Comments on: Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 3 - Language) http://www.geocreationism.com/blog/2008/01/19/does-%e2%80%9cfull-humanity%e2%80%9d-predate-homo-sapiens-part-3-language/ "If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you." - 2 Cor. 5:13 Sat, 19 May 2012 16:12:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Mike http://www.geocreationism.com/blog/2008/01/19/does-%e2%80%9cfull-humanity%e2%80%9d-predate-homo-sapiens-part-3-language/#comment-5996 Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:34:21 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/blog/2008/01/19/does-%e2%80%9cfull-humanity%e2%80%9d-predate-homo-sapiens-part-3-language/#comment-5996 Since writing this, I have found evidecne that the Tower of Babel occurred around 2700 BC. I write on this more extensively on this blog, but I chose this time, first because of a concurrence of scientific and secular historical evidence. The science suggests the Flood was 2807 BC. History suggests the flood myths of other nations originated shortly after this, and that kings known for bi-lingualism popped up shortly thereafter. Since writing this, I have found evidecne that the Tower of Babel occurred around 2700 BC. I write on this more extensively on this blog, but I chose this time, first because of a concurrence of scientific and secular historical evidence. The science suggests the Flood was 2807 BC. History suggests the flood myths of other nations originated shortly after this, and that kings known for bi-lingualism popped up shortly thereafter.

]]> by: Mike http://www.geocreationism.com/blog/2008/01/19/does-%e2%80%9cfull-humanity%e2%80%9d-predate-homo-sapiens-part-3-language/#comment-5901 Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:46:17 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/blog/2008/01/19/does-%e2%80%9cfull-humanity%e2%80%9d-predate-homo-sapiens-part-3-language/#comment-5901 The other night, a friend was telling me that language genes evolved 50,000, quite in conflict with the idea of language capacity going back 2 mya. Here is an article about that 50,000 figure, which critiques the conclusions of those findings: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-bare-bones-account-of-human-evolution Note that this author is not saying when thinks language arose, but does say that language-related evidence dating back 50,000 years ago is not evidence of language evolving 50,000 years ago, but more like 100,000 years ago. But that is assuming that the feature in the article is in fact evidence for when language arose. The author does not appear convinced. One last source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language, which documents the range of time frames different scientists have isolated the development of language to. They vary from 100,000 to as long ago as 5,000,000 years ago. In that regard, Morton's data above seems well within the range and norm of scientific thought. The other night, a friend was telling me that language genes evolved 50,000, quite in conflict with the idea of language capacity going back 2 mya. Here is an article about that 50,000 figure, which critiques the conclusions of those findings: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-bare-bones-account-of-human-evolution

Note that this author is not saying when thinks language arose, but does say that language-related evidence dating back 50,000 years ago is not evidence of language evolving 50,000 years ago, but more like 100,000 years ago. But that is assuming that the feature in the article is in fact evidence for when language arose. The author does not appear convinced.

One last source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language, which documents the range of time frames different scientists have isolated the development of language to. They vary from 100,000 to as long ago as 5,000,000 years ago. In that regard, Morton’s data above seems well within the range and norm of scientific thought.

]]>