Your problem is the assumption no one remembered to click a search button. I am sure all the scientists quoted have read such 'descriptions' [as opposed definitions].
It was inevitably biologists that supplied the information used by lexicographers to compile the definitions - I made no assumption to the contrary.
Your other problem is, you have negated your own held premise: all the attributes listed therein [throat, tongue, lips, etc - modulation, cavities and throat muscles, etc] are commonplace with life forms, contradicting the unique human speech factor.
That's not my premise - the unique human speech factor is
your premise. I have no qualms with definitions that harm your argument. Especially given that you have been unable to construct a definition that doesn't harm your argument that is not pointlessly tautological.
But you ARE affirming my premise by default.
By quoting definitions that undermine your assertion that human speech is a 'unique factor', I have affirmed your premise by default? Your logic is at least interesting, if completely backwards.
™ Version 4.2
