| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
5th July 2008, 10:39 AM
|  | Miserere mei, Domine
21    
 | | Join Date: 8th June 2005 Location: Florida
Posts: 23,517
Blessings: 14,200,497
Reps: 383,611,451,375,944,256 (power: 383,611,451,375,974) | | Originally Posted by DominusIesus  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.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
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
|
5th July 2008, 11:49 AM
| | Newbie
  
| | Join Date: 26th June 2008
Posts: 72
Blessings: 83,601
Reps: 23,175 (power: 27) | | Originally Posted by Melethiel 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. |
5th July 2008, 12:32 PM
|  | Contributor
23    
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,593
Blessings: 50,320,661 My Mood 
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by DominusIesus 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?
__________________ "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
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
5th July 2008, 12:46 PM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
51   
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 12,369
Blessings: 27,003,773 My Mood
Reps: 1,984,022,293,840,305,920 (power: 1,984,022,293,840,324) | | As an aside, well almost, there is an interesting article on the National Geographic website Migrating Birds Understand "Foreign Languages"
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
5th July 2008, 03:00 PM
|  | Legend
  
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child Originally Posted by DominusIesus
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.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
6th July 2008, 05:41 AM
|  | you are not reading this.
24 
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood 
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child 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.
A quick search of PubMed revealed:
Macroevolution via secondary endosymbiosis: a Neo-Goldschmidtian view of unicellular hopeful monsters and Darwin's primordial intermediate form. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Multiple ancient origins of neoteny in Lycidae (Coleoptera): consequences for ecology and macroevolution. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches across scales and levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
__________________ 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]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
6th July 2008, 11:22 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
53  
| | Join Date: 1st March 2004 Location: North of England
Posts: 5,543
Blessings: 90,491
Reps: 85,783,413,037,711,568 (power: 85,783,413,037,724) | | Since, the Bible as written by God,
No it wasn't.
__________________
"Call some place paradise/Kiss it goodbye"
The Eagles, the Last Resort
Liberal Christians do it in context
"Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep." Walter A Davis |
6th July 2008, 04:14 PM
| | Newbie
21
| | Join Date: 12th June 2008
Posts: 28
Blessings: 81,777
Reps: 1,366,923 (power: 1,370) | | | 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. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
