More than 7,000 languages are spoken in the world. This linguistic diversity is passed on from one generation to the next, similarly to biological traits. But have language and genes evolved in parallel over the past few thousand years, as Charles Darwin originally thought?
An interdisciplinary team at the University of Zurich, together with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig (Germany) has now examined this question at a global level. The researchers have developed a global database linking linguistic and genetic data entitled GeLaTo (Genes and Languages Together), which contains genetic information from some 4,000 individuals speaking 295 languages and representing 397 genetic populations. The work is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
One in five gene-language links point to language shifts
In their study, the researchers examined the extent to which the linguistic and genetic histories of populations coincided. People who speak related languages tend to also be genetically related, but this isn’t always the case. “We focused on cases where the biological and linguistic patterns differed and investigated how often and where these mismatches occur,” says Chiara Barbieri, UZH geneticist who led the study and initiated it together with colleagues when she was a postdoc at the Max-Planck-Institute.
The researchers found that about every fifth gene-language relation is a mismatch, and they occur worldwide. These mismatches can provide insights into the history of human evolution. “Once we know where such language shifts happened, we can better reconstruct how languages and populations spread across the world,” says Balthasar Bickel, director of the National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR) Evolving Language, who co-supervised the study.
Switching to the local lingo
Most mismatches result from populations shifting to the language of a neighboring population that is genetically different. Some peoples on the tropical eastern slopes of the Andes speak a Quechua idiom that is typically spoken by groups with a different genetic profile who live at higher altitudes. The Damara people in Namibia, who are genetically related to the Bantu, communicate using a Khoe language that is spoken by genetically distant groups in the same area. And some hunter-gatherers who live in Central Africa speak predominantly Bantu languages without a strong genetic relatedness to the neighboring Bantu populations.
In addition, there are cases where migrants have picked up the local language of their new homes. The Jewish population in Georgia, for example, has adopted a South Caucasian language, while the Cochin Jews in India speak a Dravidian language. The case of Malta reflects its history as an island between two continents: While the Maltese are closely related to the people of Sicily, they speak an Afroasiatic language that is influenced by various Turkish and Indo-European languages.
Preserving their linguistic identity
“It appears that giving up your language isn’t that difficult, also for practical reasons,” says the last author Kentaro Shimizu, director of the URPP Evolution in Action: From Genomes to Ecosystems. However, it’s more rare for people to preserve their original linguistic identity despite genetic assimilation with their neighbors. “Hungarian people, for example, are genetically similar to their neighbors, but their language is related to languages spoken in Siberia,” Shintaro notes.
This makes Hungarian speakers stand out from among the rest of Europe and parts of Asia, where most people speak Indo-European languages, such as French, German, Hindi, Farsi, Greek and many others. Indo-European has not only been extensively studied, but also scores particularly high in terms of genetic and linguistic congruence. “This might have given the impression that gene-language matches are the norm, but our study shows that this isn’t the case,” concludes Chiara Barbieri, who adds that it is important to include genetic and linguistic data from populations all over the world to understand language evolution.
Phys.org
This fascinating research indicates that prevalent overlap between common genetics and language seems to be more of a result of convenience than necessity. (“It appears that giving up your language isn’t that difficult…). So this would indicate that human language ability is the hard-wired characteristic, not any specific language. It seems to me that this disconnect between specific genetics and a specific language is problematic for the theory of evolution. If a specific language evolved along with a specific people group, it isn’t clear that this would result in an innate ability to become fluent in any human language, as children raised in cross-cultural settings have demonstrated.
Anyone who has talked with a second generation immigrant from any country could easily draw the same conclusion.
As in, acknowledging the observable, where it is not too ideologically costly. The pattern is interesting and speaks to cultural and economic or social influences being in key cases more significant than genetics. Genetic determinism — aka, racism — is undermined. So is eugenics. But, conquest becomes a major question.
I would argue the opposite. What evolution provides are the anatomical and cognitive structures to develop, learn and use language, not a specific language tied to “specific genetics.” In fact, that claim doesn’t really make any sense. We know this because language has to be learned. In that respect, it is no different than any other acquired behavior. Developmental psychologists have known this for decades….
Addendum–
It’s not clear what the author means by the phrase what “children raised cross-cultural settings have demonstrated,” but what is clear is that if we take a pre-verbal Hispanic child and transplant him or her from, let’s say Mexico City to Topeka, Kansas to a white, Anglo family, the kid will grow up speaking perfect midwestern English, not Spanish.
To CD @3:
“What evolution provides are the anatomical and cognitive structures to develop, learn and use language, not a specific language tied to “specific genetics.””
What you ascribe to evolution is a capability that is:
1) Inexplicable in terms of natural processes.
2) Above and beyond any immediate need that language could offer to help a creature survive and produce more offspring.
As to:
So, completely contrary to Darwinian expectations, they find no ‘genetic explanation’ for specific languages in specific populations, (much less do they find a genetic link for why people should even have the capacity to speak language in the first place).
As Sir Giles, (who is no friend of ID), observed, the fact that there is no genetic linkage to any specific languages should not be all that surprising to find out since, (from common sense), “Anyone who has talked with a second generation immigrant from any country could easily draw the same conclusion.”
But alas for Sir Giles, and for other Darwinists in general, this, common sense, observation is no small problem for Darwinists. Darwinists are suppose to be able to explain, (from ‘bottom-up’ materialistic explanations), every facet of what it means to be human, yet If you can’t even explain why people speak different languages, (or even explain why people speak language in the first place), then that strongly indicates that you also have no realistic clue why the different, overlapping, ‘genetic languages’, (i.e. genetic codes), exist in DNA in the first place.
The drive the point home that Darwinists have no coherent explanation for why any specific genetic code, i.e. why any ‘genetic language’, exists, there is now a 10 million dollar prize for the first person who can prove that unguided material processes have the capacity within themselves to generate a simple code, i.e. a ‘simple language’
Moreover, as if having no coherent explanation for codes, languages, nor for why people speak different languages, was not already bad enough for Darwinists, the types of words that Darwinian biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research also betrays Darwinists.
Moreover, as if it was not bad enough that Darwinists are betrayed by the very words they are forced to use when they are doing their research, it is also now found that we can have a ‘top-down’ epigenetic effects on gene expression simply by our ‘mental states and lifestyle choices’.
To say that Darwinists ‘did not see that finding coming’ would be an understatement.
Moreover, the finding, from Darwinists mind you, that there is no ‘genetic explanation’ for specific languages in specific populations, also plays directly into this previous paper from several leading Darwinists. A paper where they honestly admitted that they have, “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved”.,,,
In fact, the late best-selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject, “The Kingdom of Speech”. Wolfe provided a précis of his argument in the book
In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, shelter, in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure.
And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so.
In fact, the ‘top-down’ infusion of (immaterial) mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades. For instance,
All of which should provide ample motivation for young people to study math and logic with a keen eye on how they might, in a ‘top-down’ fashion, infuse the proper mathematical/logical information into the properly selected material substrates in order to bring about the ‘next’ stunning multi-billion dollar innovation.
What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’, not via brute force as is presupposed in Darwinian thought, but precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates
Of course, a much more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and then defeated death itself on a cross in order to prove that he was God.
And that just so happens to be precisely the proof that is claimed within Christianity.
Verse
Considering that the historical migration of Y haplogroups is significantly different than historical migration of mitochondrial DNA, it would seem that this fact alone would explain the low degree of correlation between genetics and language.
In other words, I wonder whether the researchers attempted to correlate language and genetics by sex.
-Q
Querius, “I wonder whether the researchers attempted to correlate language and genetics by sex.”
Q, do you, as an ID advocate, honestly expect Darwinists to ever come up with a coherent explanation for why people have the capacity to communicate abstract, and immaterial, information to one another?
It simply makes no logical sense. i.e. How is it even remotely possible to get from the physical/material realm to the abstract/immaterial/mental realm of language?
As Dr. Egnor noted, “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.”
And as Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly ”
Verse:
Caspian/5
“What you ascribe to evolution is a capability that is…[i]nexplicable in terms of natural processes.”
Given the above comment, how then does ID explain the emergence of language in humans?
Bornagain77 @9,
In a word, no. I expect Darwinists to advance a fantasy about the gradual genetic evolution of language from grunts and squeaks to profound concepts as a result of survival of the fittest and assert this is yet another “proof” of Darwinism.
As usual, it will be based on nothing more than conjecture.
As far as I know, ID recognizes the profound differences in brain organization rather than brain size as being primary. Darwinists have retreated into brain per body mass ratios, but the issue of disproportionate corvid intelligence still remains unresolved.
The fact that language has generally degraded over time rather than becoming more complex and nuanced is telling. For example, compare versatility and specificity in Greek (or Latin) with modern languages.
In English, we might say, “I love my spouse” or “I love ice cream” using the same word. However in Greek, we have the following words for love:
1. Eros: physical, passionate love
2. Philia: affectionate, deep friendship
3. Erotoropia: playful, flirtatious love
4. Mania: obsessive love
5. Storge: familial love
6. Philautia: compassionate self-esteem
7. Pragma: practical, companionate love
8. Agápe: unconditional, sacrificial love
Which of these languages, English or Greek, appears more “evolved”?
-Q
Querius and/or BA77
Edify us and answer the same question put to Caspian: How does ID explain the emergence of language in humans?
Chuckdarwin @12,
Language is OBSERVED to be intelligently designed (ID). For example, consider Esperanto.
I know that linguists can and do create synthetic languages. As a college homework assignment, one of my kids did exactly that with words, grammatical rules, syntax, and semantics in logical relationships different than those of English. He thought it was easy.
In my association with people of the Navajo nation, I learned that their language (Diné Bizaad) is based on verbs rather than nouns (I got stuck on their pronunciation of a TL/CL consonant).
My own native language is ancient, from which a modern language was derived. It did not evolve by mutation and natural selection based on survival of the fittest.
-Q
I don’t think anybody is disputing this. It is the source of the capacity for language that is in dispute.
Languages certainly do evolve. Words and phrases mutate and become fixed in the population by a selection process. For example, the word “girl” was originally gender neutral and was applied to children of both genders. But don’t tell those here who get bent out of shape over the current disagreements over the preferred use of personal pronouns. They might faint.
Querius
You are not simply begging my question, you are deliberately avoiding it with your strange digressions. Language “is observed to be intelligently designed?” That is not an explanation for the emergence of human language, but an unfounded assertion for which no data or theory exists.
@Querius @11 “ I expect Darwinists to advance a fantasy about the gradual genetic evolution of language from grunts and squeaks to profound concepts as a result of survival of the fittest and assert this is yet another “proof” of Darwinism.”
You are closer than you know.
Origin of language WAS a subject discussed by Darwin; and it is necessarily bathed in his evolutionary theory. Necessarily, because if grasshopper’s knees and tiger’s teeth are the result of millions of tiny improvements, then so must language; it cannot be said that language lies elsewhere and apart from mutation and natural selection; because if language doesn’t fit within the paradigm, then, rhetorically, what else does not?
It is in chapter 2 of ‘The Descent of Man’ entitled, ‘Comparison of the mental powers of man and the lower animals.’ Here, Darwin set out his stab as to how it applied to language.
He laid out his speech theory in stages; the first stage being imitation of natural sounds “I cannot doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals…, “ – early man picked up ideas especially listening to birdsong.
The second stage was when humans evolved the bird’s capacity for singing. Primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man, “probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing …especially exerted during courtship of the sexes..”(Darwin’s words, not mine – speech evolved to pull the girls.)
The third stage was humanity, likely ladies first, working out what information was included in the singing; and this was improved all the time by humanity getting smarter still in that they began to connect sounds with more abstract ideas. This was part of Darwin’s outright rejection of the mind/body dualism theories.
His theory on language is one based on analogies, and indistinguishable from smoke from his pipe.
ChuckyD at 12 asks, “How does ID explain the emergence of language in humans?”
In response to Q’s answer, ChuckyD at 15 retorts, “Language “is observed to be intelligently designed?” That is not an explanation for the emergence of human language, but an unfounded assertion for which no data or theory exists.”
The irony of a Darwinist claiming that something is “an unfounded assertion for which no data or theory exists” is literally dripping off every word that ChuckyD wrote. Especially after Belfast, at 16, then gave us a brief overview of Darwin’s rampant ‘just-so story’ telling trying to account for man’s supposedly ’emergent’ capacity for language.
First and foremost, the Christian does not hold that language to be a ’emergent’ property of humans, in the sense that language came about gradually from lower animals, but the Christian, instead, holds that language is an ‘innate’ capacity of humans that is unique and specific to humans. i.e. A unique ‘created capacity’ within humans. A ‘created capacity’ that humans, who are uniquely ‘made in the image of God’, are innately born with.
For instance of this innate ‘created capacity’ for humans to create language, a unique capacity that Christians believe God gave them,,, after creating Adam and Eve, God brought the animals before Adam “to see what he would name them”,
Moreover, contrary to what ChuckyD claims about the Christian having no evidence, it is the Darwinist himself that has no evidence for his claim that language ’emerged’ gradually from lower animals.
For instance, as already referenced in post 6, after 4 decades of extensive study several leading Darwinists, who specialize in this area of study, in a paper entitled “The mystery of language evolution”, stated that they have, “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”
And as Noam Chomsky more clearly stated in this 2017 article, “The capacity for language is species specific, something shared by humans and unique to them. It is the most striking feature of this curious organism, and a foundation for its remarkable achievement,,,” and “One fact appears to be well established. The faculty of language is a true species property, invariant among human groups, and unique to humans in its essential properties. It follows that there has been little or no evolution of the faculty since human groups separated from one another,,,” and “Our intricate knowledge of what even the simplest words mean is acquired virtually without experience. At peak periods of language acquisition, children acquire about a word an hour, often on one presentation.26 The rich meaning of even the most elementary words must be substantially innate.
The evolutionary origin of such concepts is a complete mystery.,,,”
And in 2019 Chomsky, along with colleague Robert Berwick, reiterated the fact that, “The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.” and “There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong.”
That Darwinists would be found to have no evidence whatsoever that language emerged gradually should not be all that surprising to find out. Language is the communication of immaterial information between humans. Thus, since Darwinists are wedded to reductive materialism, and seek to explain everything in ‘bottom-up’ materialistic terms, then Darwinists will be forever stymied in their attempt to explain that which is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence in materialistic terms.
As Stephen Meyer noted, “information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.”
in other words, Darwinists, with their ‘bottom up reductive materialistic framework, simply are not even in the right ‘metaphysical ballpark’ in order for them to ever understand how and why humans should have a unique capacity for (immaterial) language.
Whereas, on the other hand,the Christian Theist holds (immaterial) language, specifically ‘speaking’ (immaterial) language, to come before physical/material reality itself. Not after.
Verse:
Of supplemental note to the foundational relation between sound and light in physics,
Verses:
BA77 and Belfast
From BA77:
There we have it: We can only conclude that the “intelligent design” explanation for the emergence of language in humans is completely reliant on the Christian creation myth, i.e., a non-explanation. The best you can do is an “innate” capacity akin to the elusive sensus divinitatis.
For the record, similar to Chomsky’s meanderings from politics to sociology, his views on the relationship between natural selection and language are all over the map. (See e.g., https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-think-neandertal/201501/why-chomsky-is-wrong-about-the-evolution-language). His “one-step” theory about the development of language via a single mutation has been universally ridiculed by biologist, neuroscientists and developmental psychologists.
Sounds like ChuckDarwin is criticizing the modern theory of Evolution.
ChuckDarwin got off base here. He just undermined any natural theory of Evolution. Chuck is supposed to just mock ID people, not provide a rationale for what they are saying.
Aside: there may be some aspects of some languages that are genetic related such as the ability to use clicks or certain pitches to communicate. Then again nearly everyone could learn to do it.
ChuckyD holds that the Genesis account of creation is “a non-explanation.”
Mind you, this blanket criticism of the supposed ‘creation myth’ from Genesis as a ‘non-explanation’ is coming from a person who is at a complete loss to explain the origin of even a single functional protein by unguided material processes,,
And given that Darwinists are almost, if not completely, reliant on just-so stories, I find it exceedingly rich that ChuckyD would have the audacity to turn around label Genesis a ‘creation myth. Virtually the entirety of Darwinian evolution itself is based on ‘myths’, i.e. on unsubstantiated ‘just-so stories’,
Frankly ChuckyD, since Judeo-Christian theism, and Judeo-Christian theism alone, uniquely gave birth to modern science, (whereas all other worldviews failed in that endeavor),
,,, and since the Genesis ‘creation myth’ uniquely got the creation of the entire universe right, (whereas all other worldviews failed in that most crucial ‘prediction’ for the origin of the entire universe), if I were you ChuckyD, I think I humble myself and take the supposed ‘creation myth’ in Genesis a bit more seriously, and not be so quick to ‘hand-wave’ it all off. Especially since Darwinism itself is almost, if not completely, reliant on unsubstantiated ‘myths’, i.e. evidence-free ‘just-so story’ telling.
Also see:
supplemental notes: The Christian’s claim that humans were created by God is on much stronger empirical footing than Darwinists are willing to admit,
Jerry
There’s a point at which your attempts to be clever demonstrate just how unclever you are……….
“Jerry
There’s a point at which your attempts to be clever demonstrate just how unclever you are……….”
But alas, Jerry’s criticism of your claim is directly on point. You have ZERO real-time empirical evidence to support your grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution. All you have are ‘just-so stories’, I.e. Darwinian ‘creation myths”
CD at 15,
You’re not making any sense. So-called evolution does not have the power to do anything by itself. IF there was a process it was entirely guided by God. Whatever your personal beliefs are, there is no science behind language. Our fictional ‘evolutionary cousins’ (chimps) had two scientists trying to teach this animal to talk. They finally got it to say “cup,” but that’s it. Big non-win for so-called evolution.
Facts are facts. But made-up stories are not facts.
Sir Giles @14,
I already addressed this in @11.
Chuckdarwin @15,
Your objection is self-refuting when you think about it.
• Humans synthesizing and modifying language is an observed fact.
• The “emergence” of language out of no language is not observed.
• The origin of the profound human capability for language is not observed.
• The development of more and more complex and sophisticated languages from simpler ones is not observed.
• The decline of language from complex and sophisticated languages to simpler, less expressive forms is indeed observed.
Science is about observation, thus your objections are from faith and ideology.
-Q
CD appeals to an article about neanderthals to try to get around the sudden appearance of language in humans. But alas, it is now known that Neanderthals and humans could interbreed,
And since it is now known that Neanderthals and humans could interbreed, then the Christian is fully justified in believing Neaderthals were human.
The fact of the matter is that Neanderthals were ‘invented’ by Darwinists, via their usual ‘just-so stories’, to fill a yawning chasm in the fossil record between the ape-like and the human-like.
ChuckyD also stated, “(Chomsky’s) “one-step” theory about the development of language via a single mutation has been universally ridiculed by biologist, neuroscientists and developmental psychologists.”
Okie Dokie ChuckyD, not that morphology and/or phenotype is reducible to mutations to DNA in the first place,
,,, not that morphology and/or phenotype is reducible to mutations to DNA in the first place, but how many mutations to DNA do you personally think it took to transform a monkey-like brain into a “beyond belief*” human brain that is capable of abstract, (i.e. immaterial), language? 2 mutations? 3 mutations? 4? 5? 6? 7 mutations? etc..,, etc…
There is a small problem for you ChuckyD that grows exponentially for every additional mutation that you think was required to produce the “beyond belief*” human brain that is capable of abstract, immaterial, human language,,
Of supplemental note, anyone who thinks the “beyond belief’ human brain can possibly be the result of random mutations and natural selection must be on hallucinogenic drugs,
Verse:
Querius at 25,
I made it a point to not talk like the cool kids in high school. I also make it a point to not repeat words and phrases invented by the the Woke Mob, which are easy to identify.
Ba77,
Fictional, “modern” human father to his boys:
Now boys. I don’t wanna see you hangin’ out with those Neanderthal girls.
Genesis 2:20
“The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.”
Belfast @16,
Thank you for your insightful, content-rich post! Very much appreciated!
Bornagain77 @17,
Thank you for your informative reference to the paper, “The mystery of language evolution” and the quotes from Noam Chomsky’s paper.
I’m also intrigued by the nature and transfer of information, which I think is poorly understood (Shannon information is about data compression, not information).
A famous designer once noted that people seem to instinctively recognize the presence of substantial design by what might be termed, “charm.”
When you slide behind the wheel of a modern, well-engineered, design-rich automobile cockpit, you immediately become aware of how everything is natural and convenient. Everything seems to fit like a glove. Everything is convenient and incredibly charming. This didn’t just happen by accident.
In contrast, one often has the exact opposite experience with modern software and apps, which can be incredibly frustrating. There are good reasons for this and it’s not your fault! In fact, I’ve often been tempted to write some software companies to encourage them to require mandatory drug testing for their designers. (smile)
-Q
Language obviously follows human development.
So it is there that one should look to the origin of language. Humans differ from any other animal due. to expression of genes involved in neural development. And it is not a gradual or a small difference. It must have happened fairly quickly.
An article on language and development is Tattersall, “An Evolutionary Context for the Emergence of Language,” Language Science 46, Part B (2014): 199–206 Tattersail is mentioned above as part of another reference. The abstract of Tattersail’s article
How many times did Tattersail beg the question in the above abstract? Essentially it just magically happened.
Also Cedric Boeckx and Antonio Benítez-Burraco, “The Shape of the Human Language-Ready Brain,” Frontiers in Psychology 5, Article 282 (2014)
Sounds like gobbledygook. Then
And
BA77
You are unbelievable. The review I linked to by Coolidge has nothing to do with Neanderthals. It is a review of one of Chomsky’s articles. Perhaps if you had read the review, you would have realized that. “How to Think like a Neanderthal” is the title of a book by Coolidge and part of his (tongue-in-cheek) tagline for his column with Psychology Today. So, before you pop off again with another polemic against evolution, at least check your facts……..
Whoa!
I wasn’t being clever. I was just making an observation. You deviated from your usual and into content and that is a no-no for you. You then reverted to form, with criticizing, that is what you seem most comfortable at.
CD, “BA77 You are unbelievable. The review I linked to by Coolidge has nothing to do with Neanderthals.”,,,
Well CD, perhaps you should take your own advice and read the articles that you cite? Coolidge, in the article that you yourself linked to, does indeed reference Neanderthals to support his belief that Human language ’emerged’ gradually.
The rest of his article after that reference to Neanderthals is the usual unsubstantiated conjecture, and ‘just-so story’ telling, as to how our innate capacity for language might have come about. For instance,
It is all ‘just-so story’ telling on his part. Darwinists simply have no real-time empirical evidence to support any of it.
For example, Darwinists have no realistic, i.e. ‘scientific’, clue how a ‘simple’ neuron accomplishes what it accomplishes, much less can they explain, with any scientific certainty, how it is remotely possible for a chimp-like brain, with trillions upon trillions of neurons, to gradually morph into our significantly different human brain that is capable of abstract, immaterial, language.
BA77
This is your original comment:
“CD appeals to an article about neanderthals (sic)…”
The Coolidge article is not “about” Neanderthals. Neanderthals are mentioned parenthetically related to human brain size–that’s it. That mention does not “an article about neanderthals” make. As usual, you perseverate on minutiae and miss the larger picture. But I give up, you win. I can’t drag myself through another of your cut and paste tracts………
CD at 34,
Really? Then stop reading. I, for one, get a lot of information from Ba77. And so what if cut and paste occurs? People do that to make their point(s) and include links to the original source material. Nothing wrong with that.
Whatever CD, split hairs if you must but I’ll gladly let my comment, with references, at 26 stand.
Again, Neanderthals are now known to have been able to interbreed with humans and, therefore, the Christian is fully justified in believing Neanderthals were human instead of some brutish ancestor as was falsely portray for decades by Darwinists.
I.e. The fact of the matter is that ‘brutish’ Neanderthals were ‘invented’ by Darwinists, via their usual ‘just-so stories’, to fill a yawning chasm in the fossil record between the ape-like and the human-like fossils.
See post 26 for references.