some evolutionists started thinking maybe their assumptions were wrong. Lieberman then incorrectly positioned the hyoid stating that Neandertals could make inarticulate sounds closer to what a baby or chimp makes. Science has proven Lieberman wrong. Science has proven the evolutionists wrong who tried to deny the humanity of Neandertals.

The paper referred to has this as its conclusion:

Given that our results add support for the proposition that the Kebara 2 Neanderthal engaged in speech, the question may then become was he capable of the critical thought and syntactical ability necessary for complex language? Conclusive resolution of this question is not possible with the data and analytical tools currently available. However, speculation on this issue might be considered in light of the mounting body of evidence that continues to expand the known repertoire of sophisticated subsistence strategies and symbolism practiced by Neanderthals.

SO, in reality we have discovered that Neanderthals might be capable of some basic speech, but not necessarily complex language (read: inarticulate). Anything more is currently speculation.

As we have said all along, despite your bluster and certainty.

 

[6days]

SO, in reality we have discovered that Neanderthals might be capable of some basic speech, but not necessarily complex language (read: inarticulate). Anything more is currently speculation.

Haha... DS has been trying his hardest arguing evolutionists never claimed Neandertals were incapable of speech. Perhaps you ought to be arguing with him.

Evolutionists were wrong about MANY of the things they had said about Neandertals. Their faulty conclusions were based on beliefs...not science. It is science that is revealing just how similar Neandertals are to us. As God's Word tell us... all humanity are descendants from Adam and Eve. We are not pond scum nor monkeys uncles.

 

[gcthomas]

6days, if you had read my posts and the links to papers on the matter, you'd have known that they disprove your idea that scientists believed Neanderthals had no speech capability.

You seem so convinced by your own infallibility that you can't read what is written without distorting it to match your preconceptions.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

@D.S.

You at first claimed that I was "making grossly inaccurate allegations as to what "evolutionists believed" and saying you "want credible sources from scientific publications"

When that demand was met, you changed it to wanting proof that scientists had believed or stated incorrectly.

You appear to be making a distinction between scientists, and "evolutionists", that I was not. This should have been obvious from the fact that I was asking for scientific publications, and not just anyone's opinion who happens to believe in evolution. I'm not particularly concerned about what lay evolutionists believe or don't believe.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

6days, if you had read my posts and the links to papers on the matter, you'd have known that they disprove your idea that scientists believed Neanderthals had no speech capability.

You seem so convinced by your own infallibility that you can't read what is written without distorting it to match your preconceptions.

He is under the impression that summaries of scientific works are more reliable than the works themselves own stated conclusions.

"incapable of the complex phonetic vowel-producing range of vocalization that modern homo sapiens posses" is simplified to "incapable of speech" in summaries because it is easier to convey to the public which generally do not concern themselves over such nuances, nor clearly does 6Days.