Simultaneous appearance of written language and common man

Peg has defined "modern man" as "those organisms which are biologically identical to currently living humans and possess written language."By that definition, as soon as a homo sapiens group develops a written language, writing and "modern man" simultaneously appear.The problem is that written language has nothing to do with biology - her basic definition of "modern man" is flawed and based completely on her preconceived conclusion.So far as I know, no reasonable (or accepted) definition for "species" would allow for the magical, sudden classification of a new species when language (written or otherwise) is developed.Of course, as was also pointed out in that thread, Peg's assertion that written language is only about 5000 years old is also false.The fact is that none of the biological, genetic, fossil, or archeological evidence is consistent with the sudden appearance of modern man as is claimed in the Biblical account. Organisms biologically identical to "modern man" have been shown to have existed long before written language. Organisms very closely related to "modern man" at the morphological and genetic levels have been shown to have existed long before that. Her assertion is preposterous.

It's far easier than that. By Peg's definition, young children and illiterate adults do not qualify as "modern man," because they do not possess written language. This should be sufficient to show that her definition is absurd on its face - certainly people don't "become" human only when they master the written word!It's ironic - Peg's definition of humanity would fly in the face of nearly every Creationist anti-abortion argument I;ve ever heard of and even open the door to infanticide, since after all, until they can read and write, they aren't human.The definition of "modern man" should remain a biological definition, just as are all other definitions of other species.

So now you're shifting the goalposts to all language, rather than simply the written word? How nice.Technically, human speech is no different from "grunts and growls."Bees communicate by dancing - not all that different from human sign language. Ants communicate via scent. And those are insects. Whales sing songs to communicate over long distances. Communication is not unique to humans, and some animal communication is more complex than you would think.And what about mentally disabled individuals? They cannot learn to read and write - some can't even speak. By your definition, they aren't "modern man." I'm not twisting your words, Peg - your position really is that absurd.