>
> Nice try, Jack, but I'm afraid unless you can show me what the common
> ancestor between Finno-Ugric and INdo-European, then evolution doesn't apply
> to the origins of these language families. And if evolution can't account
> for the rise of labguage families, then what does? How did those language
> families come into being? What theory of them would be consistent with what
> evolution claims about man's origins?
>
> This is an important question. It was also what this argument was about when
> I brought it up. The architectural aside is the distractor, thrown in by
> someone who couldn't answer the question, so she decided to change the
> question. Don't criticise my debating techniques, it was Anne Broomhead who
> swept in with that one.
>
> Uncle Davey
So:
Unless you can show a common ancestor between Finno-Ugric and
Indo-European (a question which should be posed to a linguist, not a
biologist), the evolution of man from his animal origins is disproved?
And if you can't show a common ancestral language, the 'Tower of
Babel' story is proved true?
And if evolution can't account for the *orgin* of language (bearing in
mind that evolution does not address the problem of origins), then
language does not evolve - i.e. change with time?
This seems to be a remarkable series of non-sequiturs. Perhaps you
could clarify your argument?
RF
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 |
|