AL 288-1 "Lucy"

>ooga booga'ing
You realize the size of the skull and mandible indicate this being had a somewhat larger capacity for speech than a chimpanzee, yet still much farther removed from anything we would consider "proto-speech.

chimpanzees already have nouns, and they have non-language indications for verbs and imperatives, which probably indicate that they are close to developing words for those things. koko the gorilla could express limited adjectives but was fairly proficient at verbs. there seems to be a neurological heirarchy for the complexity of these subjects.

even dogs can be taught to recognize things based on qualities.

what I don't believe is that human speech EXPLODED out of nowher and all of a sudden humans were neurologically uniform. language obviously operated in a selection environment. the changes and their ability to be selected from the population at large had to be setbefore it could become a quality for sexual selection.

Was meant to be a question.

>chimps have nouns.

The most telling indicator of capacity for vocalization is throat structure, hyoid bone morphology, etc., not brain size, at least in early-middle hominins.

I guess she was fuel for the fire that was (and is) debate over creationism and evolution, especially in the USA.

fabrication

bbc.com/news/science-environment-28023630

are you stupid?

even most animals from the simian family, most of whom are pretty stupid, have verbal words for at least predators.

Honestly your knowledge of linguistics is laughable, the history of language isn't just successive integration of different parts of speech.

Also human language is one very specific mode of communication; not all animal "languages" have to fill the same mold.

honestly, you're talking out of your ass

we have zero idea how any of it began, but an explosion argument is the stupidest

and we're not talking "animal" languages, we're talking about prehuman languages. which would necessarily be similar to ours.

also, you didn't even know chimps had words, so you can fuck off

Upper mandible is also a good indicator. Considering many of the more complete australopithecine skulls we've found show that their palate is more chimp-like, having less room to form complex noises, it seems likely they couldn't "ooga-booga" but "duh."
blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/11/28/what-did-australopithecines-sound-like-more-duh-than-ugg/#.V9yJiMtOlnE

Anything to back up that claim?

the bible

Lucy came with a knee joint

none, as ppl keep on religions, which are stupod and shortsigthed

I'm not the person you responded to, dipshit; the comment you replied to was my first in the discussion. I just wanted to expose your absolute ignorance on the topic of linguistics.

I don't know enough about the topic to weigh in on whether early hominins spoke, or how they spoke, but it is unlikely that ancestral species like Australipithecis afarensis communicated using anything reminiscent of modern language. Maybe mid-late members of Homo did; we'll never know.

No, she came with a left femur and a right tibia. What you are referring to is Johanson's Knee, which was found several kilometers from that site. However, when one compares the tibia found in Lucy to that of Johanson's Knee, they appear very similar.

Comparative anatomy is a useful means of determining the range of sounds an extinct species might have produced; I know Kanzi, the very intelligent bonobo, attempts to vocalize words, since he had a very large vocabulary, but is physically incapable of it.

This is is pretty morbid and I would never condone it, but it would be interesting to surgically alter his throat/larynx/mouth/skull to allow him to produce human sounds.

It's fabricated by "scientists" to prove the theory of evolution.

In truth the Earth is only 6000 years old and we are the creation of God.

this

all I ever said is that it was likely transitional. Being able to study their language would provide strong clues about how human language evolved, and what parts evolved first.

we don't know "how" it evolved, but all I was saying is that the transitional element would lack increasingly complicated aspects of speech.

It was the closest to a complete skeleton though. It's very rare to find a specimen that complete.

So rare that the only hominid skeleton/s (I think there's only one, a child correct me though) more complete are neanderthals.

Don't forget the famous story of her name. Lucy from the Beetles "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"

You're thinking of Selam, an infant/toddler of the species. Others include Kadanuumuu, sts-14 which was shown in the pic your esponded to, Mrs Ples which was a skull, as well as the First Family which consisted of bones from around 13 individuals.

answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-the-knuckle-walking-abomination/

are they calling beyonce an abomination?

that's racist. she's a beautiful woman