Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ?

Are numerous, not least of which is that the idea of "language evolution" first came from biological evolution, so you are using an analogy of biology into language for an analogy of language back into biology, complete with all the problems that language has that do not fit the original analogy.But you also have the main problem with language that you don't have with biological evolution -- and should have if ID were anywhere near a valid concept -- the fact that words can jump lineages because they are better. is a flying squirrel by another name. or a flying frog. Only for those with limited imaginations.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*11*2005 11:35 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That is where the analogy from evolution to language helps inform the study of language.My point was that you cannot use this analogy and the result from it in language study to then return to evolution and claim that it informs the study of evolution: that is a causal fallacy of wrong direction (like saying that cancer causes smoking).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

but the claim was that because of the way language developed differently from evolution that evolution was wrong ... that is what is invalid about the argument. They aren't reciprocal.You can use an analogy - {a} is like {b} - but don't think that the failures of the analogy to fully explain {a} apply to {b}, just that the analogy breaks down.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.