Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simultaneous appearance of written language and common man
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 39 of 86 (492718)
01-02-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:25 AM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
I find this a little confusing...
Peg writes:
the flood - 2370 B.C.E ...
Peg citing Jon's "History of Writing" link writes:
'it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script of c. 3000 BC is the earliest form of writing.'
I thought that the Tower of Babel story was supposed to have happened after the flood. But these two dates you are citing (which you seem to be accepting as plausible) are placing the Sumerian cuneiform script before the flood. I assume your source for those "exact years" of events in Genesis provides a particular date for the Babel story, so the difference between that date and the "c. 3000" number for Sumerian cuneiform would be the span that I find confusing.
Does this mean that Sumerian cuneiform represents the "original language as spoken by all humans before the Tower of Babel" -- the language of Adam and Eve and Noah? I suppose that if God had somehow decided not to confound humans at Babel, the bible would have been written in cuneiform instead of the Hebrew alphabet.
I don't think there's any point in trying to reconcile this, because there is such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, from such a vast diversity of unimpeachable sources (genetics, archeology, geology, climatology, linguistics), that not only renders these "exact dates in Genesis" nonsensical, but also clearly shows that these "events" (the flood and the tower) could never have actually happened as literally described. These are myths that were adapted by the Hebrews from earlier, polytheistic cultures, with modifications to comply with and build up their own monotheistic world view. (The flood and Babel stories both appear in older, non-Hebrew texts, with descriptions of multiple gods causing all the afflictions.)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Peg has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 74 of 86 (492900)
01-04-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
01-04-2009 3:23 AM


Re: The Real Question
Hi Peg,
That was a very interesting link (to the article by Michael Gazzaniga) -- thank you. What you are saying now makes more sense. Maybe the earlier disputes were due to misunderstandings that were caused by a poor choice of words or phrasing.
(Even in this latest post of yours, I would want to suggest a change of wording:
Peg writes:
Even if a nation of humans had no language themselves...
You mean "no written language" -- remember, you are using the notion of (human) language to define what humans are, so there can't be any humans that "had no language themselves".)
When I read (well, skimmed) the article you just cited, I understood this sentence: "This suggests that it underwent positive selection" to mean that the particular families and clans that shared these novel traits were able to spread very successfully. They achieved a degree of population growth that was never attained by the families/clans that lacked this genetic innovation -- indeed it's likely that the "farmers" expanded at the expense of the "hunters/gatherers", placing even more stress on the latter group, on top of their already difficult and limiting conditions.
But it's likely that the genetic advantage was of a more general nature -- it enabled more elaborate use of language (including better ways of preserving the knowledge expressed by language), but also enabled a lot more as well: better tool development, better methods of developing and assuring shelter, clothing and nutrition, better ability to anticipate and plan for future conditions; domestication of animals (especially horses) was also a huge factor. (Improved language ability would have enhanced all of these skills -- I think it could actually be difficult to view them independently.)
In any case, the key thing is that this change would have been relatively hard to notice in terms of overall physiology -- the ones with the these genetic advantages were only slightly different, physically, from other humans; there could still be interbreeding across groups, to the extent that other groups were in contact.
The ones lacking these special advantages were still pretty capable and smart -- they were well adapted to their environments, had lots of flexibility to adapt to other environments, made and used tools, and used languages that were structurally, fundamentally similar to those of the "farmers and city dwellers".
Just as all "modern humans" are still able to interbreed, their respective languages are all learnable by any human, and are all able to be codified into a written form using the same tools (letters or other symbols) or the same general strategies that have been applied to the historically literate languages.
It's not that the invention of writing by itself constitutes the arrival of a new species. Even the invention of agriculture doesn't do that. But what these inventions do is supply the inventors with much better odds for survival and population growth, and it is that side effect of the inventions that could lead, over a long-enough period of time, to divergent species, IF other conditions hold true for that long-enough period of time:
* two populations, one with these inventions and the other without them, continue to survive completely independently of each other,
* while developing independently (without contact or mixture of any kind), one or both groups continue to undergo genetic shifts within different environmental conditions, leading to selections of different traits in each group over time,
* eventually, if members of the two groups were to come into contact again, they would not be able to interbreed (mixed couples would not produce offspring, or would produce sterile offspring).
Actually, this sort of divergence could have happened regardless of presence vs. absence of particular inventions: if human populations remained isolated from each other, in different environments and with different genetic trends for long enough, they could become different species. It's the same basic process that applies to all living species.
In the case of humans, this could very well have happened within... who knows how many more millennia... But the genetic divergence has been cut short by the fact that various "inventive" groups have expanded so rapidly to such a large extent that they can't help but impinge on other groups.
Today, we've reached the point where the population of literate/agricultural humans is having an impact on every other pre-literate/non-agricultural group, with the net effect (over the last few thousand years) being that the latter groups have been either annihilated or "accommodated" (absorbed, or allowed to adopt usage of the improved tool sets).
For those fortunate enough to get the latter treatment, the divergence of language certainly poses problems and difficulties, but is not an insurmountable hurdle.
BTW, I hope you'll stop referring to the Tower of Babel story as an historical event. There was no such thing. Even as a myth or fable, it makes very little sense. There is still a lot that we don't understand about the origin of human language in general, the origins of the major language families (Indo-European, Semitc, Central African, American Indian and so on), and the complexities of the differences among the major families.
But the processes that cause language change, like the processes of biological evolution, are now fairly well understood, well documented, and directly observable, in spite of being essentially gradual. There's no need to invoke sudden and mysterious hocus-pocus by a deity in order to account for the known facts.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 3:23 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 5:41 PM Otto Tellick has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 81 of 86 (492954)
01-04-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peg
01-04-2009 5:41 PM


Re: The Real Question
Um, it was me, Otto Tellick (not Brian) that you were quoting just now. But apart from that:
Peg writes:
And his article shows that due to the development of a certain gene, the humans we are today came into being.
That's your conclusion from reading the article, slightly misinterpreting what it actually said, and not getting what I was saying in the post that you were replying to here. "The humans we are today" are actually a very diverse bunch, with lots of tweaky little differences scattered throughout the various genetic codes of the various individuals within various sub-populations; the article was talking about one factor in the on-going variation.
There were humans before that gene made its "big splash in the pool", and there may be other descendants of those humans without those particular genes who may still be around (though things are presumably getting more mixed up as the "global economy" and the convergent interaction among most of the (formerly non-interacting) sub-populations becomes an increasingly frequent fact of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 5:41 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024