Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (33614)	4/2/1999 8:55:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Sorry to disagree, but (artificial)social selection for attributes that lead to dominance can lead to significant change, even the emergence of a new species that displaces its ancestors in their territory and eventually may extinquish them. We lack the fossil record, but the emergence of significant language ability was the result (necessarily) of physical evolution of the tongue and larynx and brain). Eventually, Homo sapiens bred so successfully for speech that (may I say) we were able to outcompete our genetically unequipped ancestors and cousins -- and I may have taken only a few hundred thousand years. Do you know any human populations that are mute? I believe this was the result of social section and intertribal competition. Hard to believe men selected mates for their ability to speak. We all make mistakes. But those who didn't ended up with kids and heirs who couldn't speak either (mothers teach kids to talk by training and imitation.) Mute kids could hardly lead a tribe or compete with persuasive blarney for meat and mates. The dogs even followed those men who said "Come! and slipped them a bit of meat.