How old is language?

mortongr@flash.net
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:39:52 +0000

I just ran into a novel argument for a relatively ancient language among
humans. Derek Bickerton wrote:

"Consider too the issues raised by human dispersion. Until a couple of
centuries ago, native Australians had been separated from the rest of the
species for around fifty thousand years. However, Australian languages
have the same forms of organization as all other languages. Suppose
language really was a cultural invention: it must thus have been invented
prior to the separation of Australians from the rest of the species." Derek
Bickerton, Language and Human Behavior, (Seattle: University of Washington
Press, 1995), p. 68

Now, since Bickerton wrote that, Australians have been shown to have been
separated from the rest of humanity for maybe 80,000 years. Which of course
means that language is at least 80,000 years old. Thorne et al. recently
dated the Lake Mungo man at 62,000 +/- 6000 years old. (Thorne et
al,"Australia's oldest human remains: age of the Lake Mung0 3 skeleton,
Journal of Human Evolution, 36(1999), pp 591-612, p. 591)

Since Mungo is far from the purported entry site into Australia, most
authorties believe it would take several thousand years for people to
migrate to the Mungo area. Thorne et al note,

"Our dating results raise a variety of biological and behavioural issues
of regional and wider significance. Lake Mungo is well inland and more
than 2700 km from the present northwestern coast of Australia. It is more
than 4000 km from the northwestern coast of New Guinea, the northern corner
of the Greater Australian continent at that time. That area was nearest
the most likely source regions (now Indonesia and the Philippines) for
migration to the continent. Therefore, initial colonization may have taken
place significantly earlier than an arrival now documented by the LM3 age.
Although sea levels in the time range of 60-100 ka were lower than today
(by between 20 and 80 m, see Chappell et al., 1996b), it was not a period
of major glaciation. Therefore, if the colonization took place after the
end of the penultimate glaciation at 130 ka, it suggests that the movement
of human groups to Australia had more to do with competent seamanship and
appropriate water craft than near-accidental transport across sea gaps. In
any event, LM3 provides minimum age for the earliest evidence of human
capacity to make significant beyond-the-horizon sea and ocean voyages."
Alan Thorne, et al, "Australia's Oldest Human Remains: Age of the Lake
Mungo 3 Skeleton," Journal of Human Evolution 36(1999):591-612, p. 609

Some reports quote the authors as saying that the colonization of Australia
must have occurred 80,000 years ago. Given this, it means that language
must have evolved at least by that time. Thus, language is at least 80,000
years old which clearly is contrary to the claims of Hugh Ross who claims
that humanity is not older than 60,000 years. (Hugh Ross, "Chromosome Study
Stuns Evolutionists," Facts & Faith, 9:3,(1995) p. 3)

And in all theories, mankind did not originate in Australia, and so
language must have been in existence long, long before Australia was
colonized. Why? Because it would have taken lots of time for mankind to
migrate the thousands of miles from either Africa or the Middle East to
arrive in Australia. Language must be old. And if language is old, then so
is humanity!

If language, a very human activity has been around for even 80,000 years,
then Christian apologetics needs a major revision.

glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution