Language Origin

Status
Not open for further replies.

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Because languages leave behind no fossils, it is difficult to put our finger on the exact time when human language originated. Some scientists dubiously attempt to guess the sophistication of primate communication based on the complexity of the tool industry at the time. We may never know for sure when language originated, until we are able to use preserved DNA from ancient homonids to recreate them and observe their language capacities.

Rather than evolving abruptly, it is likely that language as we know it developed over a long period of time. Some scholars believe that the advent of bipedalism 3.5 million years ago brought anatomical changes, such as a more L-shaped vocal tract, which would have expanded the range of possible sounds. Whether primates at this time actually used this anatomy to make more sophisticated sounds is not known. These "missing links" are now all extinct.

Research of homonid skulls has found that about 400,000 years ago, Neanderthals had a hypoglossal canal similar in size to that of modern humans. The hypoglossal canal is a bony channel that routes nerve fibers associated with the production of speech, although some studies have found an inconclusive link between the size of this canal and speech capabilities. Neanderthals possessed a tool industry significantly more sophisticated than earlier homonids, and had large brains. Many scholars suspect that Neanderthals had some rudimentary form of language, and tentatively believe that modern language originated around 400,000 years ago.

Although the precise time when language originated remains unknown, it was certainly in use 200,000 years ago, when modern humans evolved in Africa. These humans were modern anatomically, but behaved similarly to some of the simpler homonids that came before them until about 100,000 years ago. About 50,000 years go, a small group of humans left Africa. Some scholars argue that this departure signifies that humans had reached some threshold level in their capacity to communicate, which made them capable of leaving, although this hypothesis is quite doubtful.

Most scientists believe that all modern language originates from a single source, rather than having developed independently on all continents. If so, it must have come from a source at least as far back as the common ancestor of all living humans. All modern humans are ancestors of "Mitochondrial Eve," a female that lived in Africa approximately 150,000 years ago. Modern language may date back to this era, or may be more recent. About 70,000 years ago, the human species experienced a severe population bottleneck when the total number of individuals may have been as low as 2,000. The global language might also date back to this period.
Source - How was Language Originated?

Language has no known origins.

Language is assumed to have originated from a single source.

Language today is acquired both at young and old ages alike. The common element in language acquisition is a teacher. Whether a personal teacher face to face or a digital teacher on electronic media or a mute teacher in text. Someone is responsible for every word one learns.

People are capable of making up words and codes. One can call anything by any name of one's choosing. Yet what we find is a dependence on an original language to formulate a new one. For if a new language is formulated independent of all other languages no one will understand the creator except the creator. This is the very basis for secret code languages. Their ultimate downfall is they must be translated back to a known language, thus an opening for spies to gather intelligence. Thereby making every secret form of communication vulnerable to eavesdropping.

Note ancient languages are complex, and in some circumstances even more complex than the languages we use today. Complexity is based on the grammatical structure of the language, the vastness of the alphabet, and the vastness of the vocabulary available.

Although vocabulary of languages grow with time with the advent of new concepts, the grammatical structure of ancient languages can be far more complicated than modern languages.

So who taught the first language? The scientific response, although uncertain, attempts to attribute this to the first humans themselves. The claim revolves around the ability to produce sound indicative of sounds for languages known today. But is ability enough?

Note the interesting presence of feral children:

What many feral children do learn is to mimic animal sounds, and especially the sounds of their host families. Those that have lived with wolves are often reported as barking or whining, and those that have lived wild on their own are sometimes adept at recognising and imitating the sounds of many different birds. In the Optomen Television production Feral Children, Oxana Malaya can be seen running around on all fours and barking like a dog.
It seems that Victor of Aveyron was eventually able to respond to some spoken commands, although to what extent he was genuinely understanding the language we don't know. He never spoke. Wild Peter made a few distinct noises himself, of which the two most recognisable were "ki scho" and "qui ca", for King George and Queen Caroline.
Note - Victor lived till he was 40 and was found when he was 12.

Source - FeralChildren.com | Language acquisition in feral children

It appears the human race is a race of imitators. What then were we imitating when we adopted the worlds various languages? What in nature produces such sounds? Nothing that I have ever heard...

So where is the origin? Where is the one we all so happily imitate?

In both the Bible and Qur'an this original origin of imitation is God.

Language itself is evidence of God.

Now please be aware that evidence of God is not evidence of God's attributes. It is not evidence of a specific religion. It is not evidence of any one Scripture.

So bringing up points that God might be an alien is irrelevant. Whatever you personally want to consider this being is irrelevant to evidence for this being's existence. If one is one comfortable thinking God is an alien, the universe itself, or a personal being with a specific set of attributes, that is fine. But it is not the core of the discussion here.
 

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Language has no known origins.
Language is assumed to have originated from a single source.

Who assumes that? If that's what science says, there must be sufficient evidence. Can you provide it?

So who taught the first language? The scientific response, although uncertain, attempts to attribute this to the first humans themselves. The claim revolves around the ability to produce sound indicative of sounds for languages known today. But is ability enough?

What "scientist" made this claim?

It appears the human race is a race of imitators. What then were we imitating when we adopted the worlds various languages? What in nature produces such sounds? Nothing that I have ever heard...

So where is the origin? Where is the one we all so happily imitate?
In both the Bible and Qur'an this original origin of imitation is God.
Language itself is evidence of God.

Animals have been using language long before humans have been around. We imitated them.
 
Upvote 0

wlajoie74

Member
Jun 11, 2009
564
35
✟8,404.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Engaged
This whole thread merits a giant facepalm from anybody even remotely familiar with historical linguistics.

It's almost as bad as "because people speak different languages today, God must have put a curse on the construction site workers at the tower of Babel".

so then, since both of those are bad, what is your theory from someone remotely familiar with historical linguistics
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
United States
✟12,575.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Animals have been using language long before humans have been around. We imitated them.

I don't believe that. Our capability is much further. Is it because of our brain size? Because if we imitated them, why aren't we simply moaning and howling and etc? If we learned to use language, how come they didn't? If they do have a language, how come we can't understand it?
 
Upvote 0

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Who assumes that? If that's what science says, there must be sufficient evidence. Can you provide it?



What "scientist" made this claim?



Animals have been using language long before humans have been around. We imitated them.

Well if you are desiring specific names and titles of texts concerning the topic here is one source what can accommodate that desire:

The Mystery of Human Language

My attribution of statements to scientists is based on the sources I have located. If the sources are either misleading or dishonest, let me know. But of course that needs to be demonstrated, not just alluded to.


How then do you explain Feral Children? They imitate animals. The result of this imitation does not lead to the path you are suggesting it leads to. Victor, even after being among humans for the remaining 18 years of his life, was still unable to speak. The beginning 12 years of his life dominated his ability to speak. The first years of intellectual development are invaluable to humans.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This whole thread merits a giant facepalm from anybody even remotely familiar with historical linguistics.

It's almost as bad as "because people speak different languages today, God must have put a curse on the construction site workers at the tower of Babel".

Well I am here with open ears (Or rather eyes ^_^).

If you have something to add relating to the historical linguistics I am eager to read it.


I don't understand this comparison. Perhaps you can explain?
 
Upvote 0

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I like this claim. :thumbsup: I'm interested in seeing how you are going to defend it against atheists/agnostics.

I will try my best. This is one of the fundamental pieces of evidence I personal have for God's existence. :) Let's see how well it stands against the criticism of disbelievers. :bigeye:
 
Upvote 0
Some information can be found here: Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supposing we had no way what-so-ever to explain the origin of language, it would still not constitute evidence for God. I don't understand how X happened, therefore an invisible, undetectable, all-knowing, all-powerful being must have done it!

For me, it's not too much of a leap to imagine vocal cords and the brain evolving the ability to use language. Living creatures are amazing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't believe that. Our capability is much further. Is it because of our brain size? Because if we imitated them, why aren't we simply moaning and howling and etc? If we learned to use language, how come they didn't? If they do have a language, how come we can't understand it?

Not because of brain size, there are animals that have much bigger brains than us. It has to do with the way our brains work - we can process more, and our language has developed to become more efficient than moaning and howling. Moaning and howling are not sufficient to represent the physical and abstract things that we want to communicate, but I expect it probably started out that way.
 
Upvote 0

Danhalen

Healing
Feb 13, 2005
8,098
471
49
Ohio
✟18,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Human language can be linked to genetic mutation. FOXP2 seems to be responsible for, at least, our ability to communicate differently from our ape cousins. The first link is when the mainstream media picked up on it in 2002. I like the second link for the addendum that pushes the emergence of the mutation to 300,000 years and the experimental work done on mice in which the gene produced extra neural connections. While it is true there are many different genes involved in human speech, the work done on FOXP2 shows how a naturalistic explanation is possible. Natural selection is quite the powerful tool.

CNN.com - Study: Apes lack gene for speech - August 15, 2002

Neanderthals had key speech gene, researchers say ? The Register
 
Upvote 0

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Some information can be found here: Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supposing we had no way what-so-ever to explain the origin of language, it would still not constitute evidence for God. I don't understand how X happened, therefore an invisible, undetectable, all-knowing, all-powerful being must have done it!

For me, it's not too much of a leap to imagine vocal cords and the brain evolving the ability to use language. Living creatures are amazing.

That is not what I am claiming. Notice you are focused on attributes of said God.

1. Invisible
2. Undetectable
3. All Knowing
4. All Powerful

This evidence is for the existence of a God, not for a God with certain attributes.

Generally speaking, the evidence provided shows an interaction by an outside intelligent being(s). You could consider this outside being(s) an alien race if you wanted, though the term God(s) might not appeal to the majority opinion of what it means to be God(s).

This thread is a baby step towards proving the God of Abraham. Jumping straight to the conclusion of an all powerful, all knowing, etc. single God is a leap to do all at once. We need to take baby steps towards this end.
 
Upvote 0

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Human language can be linked to genetic mutation. FOXP2 seems to be responsible for, at least, our ability to communicate differently from our ape cousins. The first link is when the mainstream media picked up on it in 2002. I like the second link for the addendum that pushes the emergence of the mutation to 300,000 years and the experimental work done on mice in which the gene produced extra neural connections. While it is true there are many different genes involved in human speech, the work done on FOXP2 shows how a naturalistic explanation is possible. Natural selection is quite the powerful tool.

CNN.com - Study: Apes lack gene for speech - August 15, 2002

Neanderthals had key speech gene, researchers say ? The Register

How does it show this?

And how is it that modern day humans, with the correct genetic make-up, when left in the wild (Feral Children), exhibit a lack of an ability to speak and communicate as we do? They can teach an chimp sign language, why could they not teach a 12 year old Victor how to communicate as we do in 18 years? Granted I would not expect Victor to obtain a mastery of language starting off as he did, but if genes are the key then at the least I would expect Victor to have achieved basic speech in 18 years of human interaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesterton
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wicked Willow

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2005
2,715
312
✟4,434.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Generally speaking, the evidence provided shows an interaction by an outside intelligent being(s).
No, it really doesn't. Not by a far stretch. I don't even know where to start refuting this, as there are so many factors to consider.

1) At the end of the day, your "explanation" is still an appeal to the supernatural: "We don't fully understand the phenomenon (yet), therefore "an outside intelligent being" (a.k.a. God) did it." It's what people used to do with regards to floods, lightning, plagues, congenital diseases, even monetary fluctuations such as inflations. Whenever mankind encountered a phenomenon that was beyond its grasp at the time, some people ended up attributing it to a supernatural source. Mythical origins of language are but one additional point on a long list of equally false attributions.

2) The supernatural explanation fails to address the actual problem, which is to understand how language evolves to begin with. By claiming that it must have come in its full-fledged form from some outside source is just shifting the problem to another instance: how did that source acquire language, and how did it come to be? Now, naturalistic observations can give us a much better idea of that:

3) Although other species lack the mental faculties to process language on the same level as ourselves, they are not completely deaf-mute: they do communicate by means of body language, sounds, facial expressions and so forth. This kind of communication is a requirement for social interaction, and serves a multitude of purposes - and we may safely conclude that our ancestors possessed this kind of capability before full-fledged languages appeared on the stage of history: they could warn each other of approaching predators or prey, communicate their feelings, announce their status and so forth. From there, it's really not that far to the emergence of language. I suppose the earliest linguistic signs were stuff like "you - left, me - right". Must have come in handy during hunts.

4) Citing feral children is not really that much help. Yes, Man is a master of observational learning (although other species do that, too) - so if you place a baby in an environment that consists solely of another species, it will grow up imitating that one. It's just our way of transmitting acquired (as opposed to genetical) traits from one generation to the next. As I said, other species are capable of the same: koalas teach their young not to eat the immature, poisonous leaves of the eucalyptus tree; chimpanzees transfer the knowledge of specific tools from one generation to the next, and so on and so forth. Social learning is (and was) a requirement for the transmission of culture - yet it is hardly supernatural, nor does it imply that people had to have contact with an "outside intelligence" in order to learn to communicate. You might just as well claim that our ancestors must have been taught to walk upright by an "outside intelligence", as it is an acquired trait as well.
 
Upvote 0

Danhalen

Healing
Feb 13, 2005
8,098
471
49
Ohio
✟18,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How does it show this?

And how is it that modern day humans, with the correct genetic make-up, when left in the wild (Feral Children), exhibit a lack of an ability to speak and communicate as we do? They can teach an chimp sign language, why could they not teach a 12 year old Victor how to communicate as we do in 18 years? Granted I would not expect Victor to obtain a mastery of language starting off as he did, but if genes are the key then at the least I would expect Victor to have achieved basic speech in 18 years of human interaction.
It shows the arrival of language coincides with the mutation of specific genes and that without the mutation of these specific genes language would not be possible.

Since language is a social behavior it cannot be learned once the plasticity of the brain starts to solidify. That is, the neural pathways which are present because of the FOXP2 gene are not wired in the proper formation for speech if a child is not indoctrinated. Genes do not act in a vacuum. Environmental factors do have an effect on gene activity. Some genes even remain dormant--do not express themselves phenotypically--unless certain environmental factors are not present. This fits perfectly with the lack of language acquisition for feral children.
 
Upvote 0
That is not what I am claiming. Notice you are focused on attributes of said God.

1. Invisible
2. Undetectable
3. All Knowing
4. All Powerful

This evidence is for the existence of a God, not for a God with certain attributes.

I just threw those attributes out there to emphasize the flaws in making arguments from ignorance. However, at the very least, the god whose existence you proport to demonstrate must have the ability to make creatures talk to eachother.

Generally speaking, the evidence provided shows an interaction by an outside intelligent being(s). You could consider this outside being(s) an alien race if you wanted, though the term God(s) might not appeal to the majority opinion of what it means to be God(s).

I disagree, you'd need to have other evidence for this intelligent being. Critters being able to talk to eachother and us not understanding how they started talking doesn't point to an outside intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, it really doesn't. Not by a far stretch. I don't even know where to start refuting this, as there are so many factors to consider.

1) At the end of the day, your "explanation" is still an appeal to the supernatural: "We don't fully understand the phenomenon (yet), therefore "an outside intelligent being" (a.k.a. God) did it." It's what people used to do with regards to floods, lightning, plagues, congenital diseases, even monetary fluctuations such as inflations. Whenever mankind encountered a phenomenon that was beyond its grasp at the time, some people ended up attributing it to a supernatural source. Mythical origins of language are but one additional point on a long list of equally false attributions.

2) The supernatural explanation fails to address the actual problem, which is to understand how language evolves to begin with. By claiming that it must have come in its full-fledged form from some outside source is just shifting the problem to another instance: how did that source acquire language, and how did it come to be? Now, naturalistic observations can give us a much better idea of that:

3) Although other species lack the mental faculties to process language on the same level as ourselves, they are not completely deaf-mute: they do communicate by means of body language, sounds, facial expressions and so forth. This kind of communication is a requirement for social interaction, and serves a multitude of purposes - and we may safely conclude that our ancestors possessed this kind of capability before full-fledged languages appeared on the stage of history: they could warn each other of approaching predators or prey, communicate their feelings, announce their status and so forth. From there, it's really not that far to the emergence of language. I suppose the earliest linguistic signs were stuff like "you - left, me - right". Must have come in handy during hunts.

4) Citing feral children is not really that much help. Yes, Man is a master of observational learning (although other species do that, too) - so if you place a baby in an environment that consists solely of another species, it will grow up imitating that one. It's just our way of transmitting acquired (as opposed to genetical) traits from one generation to the next. As I said, other species are capable of the same: koalas teach their young not to eat the immature, poisonous leaves of the eucalyptus tree; chimpanzees transfer the knowledge of specific tools from one generation to the next, and so on and so forth. Social learning is (and was) a requirement for the transmission of culture - yet it is hardly supernatural, nor does it imply that people had to have contact with an "outside intelligence" in order to learn to communicate. You might just as well claim that our ancestors must have been taught to walk upright by an "outside intelligence", as it is an acquired trait as well.

1) Baby steps people. Baby steps. Let's try not to focus on jumping to final conclusions. Those examples are great, but they are unrelated to language. Scientists attempt to explain how the universe was created, yet they show an unwillingness to do likewise for language. There is no big bang when it comes to language ^_^

2) I never claimed "
it must have come in its full-fledged form from some outside source". I claimed an outside being(s) was the source of the first language. Form was never mentioned.

My observations are based on the capabilities of humans. It would be fallacious to just assume all beings have our same shortcomings. We would need to observe the being(s) in order to draw any conclusions of where that being(s) learned language from, or whether this being(s) was the original creator of language. Based on my observations of humans, humans do not appear to have the capacity to form language from scratch.

3) Comparing our language to the simplistic communication found in the animal kingdom is like comparing an on/off switch to the binary code used to create computer programs. I can agree early humans could communicate like animals. The animals they were imitating. The question is, how did they break away from this? Considering humans at older ages exhibit a lessening ability to acquire language (Look at
Danhalen's post after yours), we have a situation where there is a lack of explanation as to how language spawned from animal communication.

As can be seen in Feral Children, even modern day children can be left in a state whether they are unable to learn language if they are subjugated to an environment void of language. What we find is these children, as expected, imitate animal communication instead. Where is the opportunity to break away from this vicious cycle?

Humans are evolved from chimps --> Chimps and other animals are what are interacting with the first humans --> They imitate the chimps and animals --> At advanced age when they at child bearing age, roughly 10-13 years of age, they are past the point of "
plasticity of the brain" as our friend Danhalen brought up --> The humans have children and continue to pass on the animal imitations they have learned in their youth and the entire cycle repeats.

Where does language introduce itself in this cycle?

4) If it is not much help why has no one here been able to respond to it? ^_^ This portion of your post agrees with what I am saying about human imitation. What I still do not see is where the cycle gets broken and where language emerges. :confused:

You again are focusing on a supernatural end to this argument, which is jumping to the final conclusion. Baby steps. We must move with baby steps. Continuing to bring up supernatural references is a Straw-man in terms of what is being argued in this thread.


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
37
USA
✟12,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It shows the arrival of language coincides with the mutation of specific genes and that without the mutation of these specific genes language would not be possible.

Since language is a social behavior it cannot be learned once the plasticity of the brain starts to solidify. That is, the neural pathways which are present because of the FOXP2 gene are not wired in the proper formation for speech if a child is not indoctrinated. Genes do not act in a vacuum. Environmental factors do have an effect on gene activity. Some genes even remain dormant--do not express themselves phenotypically--unless certain environmental factors are not present. This fits perfectly with the lack of language acquisition for feral children.

Having the ability does not mean it will happen. The Feral Children confirm this. I might have the "Genetic" ability to fly for all I know. Does not mean I am going to fly. Especially if I am not aware of it.

I am in agreement here. The plasticity of the brain raises another key problem with the mutation theory. How would humans of child bearing age teach their offspring something they now lack the capacity for due to the "Wiring" of their brains by this point in time?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.