Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Misc Language Message-ID: <1134@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-May-85 17:28:35 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1134 Posted: Thu May 23 17:28:35 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 05:22:00 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 119 >>> 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the >>> simplest. >> Here we have the commonly pointed out but never corrected creationist >> fallacy that evolution must progress from the simple to the complex. Also, >> another point that has nothing to do with evolution. > > [DuBois] > It must have SOMETHING to do with it, since we see all sorts of very > complex organisms living today, and you guys keep telling us how simple > organisms were when they first developed. [Jeff Sonntag] > I have trouble believing that Paul is *really* as dense as he is > pretending here. Pretending? > Whether languages evolved, were taught to us by > aliens, gods, or by 42 cases of walkmen mysteriously transfered back > into time has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution, which is a > mechanism to explain the origin of *species*, not languages. Got it, > Paul? You were awfully silent when K A Dahlke adduced linguistic "evolution" as evidence in *favor* of evolution. But when a creationist brings up a counter-point favorable to creation, ah! Then it's irrelevant... > And the other point: Yes, the first organisms must have been very > simple. Now there are organisms which are much more complex. That > doesn't mean that this progression was monotonic. Very true. It does mean that there was an increase in complexity at some point, however. And this must be accounted for, no? --- >> 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the >> simplest. On the contrary, language studies reveal that >> the more ancient the language (for example, Latin, 200 >> B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the >> more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders, >> moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The best evidence >> indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c]. > [Stanley Friesen] > The problem is these languages are only the oldest *attested* > languages, since writing was only invented about 1500 BC. Homo sapiens > is generally held to have been around at least half a million years, > thus these languages would have a *long* history of prior developement. > Furthermore, individual languages do not evelve in the *biological* > sense, they are all full expressions of the human capacity for language. (i) Begs the question. (ii) 4000 BC, not 1500 BC. (iii) They are indeed "full expressions of the human capacity for language", as you put it. Don't you find it in the least suspicious that language should develop over such a long period of time and then just show up full blown with NO TRACE of prior development? > Thus, this is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, since huamans are > not evolving *biologically* with respect to language ability. I notice that you were awfully silent before also. > Also, I think you will find that most linguists would disagree about > the existance of a general tendency for "devolution" in languages, > all your examples are from the restricted set called Indo-European > languages which share a common heritage, and thus do not form an > independant sample. A wider sample shows much less of a uniform > tendency. Ah! Maybe so. Can you give this more than a handwave so that we have a chance to believe you? --- > [P Samuel Odoms] > Languages are primarily directed by the type of society in which they are > used. Any given language can go from "simple" to "complex" many times > during its life. Examples of such, please. > A language with the gender, mood, case, etc. constructs > could be considered "simpler" than the same one without (Old English and > New English though, of course, the language has gone through enormous > modifications other than lose of gender, mood, etc.) because to get the > correct idea across, we now must use a fairly restricted word order > or a phrase will not mean the correct thing. Therefore, we have more not > less rules governing our language. Proof? --- > > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > > simplest. On the contrary, language studies reveal that > > the more ancient the language (for example, Latin, 200 > > B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the > > more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders, > > moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The best evidence > > indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c]. > [Keith Doyle] > I doubt this one very much. Have you looked at the asian languages? > Not being a linguist myself, I really couldn't say. It's true for Chinese also. --- None of these responses dealt at all with the sudden appearance of language full blown out of nowhere. I posted an article on this a while ago, but nobody said anything. The conclusion of that article was: the *evidence* does not suggest evolution; the evolutionary framework must *presuppose* evolutionary development of language and fit it in post hoc. Creation is as good an explanation of the ex nihilo nature of the appearance of language as any. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |