Two Impossibilities of Ape to Man

AronRa, Gutsick Gibbon, Reacteria youtubers would add a third, pretending this is like saying "mammal to man" while man is a mammal. In their terminology, it would be "other ape, for instance ancestral to chimps and gorillas as well, to man" ... just so we know what we are talking about. It's impossible in two ways.

CMI deals with Haldane's Dilemma:

The impossibility of ape to human evolution
CMI Video, 1 Nov. (All Saints) 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5iED5BNU6k

My comment deals with another dilemma:

You can add the linguistic problem.

An ape communication is either vocal or gestural or both. But the vocal part clearly has:

• the phoneme (where rhythm and repetitions may count as a different sound, even if a transscript woul spell the same)
  EQUALS
• the morpheme
  EQUALS
• the entire communication (to use the word phrase would be misleading).

A typical vocal human communication has:

• the single phoneme (where differences in ears and hyoids and throat shapes make for a far wider range)
  IS ONE CONSTITUENT OF
• the single morpheme, which
  IS ONE CONSTITUENT OF
• the phrase.

How apes get to have communication equals morpheme is, they only have verbs and only in the imperative. Theoretically they could have names though, as other animals seem to have, but this seems to be absent from apes.

How a single phoneme can equal that morpheme is, the only imperative mood verbs they have are stereotyped actions like "flee from that predator!" or "have some food!" or "have some sleep!" or "groom me!" or "let me groom you!" which is like having communications only by traffic signs and emoticons. It could add up to 500 at the most.

By contrast, the human phrase is made up from nouns and verbs, and has non-imperative moods, non-practical simply theoretical statements, like "I ate yoghurt today" .... to get from the one to the other by evolutionary means is to try to mend a trouser until it's a house, or remake a sponge cake until it's a pancake.

The thing usually referred to as linguistic evolution (above is the bane of "evolutionary linguistics") involves phrases changing structure, morphemes changing structure, phonemes changing in that or other position (from Latin to French this would involve eradication of accusative plus infinitive, creation by intelligent design of the conditional mood, changing the pronunciation of Latin C from K in all positions to S or TCH in some positions, the TCH later becoming SH). That's just mending a trouser until it's a different trouser or rebuilding a house until it's a different house.

"Evolutionary linguistics" are to "human evolution" what "abiogenesis" is to "evolution from LUCA" ... the unsolvable problem which rationally should doom the theory to extinction (pun intended).