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: Language (1 of 2) Message-ID: <1167@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-May-85 14:20:34 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1167 Posted: Wed May 29 14:20:34 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 04:29:06 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 259 > [K. A. Dahlke] > Since most creationists are Bible oriented (whether they admit it > or not), I would like to ask: do you believe in linguistic creationism as > well? Perhaps if you give it a definition we shall be able to tell you whether we agree with it or not. (Don't bother to say you define it in the next paragraph; you don't) > Since some (especially evolutionists) are not familiar with this > interesting story from Genesis, allow me the privilege of paraphrasing: > "Once upon a time, some evil egotistical people > who lived in the land of Babble > decided to build a tower to reach heaven. God was angered > by this blasphemy, distroyed the tower, dispersed the > workers, and gave them different languages. > Thus we get our word babble." > Ironically, the words themselves provide contradictory evidence. > Simply read a King James version (still quite common), > and thou shalt witness linguistic evolution at work. Contradictory to WHAT? Where does the Bible state that from henceforth and forevermore languages would remain static? > The Bible has passed through Hebrew, Greek, Latin, middle English, > and finally the revised standard version distributed today. ---------- > Linguistic evolution is easily documented historically (through > writings), just as evolution is revealed by the fossil record. > Although this evidence is probably adequate, there is considerable > independent corroboration for both evolutionary theories. Adequate for WHAT? What are you trying to show? That language changes? That's no news - what's the implication? If all you are saying is that language changes, we have a very uninteresting proposition. The relevance to biological evolution is unclear as well: language changes within a single species. Biological change is (supposed to be) the production of new species from existing species. Endless variation within a single species (the analogue of language change within human usage) wouldn't get you very far. Even if it is maintained that new languages come from old and that this corresponds to new species from old, the extension of the argument to biological evolution is of necessity an analogy. And that, you realize, means that the argument falls within the same class as arguments from design based on analogy. No doubt you're aware of the warm reception such arguments receive in this newsgroup, and therefore you know how much validity should be accorded to your own argument. > Consider English and German (the languages I know best). > Historically, we know these two languages are related, > and the copious linguistic similarities provide independent evidence. > While I was reading Hamlet, certain Germanic constructs became apparent. > Consider the conjugation of regular verbs. > subject German middle English > you st est > he/she t eth > Also notice Hamlet's word order, which often the verb at the > end of the relative clause places. Prepositional phrases become ordered > (time manner place), and often occupies the verb the second > position of declarative sentences. > Although evolution has modified both languages, similarities remain today. > When analogous words (by meaning) differ by only one phoneme, > and this phoneme substitution appears consistently, > the languages are probably related. > Several phoneme substitutions are apparent, and most people faking a German > accent know what they are. w->v s->z th->d ... > Example words: sing, house, foot, hand, cold, water, wagon, the, ... > The ubiquity of these phoneme substitutions directly indicates > the age of the two languages relative to their common ancestor. > When the only differences are a couple phoneme substitutions, > the languages are called dialects, and are usually mutually understandable. > Longer separation yields more substitutions, and word order changes, > and general random variations, > making the languages incomprehensible to each other. > Of course, sufficient evolution will separate the languages > completely, prohibiting comparisons altogether. That's interesting (and I mean no sarcasm). But, what you need to show is that when you go back in time, languages do not just suddenly appear instantly where they didn't exist before. That's a tough job. I was going to say that this shows little about whether the different languages started the same or not. But I have the feeling that no matter which way it appeared to happen (same or different), it wouldn't be taken to contradict evolution. My impression is that whatever happens is interpreted in terms of the evolution that is assumed to have occurred. Which is a reasonable procedure as long as one doesn't forget that it IS an assumption and then go on to state that the interpretation provides confirmation of the theory. You, in fact, did forget just this very thing. But that sort of confirmation is vacuous. Since adoption of the evolutionary theory as an interpretive framework precludes this possibility, it is impossible that it should conflict. "Independent confirmation" in this context means very little, if anything. So, yes, language changes. And? > Similarly, analogous proteans in differing species can provide > independent evidence for evolution. As soon as a species splits > into two, random variation can and will replace some amino-acids > within proteans. A few of these changes will be harmless, and will > propagate. This explanation is too facile to be taken seriously, because it assumes as answered a question that remains open. This is a chicken and egg problem. Does a species split facilitate amino-acid replacement, or does amino-acid replacement faciliate speciation? Or both? What is the cause and what is the effect? The above explanation is devoid of expanatory value, and I think that its adoption would serve to stultify thought more than it would encourage inquiry. That's just my opinion. > Thus, our hemoglobin differs from other animals' hemoglobin, and the > differences accurately reflect the time of species separation. What was the divergence time of soybeans and hemoglobic animals? When did we diverge from the crustacean _Daphnia_? > Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of > making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few > hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. I'd be interested to hear how you know this to be true. Might very well be so, but as you've stated it, this is just a bare assertion without evidence. > Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of > making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few > hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. Surely not. How do YOU know? GADZOOKS!! This fallacy really comes up rather too often, I think. What fallacy? That evolutionists often say to creationists "you can't say what a creator would or wouldn't do" - and then (e.g., in the above paragraph) offer their own COMPLETELY USELESS (by *evolutionist* standards!) speculations about what a creator would or wouldn't do. Here's another recent example: > [Stanley Friesen] > In fact the existance > of ad hoc, opportunistic "designs" in living things is one of the > principle predictions of evolutionary theory. If God had created > from scratch I would think he would use good engineering principles > and design each organism for its specialty independantly instead of > using kludged up, ad hoc solutions like we actually see in many > cases. You can think what you wish, of course, Mr. Friesen, but if you guys really applied the same standards to yourselves as you do to creationists, you would immediately say "such statements are unscientific." I've said it before: >> I find it curious that evolutionists continually raise the point >> about our inability to predict, *a priori*, any limits on the way in >> which a creator would create - and then go ahead and make their own >> suppositions. So knock it off. ---------- > [Dahlke again] > It is a shame that most people (including judges) are not educated enough > to appreciate the overwhelming, independent, and fascinating > evidence supporting evolution. > So what about languages? Does anyone out there > believe in linguistic creationism? Or has this too become > re-interpreted in the wake of contradictory evidence? Well, it's certainly true that reinterpretation in the wake of contradictory evidence is a cardinal sin. For a creationist, that is. Off with his head, right? If an evolutionist did it, that would simply be revising a theory to more accurately reflect reality. Nothing wrong with that. Why do you imply it's a poor practice for creationists? By the way ... what was that evidence that was "contradictory", anyway? You've not indicated in your discussion *what* exactly was contrary to linguistic creationism, or *why* it was contradictory. Partly this is because you never said what you meant by linguistic creationism (see, it's not only creationists that are vague about creationism :-), or what you would expect from it. Really all you've done is say that it's baloney, without saying why. Maybe it is. But why? An allusion to Genesis accompanied by a dismissal won't do it. Even I could (and will - next article) do a better job of criticizing it than that. (Or at least criticizing what I would guess you mean by LC.) > And why is linguistic creationism not a hot topic? > Is it the strength of written evidence against it? Might be; we'll know when you give some. > Perhaps, but I believe there is more. > A round Earth and evolving languages do not jeopardize the creationist's > status (created in God's image). > When you realize there is nothing divine about humans, > do you allow earthworms into heaven, or what? > I am always intrigued by the > psychological insecurities which compel individuals to retain > various beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. I guess I'd better act hurt and stung, then, and lash out at you with some vitriolic and vituperative remarks, as a result of having my insecurities exposed ... :-) ---- Anyway, leaving Genesis aside, here are some questions that could be discussed on this topic. (i) Did all languages start the same? If so, why did they split? If not, what would you make of that? Polyphyletic linguistic origins? Would either instance "contradict" linguistic evolutionary theory? Is there anything you would "expect" from an evolutionary linguistic theory, or is anything you find simply interpreted in those terms? (ii) Is there anything that provides some ground for a difference in what you would expect on the basis of what you take creationist linguistics to be, and evolutionary linguistics? (iii) What accounts for the gap between human language and communication in other species? (This is the giveaway question.) (iv) Ancient languages and languages of primitive cultures are more complex than modern languages. (I don't expect anyone to take this at face value - I'll try to provide some documentation in another posting.) Linguistic evolution as we know it, then, is from the complex to the simple. How come? (v) Does linguistic evolution have anything to do with biological evolution? Analogies between the two were offered, but I didn't notice any compelling conclusion to be drawn from this anywhere in the article. I did indicate that this stuff about 'independent confirmation' can't be taken seriously. (vi) And the big question: How did language start? A linguistic creationist would say, I suppose, that language was given by the creator full-blown. This is certainly in accord with the written record. The first evidence we have of language from written records indicates that language was already at that time completely functional. And also, as I have already noted, MORE complex than language today. I imagine that most creationists would feel that this phenomenon is a striking example of data consistent with their position. (I'm assuming the position would be: language by fiat ex nihilo.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |