Times piece on Language Evolution

[jess tauber]

Oh where oh where to begin? First, its the New York Times, so what do you expect? These are the same folks whose "Say No More" (Jack Hitt, Feb. 29 2004, NYTimes Magazine) was such an erudite piece of factual journalism. 

As for content- no new parts? Random evolutionary processes? Without new parts, where did the OLD parts come from? How do you define 'new', or 'parts'? Interesting little jab at 'intelligent engineers' though.

With regard to 'no evolutionary precedent', I of course maintain my right to beg to differ. The more we learn about animal vocal communication the clearer the precedents become. But people with agendas in other directions, and those that follow them, are hardly likely to listen.

Couple of issues- apes don't do much with oral articulation so far as we know, but they make do with other ones (glottal, supralaryngeal airs sacs, etc.). Innervations and developmental elaborations of musculature can shift over evolutionary time (as can other kinds of field effects, such as affect bone, skin, pigmentation, etc.). There are MANY examples known. Such functional handing off from one zone to another is a bit more organized than mere reworking of parts, in a 'de-novo'-like fashion. So one can box off the problem (like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp, or the blind men and the elephant) and say 'no precedent' if you like. A lot of folks like to do things like this. That's not a knife- THIS is a knife.

Great for creating and defending turf, not so good for getting to the heart of the matter. 

Jess Tauber