| Login |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
|
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected $end in /home/evidence/public_html/side_left.php(25) : eval()'d code on line 279
|
| Human Language |
What about the evolution of Language?
● Human language is one of the many evidences that indicate humans are not related to the animals.
Language, as described in the university textbook Language Files (see
below) is unique to humans alone. It is one of many things that separate
us from the animal world because our language is fundamentally different from animal communication. For instance, human language includes displacement as well as productivity. These two major elements of human language have never been observed in any animal species. (Tserdanelis, and Wong)
The two following quotes were taken from the college textbook Language Files produced by the Ohio State University, printed in 2001. The basic premise, or underlying assumption, is that humans are just advanced animals and that we evolved from an apelike ancestor, as the abstract reveals (see below). The authors proceed to make substantial efforts to show the similarities of communication between all animals, which in their view includes humans. However, the authors also make a convincing case that our language is basically different from animal
communication.
1. Elements of Language exclusive to humans:
“Displacement. This refers to the ability to communicate about things
that are not present in space or time.”
Language Files, (8th Edition), Eds. Tserdanelis, Georgios, and Wai Yi
Peggy Wong. Department of Linguistics The
Ohio State University, The Ohio State University Press. Columbus, OH. 2001, p.25
2. Elements of Language exclusive to humans:
“Productivity. This refers to the ability to produce and understand any
number of messages that have never been expressed before. Human language is an ‘open-ended’ system. However, in all animal communication systems, the number of signals is fixed.”
Language Files, (8th Edition), Eds. Tserdanelis, Georgios, and Wai Yi
Peggy Wong. Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University, The Ohio State University Press. Columbus, OH. 2001, p. 25
If indeed our language evolved from animal noise then we would expect our most ancient languages to include more onomatopoeic (noise imitating) words than today’s languages, but this is not the case. (Burnam) Our most ancient languages, such as Sanskrit, have been shown to contain the same amount of onomatopoeic
words as our modern languages. (Burnam) In fact, our oldest languages are sometimes refered to as more complex than our moden languages! (Elgin, and Kluckhohn) Hence, there is no clear progression from animal noise to human language.
(Tom Burnam, the author of the following quote, supports
evolution several times throughout his book.)
“Primitive languages do not, as a matter of fact, contain
more words of apparently onomatopoeic origin than do any others.”
[Onomatopoeic words imitate sounds, for example: ‘bow-wow’]
Burnam, Tom. The Dictionary of Misinformation. Ballantine Books, New York. 1975, p.148
“There are certainly words which echo sounds, yes; but
they form so small a part of any language, ‘primitive’ or otherwise, that
the [onomatopoeic] theory falls far short of accounting for the origin of
language.” Burnam, Tom. The Dictionary of Misinformation. Ballantine Books, New York. 1975, p.148
“The most ancient languages for which we have written
texts …Sanskrit, for example… are often more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms then many contemporary languages.” Elgin, Suzetter. What is linguistics? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1973, p.44
“In contrast to the general course of cultural evolution,
languages move from the complex to the simple” Kluckhohn, Clyde. Mirror for man. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1949, p.149
So, when did the written form of language arise? In an evolutionary
context, humans are believed to have evolved into their current form from 1 to 3 million years ago and yet the following college textbook reveals that writing was first utilized only 6,000 years ago! Why did it take literally
millions of years for mankind to be able to write his communication down?
“Current archeological evidence indicates that writing was first utilized in Sumer about 6,000 years ago.”
Language Files (8th Edition), Eds. Tserdanelis, Georgios, and Wai Yi
Peggy Wong. Department of Linguistics.
Ohio State University, The Ohio State University Press. Columbus, OH. 2001, p. 8
The best theories are the ones that provide the best answers to basic questions. If evolution is a viable theory then it needs to provide the most satisfactory explanation for the origins of human language. However, when the most ancient languages are examined they are found to be “modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.” (See following quote) Now you might say, whoever said that, obviously must be biased against evolutionary theory! It may surprise you, but that was stated by G.G. Simpson, a major evolutionist in the major science journal, Science.
“The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already
modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.”
The Biological Nature of Man, G.G. Simpson Science, Vol. 152, April 22, 1966, p. 477.
“As is fairly obvious, none of the theories is very satisfactory. And none really accounts for the beginnings of language. …It will no doubt remain beyond reach to determine with any degree of scientific validity how our remotest ancestors first made the leap from random noise to language.”
Burnam, Tom. The Dictionary of Misinformation. Ballantine Books, New York. 1975, p.149
mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:
column;mso-height-rule:exactly"> type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:75pt;height:81pt'>
o:href="http://techhelpsite.com/images/stories/StoryImages/tangbox.jpg" mce_href="http://techhelpsite.com/images/stories/StoryImages/tangbox.jpg"/>
The following scholarly work explores ways in which animals
communicate. It primarily focuses on the primate studies that were
conducted to learn more about chimp communication and how it is related to human language. The authors attempt to show similarities between animal,
specifically chimp or ape, and human communication systems. Although they
do point out a couple of superficial similarities, they make a far more
convincing case, albeit inadvertently, that the human system of communication is
qualitatively different from any animal communication. I have included a
series of quotes from this work to demonstrate how modern academia is so
committed to the theory of evolution that even when confronted with contrary
evidence the theory is never questioned.
Language. Readings in Language and Culture. Sixth Ed. Edited by Virginia P. Clark, Paul A. Eschholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. University of Vermont, 1998. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Signals, Signs, and Words: From Animal Communication to Language. William Kemp and Roy Smith.
The basic assumption of this scholarly work is that man is
an animal. From the abstract: “it also shows that human beings share
with other species an impressive degree of nonlingual communication.”
“They also describe the elaborate communication systems of bees, birds, and
mammals, especially the nonhuman primates.” “They argue
convincingly that these experiments have demonstrated that apes can learn to use semantically a large number of arbitrary symbols. That achievement is more
than the most hostile critics will allow. But it is also considerably
less than human semantic abilities.” [Italics mine.]
“At the very least, we share with other species an
impressive degree of nonlingual communication. Examining animal communication reveals important ways in which language differs from communication in other animals.”
“Careful study has shown the degree of human
communication that takes place on the level of affective displays using fixed action patterns. The same studies, however, have shown how great the gap separates animal and human use of symbols.”
“Certainly neither Kanzi nor any other ape has produced
utterances or sign strings that match the complexities of human grammer.”
“Although the chimps learned rapidly to respond to a
variety of spoken commands, none acquired speech or even clearly intelligible
word sounds.”
“Although primate studies have not uncovered systems
that closely parallel human language, they have certainly provided insight
into the variety of ways that animals exchange meaningful and useful information
about their environments and their actions and intentions in relation to
them.”
“The human capacity to appreciate multiple levels of
meaning in a set of auditory or written signals clearly separates the
cognitive worlds of humans and other primates.”
mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:
column;mso-height-rule:exactly"> type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='position:absolute;margin-left:0;
margin-top:0;width:75pt;height:147.75pt;z-index:6;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;
mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;
mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical-relative:line'
o:allowoverlap="f">
o:title="lilmonkey"/>
“Current information does not show that any other animals have even a close approximation of formal language systems”
“But full comprehension of syntax and the production of syntactic utterances appear limited to humans.”
“We have no clear evidence that nonhumans play with their communication systems simply to revel in the workings of the system itself.”
“Displays begin as indications of an animal’s response to its environment; they are more about the animal itself than about the world. In contrast, humans frequently use language to describe environment(s), while their displays signal much of the accompanying effective content.”
“The human abilities conferred by language to plan for the future and control our environment are without parallel in other species.”
“The ‘messages’ they produce are artifacts of the experimental apparatus, not constructions of the pigeons’ minds. Although the process is laborious, careful conditioning of sequenced responses can produce such behavior in a variety of animals.”
Language. Readings in Language and Culture. Sixth Ed. Edited by Virginia P. Clark, Paul A. Eschholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. University of Vermont, 1998. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Signals, Signs, and Words: From Animal Communication to Language. William Kemp and Roy Smith.
Following are further examples of how our language does not evolve from the
simple to the complex which is a reasonable prediction if evolution were true.
“In grammar, Old English was much more highly inflected
than Modern English is. That is, there were more case endings for nouns,
more person and number endings for verbs, a more complicated pronoun system, various endings for adjectives, and so on.”
Roberts, Paul. A Brief History of English. Language: Readings in Language and Culture. Ed. Clark, Virginia P., Paul A. Escholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. University of Vermont, St. Martin’s Press. New York, 1998, p. 424
“Old English nouns had four cases-nominative, genitive,
dative, accusative. Adjectives had five-all these and an instrumental case
besides. Present-day English has only two cases for nouns-common case and
possessive case. Adjectives now have no case system at all.”
Roberts, Paul. A Brief History of English. Language: Readings in Language and Culture. Ed. Clark, Virginia P., Paul A. Escholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. University of Vermont, St. Martin’s Press. New York, 1998, p. 424
“The linguistic similarities of Sanskrit (an important
ancient language of India) to ancient Greek and Latin could best be accounted for by assuming that all
three were descended from a common ancestral language. This language was called Proto-Indo-European.”
Language Files, (8th Edition), Eds. Tserdanelis, Georgios, and Wai Yi Peggy Wong. Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University, The Ohio State University Press. Columbus
, OH. 2001, p. 406
Since the Bible says that humans all came from Adam and Eve then there must have been an original language. Adam was programmed with the ability to speak and the Bible says he walked and talked with God and also named the basic kinds of animals. This original language was dispersed at Babel and could very possibly have been Ancient Hebrew. (Edenics)
“Edenics is a new science (yes, a hard science) proving that there was one
divine Earth language at Eden. This Edenic language, closest to Biblical Hebrew and best documented by Biblical citations, is proven to have been spun-off into many ancestral languages which kept breaking down into the 6000+ dialects we have today (as per The Tower of Babel saga of Genesis 11).”
Professor Isaac Mozeson
Professor Mozeson has done great research into the study of Edenics and a link
to his website is provided below.
http://www.homestead.com/edenics
|
|
|
|
|
