Well, now we can add the evolution of languages to the long list of things that Answers In Genesis either doesn't understand, or is willing to distort in order to attack biology.
Yeah, languages are "nothing like" biological evolution, once you ignore the most important factors like common descent, acquired characteristics, adaptation, intermixing, random drift, divergence of isolated subpopulations, and all the other most significant things that they have in common.
But then since AiG consistently misunderstands/misrepresents evolutionary biology, it's hardly any surprise that they wouldn't spot the obvious features in common between biological evolution and linguistic evolution (and/or attempt to deny the obvious).
(Warning! Frevolutionists! Do not click! Semi-technical!)
Thanks for the warning -- you're right, we "Frevolutionists" prefer things that are *actually* technical, instead of merely "semi" technical (which in this case would have been better described as "half-***ed").
To: Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry
"The GGG guys would prefer if we kept the crevo discussion away from the GGG list, and I think that's a reasonable request. Yeah, it's relevant, but mention the E word, and you know what'll happen."
I appreciate that.
27 posted on 09/27/2005 2:14:03 PM PDT by blam