Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9021 total)
59 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tangle (3 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,634 Year: 280/14,102 Month: 280/294 Week: 36/136 Day: 4/32 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16671
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 136 of 143 (883756)
01-10-2021 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by goldenlightArchangel
01-09-2021 7:18 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
quote:
The fact is that evolutionary theory named human origins is entitled to explain the origin or appearance of 42 different languages and ethnic groups in Europe

Since neither is primarily biological a theory of biology is obviously NOT entitled to explain either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-09-2021 7:18 PM goldenlightArchangel has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 137 of 143 (883777)
01-10-2021 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by AZPaul3
01-09-2021 9:32 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
Actually, glAa is quite correct in stating that evolutionary theory does apply to the origin of languages and ethnic groups. It’s just not Darwin's theory of biological evolution. It’s the entirely well documented theories and facts of linguistic and ethnographic evolution.

And yes, he's still an idiot.

Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by AZPaul3, posted 01-09-2021 9:32 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4389
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 138 of 143 (883780)
01-10-2021 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by frako
01-09-2021 11:35 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
You picked what is perhaps the only word that is nearest to being universal because it is very likely onomatopoeic. That wouldn't make it a very good example.

Languages are grouped together into families based on linguistical similarities and common or close origins and then subclassified into smaller groups; eg, the Indo-European (AKA "Indo-Germanisch") family divided into satem and centum languages (based on their words for 100) and then further divided into smaller groups (eg, Italic resulting in Latin which spawned the Romance languages, or Germanic splitting into West Germanic, North Germanic, and East Germanic each of which split further into individual languages).

On top of that, these languages rarely evolve (ie, develop and change, AKA "unfurl", over time) in total isolation, but rather are influenced by surrounding languages resulting in a kind of cross-pollination.

English is a good example, starting off as West Germanic (still is in its basic grammatical structure), influenced by Latin through Christian missionaries, influenced by North Germanic Old Danish through the Danelaw (the eastern part of England settled by Vikings), then post-1066 acquiring a thick layer of French vocabulary through the French Vikings (AKA Normans, Norsemen who settled settled the northern coast of France, took local wives, and could not speak with their own children who grew up speaking their mother tongue, French), and in subsequent centuries continued to evolve while continuing to be influenced by other languages.

I would also point out that writing slows down change within a language. When all you have is oral transmission, large changes can happen within just a few generations (much like oral traditions such as the stories of the Old Testament), but once you have written it down then that creates a lot of resistance to change. For example, I can use what I learned of Koiné Greek to decipher a lot of written Modern Greek even though two millennia have transpired, while we would have great difficulty understanding English from half a millennium ago.

The prehistory and history of Europe are filled with the immigration of entire peoples, some speaking an Indo-European language and some not. We still haven't figured out where the non-IE Finno-Hungarian and Basque groups came from, nor Japanese (which is unlike any other language, perhaps evidence of its divine origins through Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess, though some think it might be related to Polynesian).

 
Which brings us to the fundamental problem of trying to respond to goldenlightArchangel's bald assertions about "42 different languages and ethnic groups in Europe." What the hell is he talking about? What assumptions and evidence go into his bald assertion conclusion? Do they even exist? Had he ever gone through the process of developing his thesis and arriving at his conclusion through any form of reason and consideration of the evidence? Or is he just regurgitating some nonsense that he had heard from some creationist source which had itself never gone through any process of actually arriving at that conclusion?

His usage of the number 42 looks suspicious. Why 42? Because that's the The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything? (For the uninitiated still stuck out in the Outer Temple, the Ultimate Answer cannot be understood without knowing the Ultimate Question) That makes him sound like a QAnon conspirator whose writing was read aloud: the base of operations for the lizard people ruling us is Deep Space Nine (I shit thee not!). Should we also note that this talk of lizard people posing as human sounds virtually identical to the 1980's sci-fi TV show, V. I guess one thing we cannot expect of conspiracy theorists is originality.


A few quotes about English:

"English is the results of the efforts of Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Saxon barmaids in the 9th century"
(H. Beam Piper, from "Fuzzy Sapiens")

"English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."
(unknown)

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
(James D. Nicoll)

 
Trivia:

According to verbivore Richard Lederer, some vocabulary sizes:


English 616,000
German 185,000
Russian 130,000
French 100,000

English adds about 5000 new words per annum
about 25% of English vocab comes from "Anglish"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by frako, posted 01-09-2021 11:35 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2021 4:42 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 141 by anglagard, posted 01-10-2021 11:39 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16671
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 139 of 143 (883781)
01-10-2021 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by dwise1
01-10-2021 4:27 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
This is English:

Hwæt! Wé Gárdena in géardagum
þéodcyninga þrym gefrúnon·
hú ðá æþelingas ellen fremedon.

The English of about a thousand years ago.

The changes in the language are not the result of biological evolution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is daft.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 01-10-2021 4:27 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by dwise1, posted 01-10-2021 6:27 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4389
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 140 of 143 (883782)
01-10-2021 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
01-10-2021 4:42 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
The changes in the language are not the result of biological evolution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is daft.

Absolutely true, though you can't convince a creationist of that.

The word "evolution" first appeared around 1610. "Turning out" or I guess "unfurling." How things or systems form and develop and change over time. So there's stellar evolution, which is how stars for and change over time. Nothing to do with Darwin. Darwinian evolution is just part of biological evolution which is one specific type of evolution, one which operates entirely differently than stellar evolution. Or cultural evolution. Or linguistical evolution.

For whatever reason, creationists seem to think that there's this one single idea called "evolution" that they're completely against even though they don't know what it is. Four decades of asking creationists to explain what they are talking about and not one single answer in all that time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2021 4:42 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2245
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 141 of 143 (883784)
01-10-2021 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by dwise1
01-10-2021 4:27 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
Damn dude, you are excellent at this EVC (aka Knowing the difference between shit and shinola, with a few exceptions on their part) thing and that is an understatement.

You know your shit big time and it is more than about time I praised you for it, along with any shinola you may wish to provide.


The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

Republican = death


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 01-10-2021 4:27 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18854
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 142 of 143 (883785)
01-11-2021 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by goldenlightArchangel
01-09-2021 7:18 PM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
goldenlightArchangel writes:

... 42 different languages and ethnic groups in Europe.


Which 42? Wikipedia lists more than a hundred.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-09-2021 7:18 PM goldenlightArchangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 01-11-2021 12:04 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33102
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 143 of 143 (883788)
01-11-2021 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
01-11-2021 11:26 AM


Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
42 the answer of course.

Did you bring your towel?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 01-11-2021 11:26 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021