Science Disproves Evolution

Language 2


If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest.
But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for
example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and
Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to
syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection.
The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become
simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea
that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g).

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence
indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not
evolve either.

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press,
1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates
animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the
apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he
could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the
first language could have been the most complex.” He then shifted to
a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary
origin of language, and all have failed. ... Even the peoples with
least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with
complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and
discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their
speakers. ... The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed
is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point
of view.” George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,”
Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is
a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of
the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language
origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar
than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree
of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages
to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of
different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both
have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously
parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might
transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed
that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or
dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor
degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol.
264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky ... has firmly established his point that grammar, and
in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are
busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved ...
Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have
come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?”
Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1279347

On Aug 6, 12:35*pm, wrote:
Language 2

If language evolved, the earliest languages should be
the simplest.

And they are. Look at the number of words in Sumerian, for example.
Look at cave paintings.

As far as "evolution of language", consider the recent evolution of
Hebrew. Even English has been becoming more complex, as it thumps
other languages over the head and rifles their pockets for content.

Interesting how you draw the conclusion that since language devolves,
then Man must have also. Oh wait, no you claim that since langauge
devolves, Man must have been created. How does that follow?

Never mind, I know you are trolling.

David A. Smith