Oh I guess I misunderstood. I thought ikester was implying that suddenly a dog must produce something radically different from itself, or a human being must produce a creature totally unlike itself, for evolution to be true.
I've used this analogy before, but I'll try again. There is a group of languages known as Romance languages. Among others, French, Italian, and Spanish all evolved from Latin. Do you agree that these are all different languages? And do you agree that they are all different from Latin?
In order for these languages to have evolved, do you believe that an ancient Roman woke up one morning and began speaking modern French? No, most likely that would have been as weird as an ape giving birth to a full-fledged human being. It would be bizarre. No evolutionist thinks that's what happened, just like no linguist thinks Latin suddenly gave birth to French or modern-day Italian.
Now before you guys say "but, but, they're all still languages!" let me say preemptively, "but, but, they're all still animals!"
(Also, if you reply by telling me the myth of the Tower of Babel, I will have no answer to that.)
As you know, to use language as an analogy for evolution model has its own plethora of built in contradictions. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll point out just a few of the many.
Every language we use is a hybrid (or partial amalgamation of the others), and there is NO Ã¢â‚¬Å“pureÃ¢â‚¬Â language. In other words, aside from accents and dialect, EVERY language we use (or have used), borrows from the othersÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. But they are still JUST languages. And languages are nothing more than verbalizations of the ideas (or thought processes) of individuals and observations of those individuals.
It (language) is NOT a living, breathing thing. Like mathematics and logic, languages are expressions of ideas (mathematics and logic actually have to be expresses using languages). Unlike language, mathematics and logic have unchanging laws that govern them. You can change the principles of language to fit the needs of the peoples using it (I know, there are those who try to do the same with mathematics and logic); therefore it (language) is malleable and does evolve. But, its evolution can only be likened to micro-evolution, not macro evolution. Language cannot become mathematics or logic; it can only express mathematics or logicÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
And you are correct; there is no punctuated equilibrium in language, because language is an acquired skill that crosses boarders, barriers ideals and people groups (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). BUT, language changes can happen within a few months, a few years or a few generations. The word Ã¢â‚¬Å“blogÃ¢â‚¬Â popped up in a very short time (it evolved awfully rapidly), but the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“G*yÃ¢â‚¬Â which use to mean happy, carefree, giddy (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) took on a derogatory meaning that took generations to catch on (it evolved more slowly). And the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“dinosaurÃ¢â‚¬Â didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist prior to the 18th century; it was invented (or evolved) to describe an item/idea/discovery. But, no language has been shown to take millions of years to evolve. Nor has language been shown to evolve into anything but another language!
If living creatures were like your analogy for language evolution, we would be evolving back an fourth willy-nilly, between other species. And we would do so randomly, as the need arose. And the ability to do so would only take a few months, a few years or a few generationsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ No language has shown millions of years to adapt!
Also keep in mind; Language shows the design of the speaker, not random or accidental appearance...