> Just to be clear I'm arguing that it started with
> either a biological, cultural or physiological
> event that snowballed into more biological,
> cultural and physiological events
And I'm arguing that it happened independently of that because the initial emergence of language (insofar as it began with the simple -- and gradual -- process of digitization) would not have required any specific biological, cultural or physiological event to get started. To my mind, the idea that it would have is an 'ideological' belief that has no evidential basis.
> "Greater intelligence and the forming of
> abstract thought would be selected for just
> because through better organized hunting
> technique, more of us survived.
But how would hunting technique have become better organised? The most likely and effective method would have been through the use of language. "Hide behind that tree while I drive the animal toward you."
> But in order for
> true language to arise, there had to be
> morphological changes to our voice boxes and
> larynx. Our tongues had to be connected to our
> motor cortex in a way that allowed the forming of
> more complex sounds. Our brains had to have at
> least reorganized motor function and neural
> connections to allow these changes.
This the working academic assumption. But the initial process of digitisation did not need to rely on the typical noises that languages use now. Look at the wide range of phenomic contrasts used in the San (click) languages. And recent studies make clear that other species already have the capacity to make contrasting vowel sounds: [theconversation.com]
> But I'm going to say rather than a singularity, I
> think it happened much like the Cambrian over
> many, many generations in a progression of very
> slow changes in culture, physiology and changes in
> the genome that were selected for over time."
Well, it depends on your time frame. A singularity doesn't have to happen in a literal instant. But in the big picture of the history of life on planet earth, the Cambrian explosion did take place in a relative instant. Just over 1% of the time over which life has been evolving, to be precise. It was a massive blip.
> So, that's what I'm arguing. Sorry your thread got
> derailed. You know you can always start another
> one, right?
In theory, yes. In practice, no. I'm not quite sure how it works and don't want to get lost in the mix...