Evolution of Languages

The evolution of languages is a subject that parallels biological evolution in important ways. Obviously in the history of a culture, language is inextricably linked to the movements and progress of its people. In that way it can be said to overlap with population genetics. We can track the divergences of human populations by comparing the similarities among their languages the same way we can determine interrelations through genetic means.Creationists no longer argue that languages could not have evolved. They have wisely abandoned the Babel myth that stands in direct contradiction to information from every corner of linguistic study. They do claim, and rightly so, that the fact that languages have evolved among human populations is not evidence in favor of biological evolution.It is true that the evolution of languages is much more Lamarckian than Darwinian. The inheritance of acquired characteristics is a hallmark of language evolution, in which terminology is routinely copied from neighboring populations. However, the process of empirical inquiry involved in the study of linguistic evolution is remarkably similar to the mode of inquiry involved in the study of biological evolution.We don’t witness languages evolving. Our certainty about the process of linguistic change is based on the study of artifacts. Ancient documents are the lingusitic fossils that help us determine the extent of change in a language. The vocabulary and verbal forms used in the text can be compared to modern forms to gauge the degree to which the contemporary form has been influenced by other languages. Similarities in structure can be used to group the language within a historical or geographical context.It is this process of inquiry that convinced linguists that certain languages of the Indian subcontinent were actually related to European languages. Thus the notion that there is a common ancestor for all Indo-European languages was established. Anyone claiming that proto-Indo-European (PIE) is a fiction concocted by linguists’ wishful thinking has to contend with as much significant empirical evidential support as there is for the existence of a common ancestor that we and all other modern primates share.Linguists have been able to reconstruct the path through which an old Germanic language acquired Romance language adaptations and eventually gave birth to contemporary English. Similarly, a Romance language that acquired Slavic adaptations eventually became Romanian. In the same way, paleontologists and biologists have persuasively constructed the lineage of sea mammals, through which successive species of land mammals acquired aquatic adaptations.We are hard pressed to determine exactly when a dialect of a language has acquired enough ‘mutations’ (through borrowings from other languages or the effects of regional isolation) to be considered a language in its own right. The evolution of languages is a matter of degree, in the same way as the relatedness of two species depends on their degree of divergence from their last common ancestor. The difficulty in determining when two subpopulations of the same biological species can be considered different species is just what we expect from the process of Darwinian evolution.The lack of controversy surrounding linguistic evolution won’t convince a creationist that biological evolution is a closed case. However, he should realize that the methods employed by biologists in determining relationships among species of living and extinct organisms are the same as the methods that linguists have used to establish similar relationships among ancient and contemporary languages. We need to decide for ourselves whether these methods are just as effective, and their conclusions just as valid, when applied to biological artifacts as when applied to linguistic ones.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

But Genesis 11 says there was a tower of Babel and the Load made the languages. How can they abandon this?

I'll grant you that micro-linguistic evolution occurs but no way macro-linguistic evolution. Ebonics clearly was specially created ex nihilo by intelligent rapping. And where are all those transitionals? I mean latin is a living fossil which disproves linguistic evolution....and don't bring up Klingon...simulated languages don't tell us anything about liguistic evolution...I won't respond to any criticism of this post since I am going to go do my laundry and watch Caddyshack for two months.

Sure we do. Ask your parents. English usage of fifty, sixty years ago is not english usage of today. Heck, there's plenty of language I use regularly now that didn't exist twenty years ago.Also, full language->pigin->creole transitions can be seen inside a single lifetime.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 12-09-2003]

"English usage of fifty, sixty years ago is not english usage of today. Heck, there's plenty of language I use regularly now that didn't exist twenty years ago."That's just MICRO-evolution. That doesn't prove anything." full language->pigin->creole transitions can be seen inside a single lifetime."Oh sure. Not even atheist scientists accept Stephen Gouldschmidts Punctuated Hopeful Monsterlibria theory of language evolution.

And don't forget that the linguist Noam Chomsky is an atheist commie which proves that all linguistics is part of the humanist atheist conspiracy to deny God.

quote:

---

English usage of fifty, sixty years ago is not english usage of today. Heck, there's plenty of language I use regularly now that didn't exist twenty years ago.

---

Quite true. I was reading an article written by a flapper to parents everywhere who didn't "get" the flapper concept. One line particularly stood out:"Make love to your daughter if necessary!"Back then, "make love" meant to "sweet talk".------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I just wanted to say that nobody can prove anything here. theres not enough evidence to prove the tower of babel or evolving languages perfectly correct and there never will be. but from what I see, babelists have alot more confidence in their beliefs and most of them are so shure that God exists that they dont even try to look for proof. its obvious that babelists have something linguists dont have. for one thing people who believe in God agree with 30% of the world population. this may seem little but more than 75% of the 70% left believe in a supirior being or Budda or something. Linguists dont really have a society. Also the chances of a language evolving are about 1 in (10 to the exponent of 44,000) thats 44 thousand 0s. So from what I see linguists dont have their own society to back them up.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Senor Hungryguy, see if you can find the 27 Nov copy of the journal Nature. There's a paper by Gray & Atkinson (pages 435-439) that explicitly uses "biological" mathematics to estimate just when the various branches of Indo-European diverged. The abstract: And I've sure seen some creationists who are Babel literalists....

AntidisestablishmentarianismPneumonoultramicroscopic-silicovolcanoconiosisRei is right. The odds are impossibly astronomical that those letters would be arranged in precisely those orders and to mean exactly what those words do . AND THOSE ARE JUST TWO WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGAUGE!!Therefore languages were created by Cthulu.He occasionally posts on this board y'know.If you humble yourself before him and ask him into your life, he will probably answer you and confirm what I've just said.But if he doesn't answer, then you weren't truly humble.

Or he wasn't hungry enough after his nap.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

There are a few molecular based studies as well correlating everything from co-evolution of language and populations to complete language replacement.Sajantila A, Paabo S.
Language replacement in Scandinavia.
Nat Genet. 1995 Dec;11(4):359-60Genome Res. 1995 Aug;5(1):42-52. Related Articles, LinksGenes and languages in Europe: an analysis of mitochondrial lineages.Sajantila A, Lahermo P, Anttinen T, Lukka M, Sistonen P, Savontaus ML, Aula P, Beckman L, Tranebjaerg L, Gedde-Dahl T, Issel-Tarver L, DiRienzo A, Paabo S.Zoological Institute, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. sajanti@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.deWhen mitochondrial DNA sequence variation is analyzed from a sample of 637 individuals in 14 European populations, most populations show little differentiation with respect to each other. However, the Saami distinguish themselves by a comparatively large amount of sequence difference when compared with the other populations, by a different distribution of sequence diversity within the population, and by the occurrence of particular sequence motifs. Thus, the Saami seem to have a long history distinct from other European populations. Linguistic affiliations are not reflected in the patterns of relationships of mitochondrial lineages in European populations, whereas prior studies of nuclear gene frequencies have shown a correlation between genetic and linguistic evolution. It is argued that this apparent contradiction is attributable to the fact that genetic lineages and gene frequencies reflect different time perspectives on population history, the latter being more in concordance with linguistic evolution.

Does this mean nuclear DNA correlates more closely with linguistic affiliation than mitochondrial DNA?Incidentally, Ebonics is not the linguistic isolate you make it out to be. It's been established (Chomsky and McFall, 1999) that it derives from Standard Disco, whose last native speaker died in 1980. Even today the diversification continues, and at least two dialects claim the status of independent languages: Street, favored by professional athletes, and Gangsta, spoken primarily by rich recording artists. The genes involved are usually two sizes too big.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

The problem with mtDNA is that it reflects maternal lineages only. Thus, it may not necessarily be concordant with diversification of language. Nuclear DNA, while often more slowly evolving, is contributed by both parents and thus is better for resolving such issues. This is not the first intance of non-concordance of mt and nuclear DNA results. Language is also tricky because it can be Lamarkian i.e. Eminem or Vanilla Ice and thus genetics may correlate with language diversification but the correlation may be weak.McFall in a recent break with his mentor Noam Chomsky (or was it a breakout from where Chomsky was studying him..never can get those facts straight), wrote a paper on a novel form of Ebonics called Wet Penis and Vagina Non Judgementalism. It was published in the respected linguistic journal Annals of Chicken Pronouns and described a form of speaking where many references to judgmentalism, Dawkins, Lorenz, eugenics and nazis are made but without any knowledge displayed about any of the subjects. It is apparently a common dialect in laundromats in Ngnajuk...in order to actually read the article however, one must first translate it into French using Babelfish and then back into English.

Thanks for the clarification on the mtDNA non-correlation with linguistic evolution. I'm actually surprised that nuclear DNA correlates, I figured the Lamarckian nature of linguistic change, like you mentioned, would prevent such a parallel. That's interesting.I'm old school, I admit it. I've heard enough of the whole Syaminem saga, honestly. He hasn't, ahem, dropped a dope beat since Brad As I Wanna Be and I don't expect another anytime soon. I can't figure out when he's being Larshall Lathers, when he's Rinse Shady, it all sounds the same to me. I read (where else? Spin magazine) that his mentor Dr. Dry is fed up with Sy's reluctance to compare various takes during routine playback in the studio. Dry also complained about Syaminem claiming to have already mixed a whole record when it's obvious he's done nothing of the sort.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall