Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Misc Language
Message-ID: <126@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 10:19:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.126
Posted: Fri May 24 10:19:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 00:12:40 EDT
References: <1134@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 33

> 
> 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.
> 
Two comments.  First, language leaves no fossils in the absence of writing.
They also change rapidly, e.g. proto-Indoeuropean was being spoken at a
time when writing had already developed in the fertile crescent.  Therefore
it is difficult, perhaps impossible to say much about the earlier history
of languages.  This is not equivalent to saying that languages appear
"full blown out of nowhere".  "Full blown out of the dark past" would be
more like it.  In the absence of effective evidence *any* hypothesis
sounds good.  I don't disbelieve in creationism because languages evolve.

Second, the reason I (and others) didn't take issue with the original posting
on evolution and language is that it takes enough time to respond to incorrect
arguments whose conclusions I disagree with.  Most of us can't be bothered to
respond to incorrect arguments whose conclusions we agree with on other
grounds.

Third (oops, well make that three comments) there may be some arbitrary
element in drawing the boundary between homo sapiens and erectus but
500,000 years sounds a bit long to me.  Of course, we know homo erectus
made tools, he may have also language.

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas