Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Out of interest, would you accept that Adam was an historical figure? Further, do you believe that a language could 'evolve' from nothing?
That depends on the TE you ask. I, for example, do hold that Adam was a historical figure. As for the evolution of language, that's debated. It doesn't really matter to me - whether language evolved, or whether God taught Adam the first language, it doesn't really change anything.
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
That depends on the TE you ask. I, for example, do hold that Adam was a historical figure. As for the evolution of language, that's debated. It doesn't really matter to me - whether language evolved, or whether God taught Adam the first language, it doesn't really change anything.
Re: languages; it is highly contested by many linguists as to whether language could actually evolve.
The point is that can the theory of evolution account for language.
Yes. The complexity of modern English (to take a random example) results from centuries of replication with variation: over the years, the meaning of a word subtly changes and grows. This is even more undeniable than common descent. Ever heard of the word 'gay'?
Originally Posted by DominusIesus
Re: languages; it is highly contested by many linguists as to whether language could actually evolve.
By whom, exactly?
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Re: languages; it is highly contested by many linguists as to whether language could actually evolve.
By whom, exactly?
Chomskyites vs. Pinkerites.
The controversy is much like the ID vs TE one in which the Chomsky camp feels that language had to emerge as an irreducibly complex whole while Pinker, et al hold that the capacity for language could come about via evolutionary mechanisms.
A side-bar to this is the question of whether apes (Koko, Washoe, Kanzi) actually use language.
I have immense respect for Chomsky (no one who studies linguistics could fail to acknowledge his immense genius), but on this one, my money is on Pinker.
I should add that I don't think Chomsky is personally engaging in this controversy, but when he first proposed his thesis of a hard-wired universal grammar, he did opine that this could not have evolved in an incremental fashion. I suspect this says more about him not understanding evolution than it does about his understanding of linguistics.
Or simply, it could have been a premature assessment in the absence of evidence relating biology to language. Such evidence is starting to accumulate and point in a different direction.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
I agree with Dr. Unk: the only time I've seen 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' used is by Creationists trying to refute evolution (and by Evolutionists rebutting said Creationists ).
Could someone point me to a biology textbook that uses the 'micro'/'macro' distinction in a non-Creationist context (i.e., not as a rebuttal)?
EDIT: Research (read: Wikipedia) has shown me the error of my ways. Apparently, 'macroevolution' is a serious biological notion. You live and learn.
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Fair enough, I guess macroevolution is used sometimes, but it is a widely unpopular term.
The only significant event in evolution is speciation. Apart from this, there's no real way of separating micro from macro because macroevolution is simply many instances of microevolution.
).
Linear Mode
