Deciphering an Early Concept of Man Through a Common Language
Lucy my auntie, Lucy my distant neighbor? What language should I use?
(NOTICE: this message should go without mentioning, but the links in this and all articles are to be explored and read, for either a quick definition or a thorough exploration for what is being expressed herein. The reader should click and read the links initially as they come or, after an initial reading of the article, read again the article and explore the links as they appear.)
James was persistent in his teaching and quizzing me the theory of the evolution of mankind that week of the 12th through the 16th in July. I was up for the challenge and test. I’ve only read bits and pieces about the theory since leaving formal schooling (secondary, junior college, and university). It did seem as if James was trying to convert me, or enlighten me. I was appreciative. Over the years I have seen less and less a conflict between that theory (and science in general) and the belief in God and creation (or the idea that all things have Intelligent Design behind them). In fact, the more I have learned about science the clearer I perceive God’s Hand and understand ‘how’ certain things have come to pass. I told James on several occasions the Bible isn’t a science book, nor does it claim to explain the details of the how’s and why’s of the physical world as they are described by science. Initially, science set out to find evidence of God. That was Isaac Newton’s desire. What a monumental task. One could say the religion of science argues the nature side of mankind, while the religion of God argues the nurture side of mankind. They are two ‘languages.’ This article series isn’t about God vs Science, or these two languages dueling to find out which speaks clearer to the specific questions humans have and which can best explain answers. Instead of nature vs nurture, what about learning how nature affects the nurturing of man and how man’s nurturing affects his nature?
I also shared with James my thoughts on how, through the discovery and manufacture of the language of math, man has been able to ‘see’ the qualities and logical structures of the world, visible and invisible. The Fibonacci number, for example, was one such instance where the language of math began explaining the basic principles of order, purpose, and design in the visible and invisible world. The apparent design found in nature via the Fibonacci sequence has always been there, but it took many years for mankind to develop a scientific language (math for this example) to understand, conceptualize, explain and discuss it. Thus I’d like to mention and ask you, the reader, to consider the several languages being used here in discussing the topic of paleoanthropology. I’m not the first or only person suggesting the languages used need to be considered. It’s a given this article is written in English, but I’ve been incorporating several language disciplines in messaging that topic so far. It has been my experience that the specific language being used to discuss any given topic is often a cause for confusion and discord for speakers, listeners and readers alike, leading to argument and supposedly opposing views. Two individuals can possibly be speaking of the same subject matter (in agreement to some extent) quite competently, but may be using a different language… and thus be perceived as being at odds with one another. One is apt to state that the other is simply ‘wrong.’ Remember, all of us are looking at the distant past and conceptualizing what must have been and how, and theories long believed as solid have been corrected and replaced by new ‘solid’ theories. Interpretation is a hefty consideration.
Regarding the necessity for several languages to decipher and understand this topic, let us consider the following excerpt:
There are theoretical reasons to believe that biological systems and processes cannot be fully accounted for in terms of the Principles and Laws of Physics and Chemistry alone, but they require in addition - the principles of semiotics - the science of symbols and signs, including linguistics. In this view, the principles of semiotics are absolutely required for a complete understanding of living systems and processes.
Sungchul Ji | The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics | Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology | Rutgers University
With that in mind, let me introduce you to my distant neighbor Lucy.
Lucy is the nickname given to the Australopithecus afarensis found in the modern-day politically named states of Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania (Eastern Africa), or the Afar Region. It is postulated this specie was one of the earliest human ancestors, able to walk upright due to having a pelvis narrower than previous hominids and other observably relatable animals like apes and orangutans. Whether Lucy (and her species) did in fact walk upright at all, and if so for what duration of time on any given day, or if most of the time during their waking hours, is a mystery according to the summary of thought and study. The understanding and motivation for such hope is apparent. As my benefactor James said the first day I met him: confirmation bias. Since the theory of evolution was first openly postulated, the effort to find and interpret evidence to support the theory has been the modus operandi. That’s fine. This is how the mind works. What is believed to be true or accurate is held in one hand while all incoming information is filtered in the other hand to fit that preconceived notion. The observation is that the fossils are being perceived as having departed from the line of similar looking animals (gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees) and have been appearing in closer resemblance to today’s humans. The visual rendering of Lucy at the link with her name is a concept not based on evidence, but rather an artistic expression. It is unknown what the hair to skin ratio actually was, the skin tone, and several other details. The dating provides for a timeline (see image below). Her bones are considered to be between 2.9 and 3.9 million years old. A particular type of diet has been concluded due to dental microwear studies revealing the possibility of mainly a softer foods diet (fruits, vegetables), while the shape and size of the teeth lends weight to the possibility of harder foods. Lucy is “AL 288-1” in the timeline below. She was found among approximately 300 other hominid fossils considered to be her space specie. The graph also shows the various methods of dating fossils (this science being yet another language).
Interesting to see the first branching at 15.7 mya was from gibbons. I wonder what gibbons looked like at that time. We do know what today’s gibbon bones and that of humans look like. The comparison is very similar. Below is an image comparing today’s gibbon arm (from scapula to fingertips) to that of the average human. Also very interesting how the gibbon either slumped or stagnated in their evolution the past 15 million years. Was something speeding and exponentially developing what is proposed to have become the modern human despite still having very similar bone structure? Interesting that gibbons (and the rest of the primate) are still in existence today while the supposed lineage of hominids have gone extinct.
Lucy’s skull capacity (or what is presumed to be the actual size of her brain) is measured at 400 cc (cubic centimeters). Modern man’s brain is sized at about 1400 cc. Does size really matter when it comes to brains? Today’s largest living mammal is the blue whale. Its brain size: 8,000 cc. It seems to speak a language all its own. Marine biologists have clued into some of the patterns and may have detected specific words ~ noises ~ messages. Plants also seem to communicate to one another in a language all their own. Plants communicate via their roots systems.
Perhaps the human is not unique regarding language (as we understand language to be - a method of communication). What is quite intriguing to me, personally, is how the modern man is very late to the evolutionary model of life on earth. Practically last when considering the aforementioned animals / life. Yet, it is immeasurably more evolved / developed in terms of capacity to perform than the other animals. Brain capacity, from a measurable perspective, cannot be the distinctive factor. Perhaps language. Language is quite possibly what has separated the previous hominids to the modern man. Not to suggest the hominids who supposedly branched from the gibbons were simply grunting and motioning with their hairy hands as is depicted in cartoons or science fiction movies. Even modern man’s historical record of language is only measurable to actual evidence. If it wasn’t ‘preserved’ in stone, or some other yet-to-disintegrate material, it is anyone’s guess if prehistoric man had a vocabulary and had developed language. I propose that language as we understand it to be (communication of vital information) is what made modern man unique among supposed peers and predecessors alike. It is an ever-developing language that is the decisive difference separating mankind from the rest of life on earth. If / when the elusive Big Foot / Sasquatch is discovered, it will likely have a larger or similarly sized brain capacity than ours, but not have much in terms of speech or the ability to communicate beyond the basics of sounds depicting hunger, fear, anger, etc.. similar to the blue whales in the ocean and the hairy primates.
The next article in this series will introduce Lucy’s predecessor, her cousin and our neighbor Ardi (Ardipethicus Ramidus). Ardi, also female, was the most complete ancient fossil find to-date.