In many messages IamJoseph asserts that speech is a marker of the "human" kind. A typical post is
Message 177 The other error is in darwin's specie categorising, whereby he fails to acknowledge that humans are different from all other life forms, not by skeletal and biological dna imprints which are common to all life - but via 'SPEECH'. Speech is not a result of evolutionary processes, and we cannot expect dogs and zebras to talk in the next million years - they have not attained this attribute after many millions of years of apparent evolution, and this fact stands as a powerful opposer of ToE. Not factored by Darwin. In the big picture, the correct differentials must first be made on the hovering, transcendent variations between life forms, namely as GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMS.
The question is how do we ascertain this "speech endowed" characteristic using science.
We refer to definition (1). It involves experimentation and testing.
Now to determine whether this "speech endowed" characteristic appears in other animals we need a definition of what we mean by "SPEECH" that we can agree on.
I think we can agree that definition (1) is the appropriate definition, and that this corresponds with the "Speech is the expression of ideas and thoughts by means of articulate vocal sounds, or the faculty of thus expressing ideas and thoughts" under synonyms. Thus a member of the "speech endowed" kind of organisms would have the "ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture."
We can look at many many scientific studies of communication for these characteristics, where they have been studied in experiments and tested to make sure that what we are seeing is communication from the object of the study rather than a trained response to stimulii.
Now look at the communication of ideas, thoughts and emotions in the following video:
Pay particular attention to the spontaneous things Alex says that is not part of the testing for comprehension.
Please explain how this cannot be considered "speech endowed" by the above definitions.