[webstersII]

"Languages don't evolve? What a silly thing to say."

Yes, but they are still language. They haven't evolved over time into some radically new entity. They can have different characteristics but they are still of the same original base type.

[Chiapet]

Yes, but they are still language. They haven't evolved over time into some radically new entity. They can have different characteristics but they are still of the same original base type.

And how does this relate at all to whether biological evolution happens? Oh that's right, it doesn't.

[js1138]

Yes, but they are still language. They haven't evolved over time into some radically new entity. They can have different characteristics but they are still of the same original base type.

The same could be said of living things. The data contained in the genome changes over time, but the cellular machinery is pretty much the same for all living things, and the genome for an amoeba is actually longer that that for a human.

The kind of evolution that most anti-evolutionists fret about does not increase complexity or information content. It mostly just involves gradual changes in allele frequency in populations.

[2nsdammit]

What would they evolve into?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes, but they are still language. They haven't evolved over time into some radically new entity. They can have different characteristics but they are still of the same original base type."

Yes, absolutely true. I mean, when was the last time you saw a language sprout wings or turn into a lizard? Or a lizard turn into a dialect of Mandarin? Until that happens, evolution is just a theory and takes a lot of faith to believe in it.