Science Disproves Evolution
Pah...@gmail.com
If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest.
But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for
example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and
Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to
syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection.
The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become
simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea
that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g).
If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence
indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not
evolve either.
f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press,
1976), pp. 83–89.
George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates
animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the
apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he
could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the
first language could have been the most complex.” He then shifted to
a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.
“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary
origin of language, and all have failed. ... Even the peoples with
least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with
complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and
discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their
speakers. ... The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed
is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point
of view.” George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,”
Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.
“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is
a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of
the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc., 1957), p. 10.
“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language
origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar
than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree
of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.
g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages
to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of
different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both
have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously
parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might
transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed
that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or
dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor
degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol.
264, April 1991, p. 144.
“Noam Chomsky ... has firmly established his point that grammar, and
in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are
busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved ...
Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have
come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?”
Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes14.html#wp1279347
Pah...@gmail.com
Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired” brain
capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical
anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range
of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.
Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies
above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make
clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back
of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air
flow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues,
incapable of making consonant sounds (b).
Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech,
that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for
learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.
a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1987), pp. 106–109.
“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find
no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in
the human brain].” Ibid., p. 164.
b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech,” Natural History,
Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.
“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just
as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true
language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ...
Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal
tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce
the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series. ... I
conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional
deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit
the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other
nonhuman primates.” Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York:
Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences17.html#wp1008996
James
>Re: Science Disproves Evolution
>Speech
>
>Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a �ｿｽprewired�ｿｽ brain
>capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical
>anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range
>of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.
>Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies
>above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make
>clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back
>of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air
>flow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues,
>incapable of making consonant sounds (b).
>
>Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech,
>that equipment would be useless without a �ｿｽprewired�ｿｽ brain for
>learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.
>
>a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
>House, 1987), pp. 106�ｿｽ109.
>
>�ｿｽIf we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find
>no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in
>the human brain].�ｿｽ Ibid., p. 164.
>
>b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, �ｿｽThe Anatomy of Human Speech,�ｿｽ Natural History,
>Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20�ｿｽ26.
>
>�ｿｽChimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just
>as most mammals do, but they don�ｿｽt have the capacity for true
>language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ...
>Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal
>tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce
>the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series. ... I
>conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional
>deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit
>the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other
>nonhuman primates.�ｿｽ Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York:
>Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.
>
>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences17.html#wp1008996
Hello,
Yes, science can cast serious doubt on that theory of evolution. (the
part that all new life forms eventually evolved from lower life forms)
Take for instance, the fossil record.
The fossil record is HARD EVIDENCE to consider. When scholars study
it, they generally find that life forms appear suddenly and fully
formed. (even Darwin found that problem with his theory)
For example, even many years ago, biochemist D.�ｿｽB. Gower said in
England�ｿｽs Kentish Times:
�ｿｽThe creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not
be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did
not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the
most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest
rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species
there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.�ｿｽ (taken from the
book: "Life-- How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?")
And just because some life forms have similar genetic structures
(humans and apes etc), doesn't necessitate that one evolved from the
other. (for instance, we are also supposed to have a lot of similar
genetics with a bannana) When a programmer writes two different
programs, he may use a lot of the identical lines of code in both
programs. That doesn't mean that one program evolved from the other
one, does it. Our Creator obviously used a lot of similar genetic
'building blocks' to created all those life forms.
If one looks at ALL the evidence of all the different life forms that
ever was known to exist, from the microscopic to whales and dinosaurs,
the fossil record should be exploding with all those transitional life
forms, as one progressed to the other one. They say evolution was slow
and took millions of years. Then the changes made to each life form
should have a long string of very similar life forms working their way
up to the present ones. BUT OVERALL, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FOSSIL
RECORD SHOWS. And no amount of wishful thinking is going to change
that. (yes they CLAIM to have transitional ones, but not nearly enough
to account for all the different life forms known to exist)
Thus GOING STRICTLY BY THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE, the Bible's account of
creation is fully supported by the fossil record, ie, that each
different life form was created fully formed. Thus in the fossil
record, we should find SUDDEN appearances of fully formed life forms,
and no intermediate ones leading up to that life form, just like that
biochemist above had found.
Sincerely, James
If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I do
not follow all conversations in ng threads
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses Questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Dr. Dick
terrifyingly dangerous candidate -- for any federal position.
She's Dick Cheney MEAN, less Cheney's basic intelligence.
There's nothing worse than a CRUEL heart having power over genuine
human beings.
One-hundred-six of the world's nations are ruled by such monsters.
Yet low-IQ ignoramuses in the U.S. want her to be a heartbeat away
from the presidency?
This is the Bush mentality gone TOTALLY amok.
Dave Oldridge
James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:9l77e45soc8gjs721...@4ax.com:
>>Pah...@gmail.com
>
>>Re: Science Disproves Evolution
>
>>Speech
>>
>>Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a �prewired� brain
>>capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical
>>anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range
>>of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.
>>Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies
>>above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make
>>clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back
>>of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air
>>flow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues,
>>incapable of making consonant sounds (b).
>>
>>Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech,
>>that equipment would be useless without a �prewired� brain for
>>learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.
>>
>>a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker
>>Book House, 1987), pp. 106�109.
>>
>>�If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find
>>no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in
>>the human brain].� Ibid., p. 164.
>>
>>b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, �The Anatomy of Human Speech,� Natural
>>History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20�26.
>>
>>�Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just
>>as most mammals do, but they don�t have the capacity for true
>>language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ...
>>Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal
>>tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce
>>the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series. ... I
>>conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional
>>deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit
>>the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other
>>nonhuman primates.� Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York:
>>Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.
>>
>>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences17.html#wp1008996
>
>Hello,
>
>Yes, science can cast serious doubt on that theory of evolution. (the
>part that all new life forms eventually evolved from lower life forms)
>Take for instance, the fossil record.
>
>The fossil record is HARD EVIDENCE to consider. When scholars study
>it, they generally find that life forms appear suddenly and fully
>formed. (even Darwin found that problem with his theory)
Actually, when the resolution is fine enough, the transitions emerge.
Most of the time it isn't. And transitions are very apparent in the
hominin lineage. Moreover, even if you could demonstrate that some of
our abilities were the result of special miracles, there is still the
matter of genetic evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt that humans
and chimps stem from a single population.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Pahu
The ancient Greeks viewed science as a philosophical matter. Reason
was the chief tool of science rather than experimentation. Much of
this attitude came from their belief that the world was a corruption
of perfection. The world was to them an uncreated, unknowable, yet
necessary evil, which God directed but did not really control. Only
when the theistic view of Creation took over did science begin to
study the world experimentally. It was the thought that God had
created matter that made it a thing worth studying. In this view,
matter was real, good, and knowable. By seeing God the Creator in
complete control, science could make the assumption that the universe
made sense. Most of the scientists who formulated the studies of
modern science were creationists. Without this basis, modem science
would probably never have gotten started.
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]