The Human Question

A big deal is made, I believe, about the size of the area in the brain wherein the processes associated with speech typically take place.  But maybe the size is that large because of use rather than dna: just as is the case for the part of the brain associated with the fingers of a violin player. It would be interesting to see how large the same area is in the brain of a feral child...

Scientists say that the speech areas (those that kick in when we are hearing or expressing) are larger in humans than in other primates.  Yes, but why?  I know it's supposed to be in our genes, but I can't help but wonder about how much of the larger size of these areas is a function of practices rather than DNA.  Consider the brain of a violinist: the area responsible for the control of his hand movement is larger than it is for non-violinists (who don't use hand skills with the same level of precision).  This largeness, however, is a function of practices.  It's large because he's a violinist rather than vice versa. Why can't the same be true for humans vis-a-vis non-humans?  In other words, it may be the case that humans have larger areas for communication than non-humans have for the same because humans are such intensive communicators.  Perhaps the average Joe is, in comparison to the bonono, a maestro at gesturing. I need to restudy about t...