Which evolved first,hearing or speaking

[Looncall]

Even the simplest way to produce sound will take thousands of years to be developed, then how it'll be naturally selected while in progress.

How do you know this? One can make useful sounds by hissing and whistling, which do not need specialized apparatus. Variations that supplement these could develop at leisure.

I suspect you are guilty of apologetical thinking. Intellectual tapdancing and clutching at straws.

 

[FearGod]

How do you know this? One can make useful sounds by hissing and whistling, which do not need specialized apparatus. Variations that supplement these could develop at leisure.

I suspect you are guilty of apologetical thinking. Intellectual tapdancing and clutching at straws.

The gene of hissing and whistling, that make sense

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So we got the ability to speak by coincidence , because evolution is directed by natural selection otherwise it's the work of chances and coincidence and hence you imply that our ability to produce verbal sounds that make frequencies in air was by chance.

If you think about tribes of our primitive ancestors, the tribes that communicated most effectively with each other would be the most successful. What I think you might be missing is the geological time scales involved in evolution. Even for humans we're talking about thousands of generations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Intellectual tapdancing and clutching at straws.

I think it might just be not understanding the basic principles of evolution. A lot of people don't unfortunately.

 

[FearGod]

If you think about tribes of our primitive ancestors, the tribes that communicated most effectively with each other would be the most successful. What I think you might be missing is the geological time scales involved in evolution. Even for humans we're talking about thousands of generations.

No i wasn't speaking about humans but the evolution of sound long after hearing in the tree of life.

 

[FearGod]

I think it might just be not understanding the basic principles of evolution. A lot of people don't unfortunately.

I don't understanding evolution, is it that hard !?

Do you agree that the organism needs thousands of years to evolve and change kind?
IOW if one kind isn't speaking then the evolved one needs thousands of years to change kind and speak.

If you agree then you should answer the question.

How natural selection is directed while change of kind needs hundreds of thousands of years to take effect and to be beneficial.

If what i said is correct then answer the question and if there is something wrong in what i said then please clarify where is the mistake.

 

[Musty]

Which first evolved and which organism ?

I would imagine an mechanism to detect vibrations evolved fairly early on as a means of being aware of your environment including the presence of predators approaching predators. There didn't have to be any pre-determined intention for this to evolve into a more refined system that includes audio communication though with the benefit of hindsight it does appear to be a logical evolutionary path.

 

[FearGod]

I would imagine an mechanism to detect vibrations evolved fairly early on as a means of being aware of your environment including the presence of predators approaching predators. There didn't have to be any pre-determined intention for this to evolve into a more refined system that includes audio communication though with the benefit of hindsight it does appear to be a logical evolutionary path.

Also a question arise at this point that hearing or detecting vibrations is a must for organisms to survive,right

 

[Shad]

The gene of hissing and whistling, that make sense

Do you even know what hissing and whistling are? Look up both, figure out how each is done, then you will know what body parts are involved hence what genes are involved....

 

[Midget01]

Which first evolved and which organism ?

I would have to agree with a few others that perhaps hearing. Adam had to listen to God before he could respond . If we believe in evolution and we descended from creatures well none of them speak but they do respond to sounds and utter noises. So either way it would appear that hearing comes before speaking. In the beginning other than God who could Adam talk to the animals didn't understand him even if he grunted; there was not an agreed upon form of speech. But with all the things we could be doing in this world to help others why are we sitting here trying to figure out the simple things of life. There is much work to be done with those who speak and hear to be sitting here contemplating the world away. But for a moment of rest I take a few seconds to sit with you and think about this and I believe that hearing had to come first. Are you listening??

 

[Parsimony]

And mutations are random, right

Mutations are random but the way that they are selected is not.

How many thousands of years should pass before speech develop due to mutation, how it is beneficial while still in progress, IOW can't be still naturally selected because it needs thousands of years to show its effect as beneficial for the organism.

There is no sudden point at which it became speech. It would have been a gradual process of producing increasingly complex sounds for different purposes, each incremental change being positively selected for because it gave an advantage over earlier, simpler forms of communication. The simplest ways of producing sound could easily have started as a byproduct of other, already-existing functions such as clicking teeth together, smacking lips or releasing gases stored in the mouth or stomach.

I don't understanding evolution, is it that hard !?

A lot of people don't seem to. If they did understand it sufficiently, they wouldn't constantly be attacking straw-men.

Do you agree that the organism needs thousands of years to evolve

No, evolution can happen in a single generation. Any change in the frequency of alleles in a population is evolution.

and change kind?

This question has no answer because "kind" has no scientifically-consistent definition.

IOW if one kind isn't speaking then the evolved one needs thousands of years to change kind and speak.

One species doesn't have to become an entirely new species in order to gain new traits. This has already been seen with Italian wall lizards, E.coli, Pseudomonas, HIV and others.

How natural selection is directed while change of kind needs hundreds of thousands of years to take effect and to be beneficial.

A beneficial trait can appear in a single generation, so your question has a false premise.

 

[FearGod]

Mutations are random but the way that they are selected is not.

There is no sudden point at which it became speech. It would have been a gradual process of producing increasingly complex sounds for different purposes, each incremental change being positively selected for because it gave an advantage over earlier, simpler forms of communication. The simplest ways of producing sound could easily have started as a byproduct of other, already-existing functions such as clicking teeth together, smacking lips or releasing gases stored in the mouth or stomach.

A lot of people don't seem to. If they did understand it sufficiently, they wouldn't constantly be attacking straw-men.

No, evolution can happen in a single generation. Any change in the frequency of alleles in a population is evolution.

This question has no answer because "kind" has no scientifically-consistent definition.

One species doesn't have to become an entirely new species in order to gain new traits. This has already been seen with Italian wall lizards, E.coli, Pseudomonas, HIV and others.

A beneficial trait can appear in a single generation, so your question has a false premise.

Yes tiny changes for hundreds of thousands of years.

For example one generation were able to say a..a...a, and that was beneficial for the generation and the ones saying a...a.....a passed
the gene to the next generation and the one who failed gone extinct, then the next generation were able to say ma.....ma...ma and that was beneficial
for survival, yes very very tiny changes, make a lot of sense to be naturally selected.

 

[Parsimony]

Yes tiny changes for hundreds of thousands of years.

For example one generation were able to say a..a...a, and that was beneficial for the generation and the ones saying a...a.....a passed
the gene to the next generation and the one who failed gone extinct, then the next generation were able to say ma.....ma...ma and that was beneficial
for survival, yes very very tiny changes, make a lot of sense to be naturally selected.

You make it sound as if the first humans couldn't speak at all and had to start from scratch. That's not how it would have happened. Human speech would have been a development of more primitive ape vocalizations and those developed from even more primitive primate vocalizations and so on.

 

[FearGod]

You make it sound as if the first humans couldn't speak at all and had to start from scratch. That's not how it would have happened. Human speech would have been a development of more primitive ape vocalizations and those developed from even more primitive primate vocalizations and so on.

Yes of course they weren't able to speak in one day night, thousands of years of tiny changes.

 

[Shad]

Keep in mind there is a difference between speaking as a form of developed communication and creating sound with no purpose of communicating. The development of a language is not the same as evolving the ability to produce sound. In your argument you have compared hearing sound and language instead of hearing sound and producing sound. Language is an abstract concept, sound and hearing are not. Your argument is flawed for this reason.

 

[Parsimony]

Yes of course they weren't able to speak in one day night, thousands of years of tiny changes.

Billions of years, actually. Inherited from our ancestors. By the time Homo sapiens evolved, we were already capable of speech.

 

[FearGod]

Billions of years, actually. Inherited from our ancestors. By the time Homo sapiens evolved, we were already capable of speech.

Yes very long journey, natural selection is amazing, tiny changes have its effect on survival and for passing traits.

 

[Parsimony]

Yes very long journey, natural selection is amazing, tiny changes have its effect on survival and for passing traits.

Right.

 

[FearGod]

Keep in mind there is a difference between speaking as a form of developed communication and creating sound with no purpose of communicating. The development of a language is not the same as evolving the ability to produce sound. In your argument you have compared hearing sound and language instead of hearing sound and producing sound. Language is an abstract concept, sound and hearing are not. Your argument is flawed for this reason.

To pronounce sounds as for humans then physical changes was a must and such changes were very tiny that it took hundreds of thousands of years from monkey like to what human is, so for natural selection human didn't speak in one day night, but physical changes for very long period of time, so yes the sound changed slowly,a...a.....a. then with time physical changes improving pronunciation ma....ma.....ma, then we can say now BS.

Natural selection is wonderful and very easy to understand.

 

[Shad]

To pronounce sounds as for humans then physical changes was a must and such changes were very tiny that it took hundreds of thousands of years from monkey like to what human is, so for natural selection human didn't speak in one day night, but physical changes for very long period of time, so yes the sound changed slowly,a...a.....a. then with time physical changes improving pronunciation ma....ma.....ma, then we can say now BS.

Natural selection is wonderful and very easy to understand.

Pronouncing is to form a sound of a word for the purpose of communication, ie a language which I noted in my post. Merely producing a sound with no intent to communicate is different. This is why you question is flawed as you are taking hearing sound and producing sound as a form a communication. An proper comparison would be hearing a sound that is part of language or form of communication and hearing those language sounds. Between the two would be the mental ability to understand the language used between the two.

Humans could make sounds from day one. Grunts, yells, screams, roars, clapping, clicking, etc. We didn't suddenly develop mouths, lungs, air-pipe, etc which are body parts which can be used in conjunction to produce noise. There is also producing sound by using one's hands like clapping for example. Again this is why your question is flawed. Humans were never deaf nor lacked the ability to produce sounds. What was lacking is and took time to develop use a language as a form of communication. Two claps for yes, one for no, ie.

You do not understand natural selection as you would not think Humans could not hear nor produce sounds at some point. you would mistake the ability to produce sound with the ability to communicate with a language. You wouldn't think the ability to hear developed within humans from a point of being deaf to hearing. This ability was already present and did not evolve with humans. you would know this if you had even a high-school level knowledge of biology. This deficiency is either due to the education system you were in or did not complete.