Recent genetic, physical and archeological analyses indicate that Neanderthal and Denisovan talked very much like we do. It has been known for some time that our modern ancestors interbred with Neanderthal and Denisovan. It now seems that they could have verbally communicated with them. This tends to support the theory that Neanderthal and Denisovan went extinct not from competing with modern humans but by being absorbed into the modern human population. Per the article:
New research, published in the journal Frontiers in Language Sciences, presents strong evidence -- genetic, fossil, archaeological and more -- that modern speech and language existed among Neanderthals, Denisovans (a Paleolithic type of human), and early members of our own species.
The hyperlink goes to a video on cannibalism. Some human groups probably ate Neanderthals and Denisovans while other human groups interbred with them. Neanderthal groups would not have spoken any of the same languages as human groups even if they were capable of doing so. But very likely some human groups made war on their Neanderthal neighbors, killed the men, kidnapped the women, and had hybrid children with them. The women and children would have learned to speak the human language.
P.S. I would like to see the video on language if you can find the correct hyperlink.
I don't know if the links in the article are meant to go specifically to other Neanderthal language material. I think they are just meant to go to other Neanderthal material. Here is another article on the same study as the first. As in the first it says that human language abilities are believed to go back even to Homo heidelbergensis, the last shared ancestor of Neanderthal and modern humans. At the end it very erroneously says that Homo sapiens have been around for 1.8 million years.
It must be exasperating for Creationists to have to explain to you scientists time after time how it all really happened. It must be thrilling for scientists to learn and find out more and more how it all really happened and is still happening.
Like many, i was under the impression that Neanderthals were a crude,coarse, grunting branch of our species with inferior intellectual capacity. Being uninformed (ignorant) i did not know that interbreeding was possible between them and our species. I always mourned that they didn't stick around long enough for us to get to know them. So close.
To be able to demonstrate and illuminate possible aspects of their lives and lifestyles is fascinating. If the theory that they were absorbed into the human race pans out, that would, to me, be a fact bomb!
The presence of a bit of Neanderthal DNA in the genome of contemporary humans of European ancestry is an established fact.
Humans seem to have interbred not only with Neanderthals and Denisovans but also with other species in genus Homo in Africa.
Apes like us are quite - flexible - about who we'll have sex with. Orangutans try to rape human women. And there are people who call themselves "zoophiles" who have sex with animals, like the guy who died after having receptive anal sex with a horse.
If members of the same genus interbreed, they might produce viable offspring, so humans have genes from other species in genus Homo but probably not from any other genus.
Zoophilia being the "open-minded" term for bestiality.
It does seem that our species did not emerge all at once in any one place but is a product of interbreeding of miscellaneous Homo groups all over Africa.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if modern humans in Africa interbred with some of their predecessors especially when modern humans first came on the scene there. Nonetheless, in order to have replaced and/or absorbed them modern humans had to have had survival qualities that their predecessors lacked. That is, they must have become much greater in number than their predecessors. We know that modern humans are prone to wage war over cultural differences even when those differences are minor such as differences in sects of the same religion. Cultural differences between modern and archaic humans would have been significant. As such, even supposing an abundance of resources I suspect that because of these differences modern humans in Africa and elsewhere with the advantage of being much greater in number and having a war like nature did more replacing through genocide than absorbing through interbreeding as they emerged as the surviving species. Genetic and archeological analyses should determine what happened.
I am certainly not one to deny the human tendency to genocide, but to clarify the point I was making, humans were evolving beyond the ancestral stage in all parts of Africa and their evolving populations seemed to have merged or at least swapped advantageous characteristics. Homo sapiens emerged from this process.
I think we are saying the same thing. That is, modern humans certainly didn't pop up in one generation. They were the result of a slow process of natural selection. This might not have happened at the same rate in all of Africa. It is possible that a few groups advanced more quickly than the others. The members of these groups would have become more numerous than the members of the others and, in this, been in a position to absorb and/or replace the members of the others. If there were significant replacement it might have involved genocide. The advanced groups that were left would then have had their own absorption and/or replacement events. The result of it all would come to be known as modern humans. The absorption aspect of it would have provided for the best traits of all the populations to prevail. A question is how much of the process was absorption as opposed to how much was replacement.
I also think we are saying the same thing. And I think that archaeologists and geneticists will be working to answer your question for a long time to come.
For copying wrong video links
I think the error was made by the staff of the discovery.com site itself, not by Mr. Jubinsky.