A helpful analogy to help people Creationists (or others) better understand how evolution works: Language.
A parent language will be split up into various dialects of the same language as populations of the speakers disperse. Pretty soon each population will have words that the others do not. Eventually the languages will become recognizably similar but too different to really be understood by the other population (eg> French and Spanish) but at a certain point the daughter languages are so different from the parent language and each other that they are all but unrecognizable as sharing a heritage (Eg> English and whatever the hell they speak in Boston).
All this to say that there are small changes over time and accelerated in isolated populations. These small changes compound to the point that the segregated population is dramatically and unequivocally distinct from the ancestral population.
So if the creationist can accept and recognize the concept that small, compounded changes result in dramatic, virtually unrecognizable change...what is causing them to reject this self-evident and proven principle as it applies to biological diversification?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Except that there's no DNA or genetic adaptation in human language. The analogy illustrates incremental changes, but then language use is arbitrary, and natural evolution is not dictated by conscious choices.
lol well it is an analogy and not a 1:1 comparison, of course.
You are correct that this analogy demonstrates the way incremental change can compound into very significant distinction. The fact that biological variation uses genetic expression as the means of this change and language uses words and pronunciation is immaterial to the process itself.
[quote] but then language use is arbitrary, and natural evolution is not dictated by conscious choices. [/quote]
Hmm yes and no, i would say. Language is indeed arbitrary but so in a way is evolutionary adaptation because it is specific only to a given set of conditions and has no overall direction. Same thing with language. I'd argue also that langue evolution is not dictated by conscious choices either in that no started out with Latin and decided that they'd make changes until they got Italian out of. Language changes naturally at a population level, with individual variations arising and become fixed in the population not by choice but typically by utility. Same thing as evolution.
lol the more i think about it, the more i'm impressed with the strength of this analogy. Thanks for that.
@IamCuriousBabe With my full respect. Besides analogies are always better for communication than for strict describing......he is nearer to sticking to a contemporary scientific view of it than your objections. If (and only if) you will not get bored about and is not a TJ I may share why I say so.
@ElRengo I wouldn't dwell on it much as this is more of a commentary than an actual argument. However you may classify schools of thinking, when you strip off the verbosity from the bare bones of the statements, to me what remains is that it's not enough.
And the parent language being suggested here is...Latin?
@IamCuriousBabe If about Latin in the original post....ask @Pikachu. About the other point.......well.... No analogy is ever enough. But there are neither for-ever-enough statments in Science. It seems or so History says and material facts use to confirm that beyond useful mind / word based categories different branches of Science to converge with a solid foundation in deeper more basic stuff common "laws". Like (just one example) the already recogniced unification of Chemistry and Physics, besides the needed specialization in the research practice. To people with a school level familiarity with Science, some of the "unified" views and jargon may seem frivolous verbosity. But it´s not but is an update of concepts to even better fit material reality. And that is what strip to the bones the venerable old categories.
@ElRengo I agree that when it comes to vocabulary, terms need to be updated. It also happens in Social Sciences.
When I mentioned verbosity, I was thinking about the effort the mind makes to understand someone's explanation.
My profession involves the creation of eLearning materials, where simplicity and conciseness are important, so my natural mind is always seeking the bare bones.
@IamCuriousBabe Sorry for the delay in answering. With your comment on education I´m now more clear about the frame of your posts. With no objection to your views in that specific context, let me add some other considerations.
Education if related to Science and Science itself share important stuff. One of them is to be related to knowledge. But....... Knowledge haves a different role and weight in each activity and concept.
While education about Science haves more than one goal (to provide a certain attitude, to teach some skills and intellectual tools and to transfer knowledge) the results of it focus in people and it´s ABOUT is knowledge. That is knowledge that use to be new for the students but is already there for humanity as a whole. So such knowledge had the benefit of some polishing and also some consensus about it.
Science...... Contrary of what is a folk believe, knowledge is not what Science is about. Yes, knowledge is a goal and a result of scientific practice. And some background knowledge is ussually a decisive tool to get it. But Science ABOUT are things in itselves, so if known or not. Moreover the very defining core of Science is research. That by definition works on what is not or not enough known. That makes less eassy to have a concise word based corpus and concensus over the frame of explanation to communicate what is new. Oh yes, true, research papers use to be FAR from verbosity and they frequently almost bare of words. So much bare bones that wouln´t be of use for educational purposes at least if not within the sceintific community and advanced students.
But........a part of scientific theories is what is known as explanandum. And some of them had shaked so much our previous understanding that the old words were still more precise but since then unfit (like with Relativity and Quantum Physics).
Others also shaked the waters of the public opinion. Like Evolution. And debate is also the symptom of both the lack of a common frame and the mask of agendas alien to Science.
And back to the begining.......there is where @Pikachu analogy is interesting.
@ElRengo Thanks for taking the time to explain this. The choice of language will ultimately depend on who you are communicating with. In the realm of scholars, academicians, and scientists, so much time is spent on elaborating and explaining concepts.
Now, to go back to my response to the original post, however, let me connect what I just said here. If Creationists are made to understand how evolution works, the evolution of language does not suffice. A simple analogy will not satisfy an enquiring mind that dwells on observations. So ai said, it's best to stick to science. What you said about science ACTUALLY supports this.
The purpose of having an analogy is to simplify things, but there can also be weak analogies.
[quote]The purpose of having an analogy is to simplify things[/quote]
I think that's why this analogy is so good! People have trouble understanding how one sort of animal "becomes" a different kind of animal, especially if they have a certain sort of religious worldview. But the fact that languages have sprung from very different languages is uncontentious and the mechanism by which it happens is analogous to one used in biological evolution.
