Real Science Friday: Language!

[Jefferson]

Real Science Friday: Language!

This is the show from Friday January 6th, 2009.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Darwin's idea was that language evolved from grunts to modern language. And it turns out there's no evidence for that theory. Rather, as far back as we can look, language has always been highly complex with grammar and syntax and vocabulary all the way back.

SUMMARY:

* Evolution or Origin of Human Language: Bob Enyart and RSF co-host Fred Williams discuss the expert evolutionists whose research and conclusions disprove Darwin's own theory of the evolution of language from animal grunts to human speech! Bob and Fred celebrate Dr. Jerry Bergman's article, Evolution and the Origin of Human Language! For example Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- some languages are 'primitive'
- and that animal grunts can be shown to be steps toward language
- and that evidence of language evolution would exist.
Instead, as Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found! Human language is another great argument in favor of creation and against evolution.

* 15% of BEL February Telethon: Help Bob Enyart continue to present news from a biblical perspective and broadcast the truth of God's Word to thousands and thousands of people hungry to know Jesus Christ and His principles. The KGOV staff is thankful that so far, our listeners have given 15% of our $20,000 goal to keep Bob broadcasting through 2009! Please give online or by calling 1-800-8Enyart! Please help!

Today's Resource: For our February BEL Broadcast Telethon, save $20 on any two Bible Study albums for a gift of $50 (normally $69.98) and save more than $50 on any four BEL resources (including The Plot, etc.) for a gift of $100 to help Bob Enyart stay on the air for another year! You can browse our online KGOV Store to select the titles you are most interested in, and then please call 1-800-8Enyart to order, or send a check to Bob Enyart Live, PO Box 583, Arvada CO 80001. Also get the second month FREE if you sign up for any of our Subscription Services (like our BEL Televised Classics), and SAVE up to $150 if you mention the telethon to get 10% off our Enyart Library (one of everything!), the BEL Audio Library, or the BEL Video Library!

 

[pozzolane]

Unfortunately I couldn't read the journal article you cited, due to restrictions in accessing the paper. But, knowing that it comes from a "creation science" website, I have very little hope for it being something of genuine scientific inquiry.

I would like to know why anyone would feel that this is evidence for creation, since for there to be "evidence" of language, it would have to be written. Further, most experts in the field of glottogonogy (study of the origins of language) say that language originated some 200,000 years ago. I thought creationists believed that the earth was created only 10,000 years ago?

Creationists have some s'plainin to do.

 

[Squishes]

He realizes that evolutionary psychologists have done significant work in linguistic studies since Darwin, right? Piaget, Pinker, Chomsky, Fodor etc ? It isn't some dark secret that Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, but he was remarkably prescient in some of his work. Language wasn't one of them. But I think this statement:

as far back as we can look, language has always been highly complex with grammar and syntax and vocabulary all the way back.

O rly? And just how do we look back and listen to what language sounded like? What an odd thing to say.

 

[pozzolane]

O rly? And just how do we look back and listen to what language sounded like? What an odd thing to say.

I had a chuckle about that statement too.

I guess creationists think that "evolutionists" believe evidence for ancient primitive language would be carvings in a tree or stone that look like this.

"Hmmpff Argh khsssp bah bah grrrrr-shhhh fffffttttttt"

Modern translation:


Memo:

Date: Feb 9, 198,000 B.C.
To: Whom it may concern
From: Clogger Clogson, 121 Cavehill drive

Re: Please do not club sabertooths on my mountain.

 

[Squishes]

Hrm, the guest did end up mentioning Chomsky/Pinker, but only (as creationists often do) their negative contributions to evolutionary theory. Of course he did not mention their positive output.

 

[Jukia]

Yeah, I'll bet Chomsky is a YECer. Think Pastor Bob has any idea where Chomsky is coming from?

 

[Jukia]

Unfortunately I couldn't read the journal article you cited, due to restrictions in accessing the paper.

Oh, c'mon. Sign up to the premium portion of the site. All you have to do is agree to the statement of beliefs to get to the real sciency stuff. Sort of like, maybe where they keep the secret stuff?

 

[Squishes]

Yeah, I'll bet Chomsky is a YECer. Think Pastor Bob has any idea where Chomsky is coming from?

I have a hard time believing Bob knew anything about Chomsky before he wiki'd his name 5 minutes before the show.

 

[Granite]

Creationists need to realize that evolutionary theory doesn't claim to be inerrant (which is why, like any good theory, it changes in the face of new evidence). That Darwin was mistaken about the development of language doesn't mean the entire theory of evolution is inaccurate or incorrect.

 

[koban]

I had a chuckle about that statement too.

I guess creationists think that "evolutionists" believe evidence for ancient primitive language would be carvings in a tree or stone that look like this.

"Hmmpff Argh khsssp bah bah grrrrr-shhhh fffffttttttt"

Modern translation:


Memo:

Date: Feb 9, 198,000 B.C.
To: Whom it may concern
From: Clogger Clogson, 121 Cavehill drive

Re: Please do not club sabertooths on my mountain.

ARTHUR:
There! Look!
LAUNCELOT:
What does it say?
GALAHAD:
What language is that?
ARTHUR:
Brother Maynard! You are a scholar.
MAYNARD:
It's Aramaic!
GALAHAD:
Of course! Joseph of Arimathea!
LAUNCELOT:
'Course!
ARTHUR:
What does it say?
MAYNARD:
It reads, 'Here may be found the last words of Joseph of Arimathea. He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail in the Castle of aaaaaagggh'.
ARTHUR:
What?
MAYNARD:
'...The Castle of aaaaaagggh'.
BEDEVERE:
What is that?
MAYNARD:
He must have died while carving it.
LAUNCELOT:
Oh, come on!
MAYNARD:
Well, that's what it says.
ARTHUR:
Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to carve 'aaaaaggh'. He'd just say it!
MAYNARD:
Well, that's what's carved in the rock!
GALAHAD:
Perhaps he was dictating.

 

[Stripe]

Unfortunately I couldn't read the journal article you cited, due to restrictions in accessing the paper. But, knowing that it comes from a "creation science" website, I have very little hope for it being something of genuine scientific inquiry.

I would like to know why anyone would feel that this is evidence for creation, since for there to be "evidence" of language, it would have to be written. Further, most experts in the field of glottogonogy (study of the origins of language) say that language originated some 200,000 years ago. I thought creationists believed that the earth was created only 10,000 years ago?

Creationists have some s'plainin to do.

He realizes that evolutionary psychologists have done significant work in linguistic studies since Darwin, right? Piaget, Pinker, Chomsky, Fodor etc ? It isn't some dark secret that Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, but he was remarkably prescient in some of his work. Language wasn't one of them. But I think this statement:



O rly? And just how do we look back and listen to what language sounded like? What an odd thing to say.

I had a chuckle about that statement too.

I guess creationists think that "evolutionists" believe evidence for ancient primitive language would be carvings in a tree or stone that look like this.

"Hmmpff Argh khsssp bah bah grrrrr-shhhh fffffttttttt"

Modern translation:


Memo:

Date: Feb 9, 198,000 B.C.
To: Whom it may concern
From: Clogger Clogson, 121 Cavehill drive

Re: Please do not club sabertooths on my mountain.

Hrm, the guest did end up mentioning Chomsky/Pinker, but only (as creationists often do) their negative contributions to evolutionary theory. Of course he did not mention their positive output.

Yeah, I'll bet Chomsky is a YECer. Think Pastor Bob has any idea where Chomsky is coming from?

Oh, c'mon. Sign up to the premium portion of the site. All you have to do is agree to the statement of beliefs to get to the real sciency stuff. Sort of like, maybe where they keep the secret stuff?

I have a hard time believing Bob knew anything about Chomsky before he wiki'd his name 5 minutes before the show.

Creationists need to realize that evolutionary theory doesn't claim to be inerrant (which is why, like any good theory, it changes in the face of new evidence). That Darwin was mistaken about the development of language doesn't mean the entire theory of evolution is inaccurate or incorrect.

Wow. Evidence that language does devolve.

 

[Stratnerd]

Here's a classic example of the difference between a hypothesis, predictions and the relevant observations/experiments needed to test/evaluate a hypothesis.

The hypothesis is "language evolved from gestures into grunts, then into primitive and, eventually, highly evolved languages."

Sounds like evolutionary biology predicts the evolution of language from non-humans to humans with humans having the complex language. To test this they only tested human languages. No chimps, orangs, gorillas, etc were included in the study yet the article is "celebrated"??

 

[Bob Enyart]

Hi Stripe! Hey, Squishes and pozzolane, regarding 'listening'

Hi Stripe! Hey, Squishes and pozzolane, regarding 'listening'

Squishes, unless I’m misreading you (it’s possible), you may have misread the following statement, and Pozzolane, it would have been kind of you to correct Squishes, rather than egg him on…

Enyart: as far back as we can look, language has always been highly complex with grammar and syntax and vocabulary all the way back.

Squishes: O rly? And just how do we look back and listen to what language sounded like? What an odd thing to say.

Squishes, nothing in that statement involves any requirement to ‘hear’ what a language sounded like. We wouldn’t have to “listen” to what it “sounded like” to make that statement.

Pozzolane responded: I had a chuckle about that statement too.

Darwin argued that animal grunts evolved into human language; and that primitive, less-evolved languages are still in existence today, and that those primitive languages evolved into modern languages. Each part of this proposal has been undermined by decades of research including by Chomsky, etc. There are more details in the show summary, pasted below, from the concluding Part II of that program.

And btw, I purchased literature from the opposing side all the time, including a couple articles from the AmJ of Physics to better inform myself on the opposing viewpoint (see One on One with Johnny on entropy). You could try the same by subscribing to CRSQ!

Thanks for your comments!

-Bob Enyart

* Origin of Human Language: This Part II of RSF: Languages concludes the presentation of Bob Enyart and RSF co-host Fred Williams discussing the expert evolutionists whose research and conclusions disprove Darwin's own theory of the evolution of language from animal grunts to human speech! Bob and Fred celebrate Dr. Jerry Bergman's article, Evolution and the Origin of Human Language! For example Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:

- some languages are 'primitive' ("eminent linguist Stuart Chase bluntly stated that 'stories about tribes with only grunts and squeals are biological fakes'" and P.A. "Gaeng concluded 'Any hope, therefore, of discovering the specific origin of language from the languages of primitive groups must also be abandoned.'")
- and that animal grunts can be shown to be steps toward language
- and that evidence of language evolution would exist.

Instead, as Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found! Also, the hope of some evolutionists that a single dramatic mutation switched on the human ability for language is disproved by today's knowledge that our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require "a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system, the entire oral-nasal-pharynx design, and many accessory structures such as the teeth, tongue, lips, nasal cavities, larynx, lungs, uvula and nose." Thus, "Our putative closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are physically unable to produce speech." Bergman draws from D. K. Harrison's, Oxford Press 2007, explaining that an animal species relies "on a single system of communication; humans use one or more of the almost 7,000 different extant language systems, from English to Swahili," so that "whereas animal species posses an innate set of oral responses" i.e., genetically programmed, "children usually require several years to acquire their specific language..." Then Bergman presents the lesson of a life's work: "Chomsky concluded from his lifelong research on this subject that no evolutionary transition exists between the noises that animals make and human speech." And consistent with biblical history, "some scholars believe that all languages can be traced back to about a hundred language groups" and, "the oldest known written language, Accadian [aka Akkadian, Acadian, etc.]," was spoken in the Middle East. Human language is another great argument against evolution and supporting creation.

 

[Stripe]

Part II was cool also.

I liked this part from after the "stop the tape":

37:46 "...Germany and TAIWAN..."

Woot

Bob can't pronounce "Maori" though.... :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

This is, kindly, a misrepresentation of Chomsky and everything the man stands for...

 

[Stratnerd]

Did the "study" take into account anything other than modern humans?

If language evolved biologically and culturally by the time modern humans arrived then you wouldn't even expect there to be "evidence of language evolution."

Seems they set themselves up to be right.

 

[koban]

Did the "study" take into account anything other than modern humans?

If language evolved biologically and culturally by the time modern humans arrived then you wouldn't even expect there to be "evidence of language evolution."

Seems they set themselves up to be right.

I'm really puzzled by what Bob's claiming here. As far as I can tell, Adam was created able to speak clearly - he first names all the animals in creation, then, when presented with Eve, he says:

Gen 2:23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,
for she was taken out of man."


Looks pretty cut and dried to me! :thumb:

 

[pozzolane]

Enyart: as far back as we can look, language has always been highly complex with grammar and syntax and vocabulary all the way back.

Squishes, nothing in that statement involves any requirement to ‘hear’ what a language sounded like. We wouldn’t have to “listen” to what it “sounded like” to make that statement.

Bob, your ignorance is almost overwhelming, not to mention your inability to think critically here. Written language is directly tandem to modern spoken language, so obviously there would be no evidence of much more primitive languages...that is, unless you could ride a time machine and listen to it. So therefore, your statement is completely redundant. You might as well say:

"As far back as we can look, most Italians really like pasta. There are no records of them disliking pasta at earlier times. Therefore, pasta and Italians have always existed."

 

[eveningsky339]

Darwin's idea was that language evolved from grunts to modern language. And it turns out there's no evidence for that theory. Rather, as far back as we can look, language has always been highly complex with grammar and syntax and vocabulary all the way back.

Have you heard the phrase "prehistoric"? It means before recorded history. Could we record history without a more evolved form of language? No.

You have managed to provide evidence for Darwin's theory.

 

[Stratnerd]

I don't think the study is evidence for anything. You have a cultural trait in modern humans and they didn't (can't) sample anything between chimps and us.