It all depends on how you define language and culture, and that's before you delve into a host of other unstated assumptions. The whole debate is driven by unst

It all depends on how you define language and culture, and that's before you delve into a host of other unstated assumptions. The whole debate is driven by unstated assumptions, or assumptions and thresholds which are more-or-less pulled out of thin air, notwithstanding any associated quantifications. And these assumptions are constantly in flux. For example, once upon a time "tool use" was considered a unique capability of humans, and from that was derived definitions of intelligence, etc. Well, turns out lots of other animals use tools, at least under that original, somewhat simplistic definition. But what's the significance of that fact--that other animals use tools? Does it mean they're also intelligent, just like humans? People have argued as much, but the "tool use" test was basically pulled out of someone's butt to begin with; the fact we all agree other animals use tools, now, doesn't actually imply much of anything. People draw conclusions where none can be drawn. And people establish presumptions and definitions to fit their preferred conclusions.