Babel

[grmorton]

I thought I would throw an article out htere that cuts both ways. It shows the YECs wrong about when Babel occurred, but it might actually have evidence that mankind once did speak a single language. this is a shortened post from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/babel.htm

I suspect that this won't be a popular post. :smile:
Many Christians and non-christians alike have questioned the reality of the Tower of Babel or ignored it altogether. Indeed, other than in young-earth literature it is difficult to find a reference to this event. Andrew White, in A History of the Warfare between Science and Theology in Christendom, attacks the very idea of the story. Davis Young omits it in his book, The Biblical Flood. Bernard Ramm in The Christian View of Science and Scripture makes only the slightest reference to it. Obviously, this story causes some concern or embarrassment among Christian apologists who steer far from it.

However, since this event is in the Bible one must face the question of whether it is a real event or if it is merely an allegory. During the past decade some evidence has been developed which does support one aspect of the story--the contention that the entire human race once spoke the same language. Merrit Ruhlen (not a creationist) points out much of this data in his book, Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994). These are from some posts I made to the ASA listserv and TheologyWeb:

Within the past decade some linguists have found evidence of a former unity among languages. Not all linguists accept this data, but Joseph Greenberg (one of the foremost linguists of this century who produced the classification of African languages now in use) and Merritt Ruhlen have argued for much wider connections among the languages.

First, I would also point people to my article Morton, G. R. (2002) "Language at the Dawn of Humanity," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 54(2002):3:193-194. This discusses some work presented at the 2001 meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, There are two click languages Sandawe and Hadza, which are spoken by two groups which were believed to be related, although for years linguists had noted that the languages themselves seem very very distant in spite of sharing the same characteristic of having click sounds included in the language. Alec Knight, Joanna Mountain and colleagues analyzed the Y chromosomes of the two groups and found that these two groups were genetically the most distant pair of populations on earth. In other words, their last common ancestor was as long ago as 100,000 years. The abstract says:

Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in linguistically diverse peoples of Tanzania: Ancient roots and ancient clicks. A. Knight1, P.A. Underhill2, H.M. Mortensen1, A.A. Lin2, D. Louis1, M. Ruhlen1, J.L. Mountain1. 1) Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; 2) Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

"We analyzed genetic variation in 122 "unrelated" individuals from the vicinity of Lake Eyasi in north-central Tanzania, to recover aspects of population history and human evolution. Representatives of the four linguistic phyla of Africa were studied, including 50 Hadzabe (or Hadza) foragers. We present a Y chromosome phylogeny derived from unique event polymorphisms (UEPs). We also present Y chromosome microsatellite variation within UEP-defined clades, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) fragment polymorphisms, and nucleotide sequences of both mtDNA control region hypervariable segments. When compared to other African population data, our results reveal elements of prehistory relevant to the evolution of anatomically modern humans, including migration, gene flow, and language. We were able to distinguish recent gene flow from ancient demographic signatures. Hadzabe are strongly differentiated from other groups, have high genetic diversity, and exhibit comparatively great genetic distance from the !Kung of southern Africa, suggesting great antiquity for click (Khoisan) languages.
**end of abstract**

What they concluded was that these two groups of people shared a common genetic and linguistic history 100,000 years ago but went their separate ways in both areas. The data seems to indicate that one of the earliest human languages belongs to the click family (Khoisan family).

Now that data demonstrates the likelihood of language at least 100,000 years ago, not the 60 kyr of Hugh Ross's view. And the anatomical data seems to indicate that mankind was speaking at least 3 times longer. Theology and apologetics simply must deal with this issue. But are there other connections?

Linguistics

One of the ways such connections are found is in the same sound being used in different languages and language families (cognates). The words that appear most stable across language family boundaries are those which are very essential or personal or relational. The data listed below, while not proving the Tower of Babel story does support the original contention that mankind did speak one language which is one of the claims of the Bible.

I will discuss only two words, water and finger(aqwa and tik), but there are lots of other words that unite the world's languages.
These include (Ruhlen p. 105)
sound...meaning.
papa....father.
mama....mother.
kaka....brother/uncle.
ku......who.
ma......what.(ma.is.used.in.Mandarin.as.a.question.indicator).
pal.....two.
akwa....water.
tik.....finger.
kanV....arm.
boko....arm.
bunku...knee.
sum.....hair.
putV....vulva.
cuna....nose....smell.
KamV....squeeze.
parV....fly.
(the capital V represents a vowel whose original pronunciation is
unknown)

Ruhlen states:
"Another striking resemblance among the world's language families is a word whose original meaning was probably 'finger' (though it has evolved to 'one' and 'hand'[='fingers'] in many languages), and whose original
form was something like tik. I first became aware of the widespread nature of this root at a public lecture that Greenberg gave at Stanford in 1977, in which he mentioned three roots that were widely distributed around the world: tik 'finger,' pal 'two' (which we will look at in the following section), and par 'to fly.' As you no doubt noticed in your examination of Table 10, no less than eight of the twelve families show traces of tik 'finger,one,' namely, Nilo-Saharan (B), Niger-Kordofanian (C), Afro-Asiatic (D), Eurasiatic (G), Dene-Caucasian (H), Austric (I), Indo-Pacific (J) and Amerind (L)." ~Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. 115

Linguistic symbols and evolution of sounds

? sounds like tt's in bottle when pronouced like by a cockney in London. I need to point out the sound changes that linguists have found
d->z
g->k
k->g
p->f->h
k->x->h
k->?
d->z
t->d
t->th->s
i->y
u->w

Linguists look at sounds and how they change and then compare cognates from different languages looking for a pattern. This is illustrated by the following data regarding African languages:

Language.......sound..................meaning.
Fur.............tek.....................one.
Maba............tek.(tuk)...............one.
Nera............dekk-u..................one.
Dinka...........tok.....................one.
Berta...........diikoni.................one.
Mangetu.........t'e.....................one.
Kwama...........seek-o..................one...t.changed.to.s.
Bari.............to.....................one.
Jur.............tok.....................one.
Twampa..........de?.....................one.
Komo............de......................one.

Ruhlen states,
"In 1972 the American linguist Edgar Gregersen presented substantial evidence connecting two of Greenberg's four African families, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian. One of the pieces of evidence he offered was Niger-Kordofanian forms that appeared cognate with the Nilo-Saharan forms just cited." ~Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. 115-116

Tik, Finger/One
Niger-Kordofanian family
Fulup..........qsik~sex................finger.(~.separates.variant.pronunciations).
Nalu............te......................finger.
Gur.............dike....................one.
Gwa.............dogbo...................one.
Fon.............dokpa...................one.
Ewe.............deka....................one.
Tonga...........tiho....................finger.
Chopi...........t'ho....................finger.
Ki-Bira.........zika....................finger.
Ba-Kiokwa.......zigu....................finger.

Afro-Asiatic family of North Africa
Oromo...........toko....................one.
West.Gurage.....tegu....................only.one.
.Yaaku..........tegei...................hand.
Saho............ti......................one.

Eurasiatic family
Indoeuropean branch
Indoeuropean root deik
Latin...........dig-itus................finger.
Latin...........indeks..................forefinger.
English.........toe.....................toe.
Old.English.....tahe....................toe.
Latin...........Decem...................10.

Uralic branch
Votyak..........odik....................one.
Zyrian..........otik....................one.

Turkic branch
Chuvash.........tek.....................only,.just.
Uighur..........tek.....................only.merely.
Chagatai........tek.....................only,.single.
Turkish.........tek.....................only.
Turkish.........teken...................one.by.one.
Korean..........tayki...................one,.thing.
Old.Korean......tek.....................10.
Ainu............tek.....................hand.
Ainu............atiki...................five.
Japanese........te......................hand.

Chuckchi-.
Kamchatkan......itygin..................paw-foot.

Eskimo-Aleut
Upik............tik-iq..................index.finger.
Inupiaq.........tik-iq..................index.finger.
Inupiaq.........Tikkuagpaa..............he.points.to.it.
Attu............tik-laq.................middle.finger.

Dene-Caucasian
Rai.............tik(-pu)................one.
Nung............thi.....................one.
Tibetan.........(g-)tsig................one.

Yeniseian branch
Ket.............tek.....................finger.
Punpokol........tok.....................finger.
Kott............tog-an..................finger.

Na-Dene branch
Haida...........ta......................with.the.fingers.
Tlingit.........t-eeq...................finger.
Tlingit.........Tek.....................one.
Eyak............tikhi...................one.
Sarsi...........tlik....................one.
Kutchin.........(i-)Tag.................one.
Navajo..........ta?.....................One.

Austric family
Austroasiatic branch
Kharia..........ti?.....................Hand.
Khmer...........tai.....................hand.
Vietnamese......tay.....................hand.

Amerind languages
North American Amerind Family
Nootka..........taka....................only.
Mohawk..........tsi?er..................Finger.
Sierra.Miwok....tika?...................Index.finger.
Arraarra........teeh'k..................hand.
Pehtsik.........tiki-vash...............hand.
Akwa'ala........asit-dek................one.
Nahua...........tiikia?a................one.
Pima.bajo.......cic.....................one.
Tarahumara......sika....................hand.
Mazatec.........cika?a..................alone.
Mangue..........tike....................one.

South America Amerind family
Chibcha.........ytiquyn.................finger.
Chibcha.........Acik....................by.ones.
Borunca.........etsik...................one.
Qawashqar.......takso...................one.
Siona...........tekua...................one.
Siona...........teg-li..................five.
Canichana.......eutixle.................finger.
Yupua...........di(x)ka.................arm.
Uasona..........dikaga..................arm.
Upano...........tikitik.................one.
Aguaruna........tikij...................one.
Murato..........tici....................hand.
Uru.............ti......................one.
Chipaya.........zek.....................one.

~Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p.115-119

I would add the example from the Sino-Tibetan family, Mandarin in which under the rule that d->z, the word for point is zhichu and the word for first is diyi.

Ruhlen presents a lot of data on three of the words which indicate a former connection. The word I am going to relate is water. The same sound is found over the world representing either water, or activities in and on water, including drinking, lakes, rivers, creeks etc.

Aq'wa 'water'
Everyone has used the root 'aqua' as in 'aquamarine' and aquarium in Spanish the term is agua. In Latin aqua means water. There appears to be a root akwa or aqua which appears over and over in language family after language family with this sound associated with water, river/drink etc. I must emphasize that the table below is phonetic not proper spelling. The phonetic sounds are as follows x=ks or qs, the symbols ? , ) etc are my best representations of the phonetic symbols used in Ruhlen's book. There is a difference between a single ) and a () pair, the pair represents the sound quality of the consonant.
Ruhlen postulates that the original word for water was aqwa. Some languages lost the first part and the word became qwa or kua and some lost the last part and the word became aq or ak. Some languages added parts. K's changed to g's or x's according to normal rules of linguistic change. One could postulate that the word water came from a variation on the Ainu word for water Wakka, which then became watta or something like that. Anyway, here is some of the evidence for an originally single language among humans. Not all of the words make the case to this non-linguist, but there is enough similarity to make me take notice of what Ruhlen is saying.

Afro-Asiatic family
language......sound.............meaning.
Janjero.........akka....................water.
Kaffa...........aco.....................water.
Mocha...........ac'o....................water.
Gofa............hacca...................water.
Shinasha........ac'c'o..................water.
Badditu.........wat'e...................water.
Agaw............aq......................water.
Hadiyya.........wo?o....................water.
Tamboaro........waha....................water.
Sidamo..........waho....................water.
Iraqw...........aha.....................drink.

Khoisan family of southern Africa
!O.!Kung........kau.....................rain.
!Kung...........k''a....................drink.
!Kung...........kau.....................rain.
!Naron..........k''a....................drink.
|Kam-ka.........!ke.k''wa...............drink.
|Kam-ka.........!kekau..................rain.
||Ng!Ke.........k''a....................drink.
||Ng!Ke.........kau.....................to.rain.
Batwa...........k''a....................drink.
|Auni...........k''a....................drink.
Masarwa.........k''a....................drink.
|Nu||en.........k''a....................drink.

Nilo-Saharan Family
Fur.............k)I.....................rain.
Nyimang.........kwe.....................water.
So..............kwe?....................Water.
Ik..............cue.....................water.
Mangbetu........equo....................water.
Berta...........k)I.....................rain,.cloud.
Kwama...........uuku....................water.
Anej............agu-d...................cloud.

Indo European Family
Latin...........ak(w)a..................water.
Hittite.........eku.....................water.
Luwian..........aku.....................water.
Palaic..........ahu.....................drink.
Italian.........akkwa...................drink.
Provencal.......aiga....................water.
Catalan.........aigwa...................water.
Spanish.........agwa....................water.
Portuguese......aqwa....................water.
Rumanian........ape.....................water.
Sardinian.......abba....................water.
Germanic........ahwa....................river..
old.Germanic.manuscripts-modern.German.lost.root.
Tocharian.......yok.....................drink.

Eurasiatic Family
Ainu............Wakka...................water.
Ainu............ku......................drink.
Japanese........aka.....................bilge.water.

Dene-Caucasian Family
Chechen.........aq......................suckle.
Burushaski......hagum...................wet.
Newari..........kwo.....................river.
Khaling.........ku......................water.
Kachin..........k(h)u...................water.

Indo Pacific family
Awyu............okho....................water/river.
syiagha.........okho....................water.
Yareba..........ogo.....................water.
Yonggom.........oq......................water.
Ninggirum.......ok......................water.

Amerind--native American
Yurok...........-'k(w)..suffix.indicating.movement.on.water.
Quileute........kwaya...................water.
Kwakwala........yax.....................thin.liquid.
Bella.Bella.....yug(w)a.................rain.
Snohomish.......q(w)a?..................water.
Squamish........q(w)u...................water.
Squamish........q(rw)et.................wet.
Nbisqualli......ko......................water.
Nbisqualli......okokwa..................drink.
Lkungen.........kwa.....................water.
Lkungen.........q(w)aq(w)a?.............water.
Twana...........q)?.....................water.
Twana...........yeq(rw).................wash.
Shuswap.........kwo.....................water.
Caddo...........koko....................water.
Caddo...........yoyakka.................drink.
Wichita.........kik'a...................drink.

Penutian branch
Nass............ak(j)-s.................water.
Twsimshian......aks.....................drink.
Tsimshian.......yaks....................wash.
Takema..........ug(w)...................drink.
Siuslaw.........inq'aa..................river.
Nez.Perce.......k'u.....................drink.
Molale..........?uquns..................water.
Klamath.........joq'....................wash.
N..Sahaptin.....-tkwa...................go.in.water.
Wintun..........wak'ai..................creek.
Wintun..........yuqa?...................Wash.
Rumsien.........uk......................drink.
Yokuts..........?ukun...................drink.
Lake.Miwok......kiik....................water.
Saclan..........kiko....................water.
Miwok...........kiky....................water.
Zuni............k'a.....................water.
Zuni............k'I.....................become.wet.
Yuki............uk'.....................water.
Chitmacha.......?ak-....................water.
Atakapa.........ak......................water.
Chickasaw.......oka?....................Water.
Hitchiti........uki.....................water.
Tetontepec......uu?k....................drink.
Zoque...........?uhk....................drink.
Yucatec.........uk'.....................be.thirsty.
Yucatec.........yok-ha..................river.
Kekchi..........u?ka....................drink.

Hokan branch
Chimariko.......aqa.....................water.
Kashaya.........?ahq(h)a................water.
Kashaya.........q'o.....................drink.
North.Pomo......?ahk(h)a................water.
North.Pomo......k'o.....................drink.
SE.Pomo.........xa......................water.
S..Pomo.........?ahk(h)a................water.
East.Pomo.......xak(h)..................wet.
Shasta..........?atta...................water.
Washo...........asa.....................water.
Karok...........?as.....................water.
Esselen.........asa(-nax)...............water.
Chumash.........aho.....................water.
Seri............?ax.....................water.
Seri............Kiihk...................wet.
Yuma............axa?....................Water.
Mohave..........aha.....................water.
Yavapai.........?aha?...................water.
Diegueno........?axa....................water.
Quinigua........kwa.....................water.
Tonkawa.........?ax.....................water.
Comecrudo.......ax......................water.
Tequistlatec....l-axa?..................Water.

Central Amerind branch
Otomi...........nk'a....................wet.
Cuicatec........ku?u....................drink.
Tewa............pokwin..................lake.
Tewa............kwan....................rain.

South America Amerind
Chibchan-Paezan branch
Shiriana........koa.....................drink.
Chimila.........uk......................drink.
Binticua........agan....................drink.
Allentiac.......aka.....................water.
Andean branc Amerind
Iquito..........aqua....................water.
Quechua.........yaku....................water.
Quechua.........hoq'o...................get.wet.
Aymara..........oqo.....................swallow.
Mapudungu.......ko......................water.
Genneken........iagup...................water.
Yamana..........aku.....................lake.

Macro-Tucanoan brach
Cubeo...........oko.....................water.
Bahukiwa........oko.....................water.
Bahukiwa........uku-mi..................he.is.drinking.
Bahukiwa........okobo...................rain.
Tucano..........axko....................water.
Erulia..........oxko....................water.rain.
Barasano........oko.....................water.
Wanana..........ko......................water.
Yahuna..........okoa....................rain.
Auake...........okoa....................water.river.

Equatorial branch
Esmeralda.......kebi-axa................let's.drink.
Ayore...........oxi?....................Drink.
Kabishana.......aku.....................water.
Amniape.........aku.....................water.
Wayoro..........uru.....................water.
Mekens..........iki.....................water.
Guarani.........aki.....................wet.
Guarani.........I?u.....................drink.
Kamayura........?akim...................wet.
Kamayura........I?u.....................drink.
Quitemo.........ako.....................water.
Uaraicu.........waka....................wash.
Terena..........oko.....................rain.
Chipaya.........ax......................wash.
Guana...........uko.....................rain.
Apurina.........iaka....................wet.
Amarakaeri......iyako...................lake.

Macro-Carib branch
Witoto..........hoko....................wash.
Yagua...........Xa......................water.
Taulipang.......ai?ku...................wet.
Macusi..........u-wuku..................my.drink.
Macusi..........Aiku....................wet.
Waiwai..........woku....................drink.

~Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. 107-115

I would add the word from the Sino-Tibetan language, Mandarin, Kouke which means thirst.

One other late edition here is that research reported July, 2004 noted that the word papa occurred in 700 out of 1000 languages which the authors studied. These 700 languages were from all different language families. In Mandarin, Baba means father. see http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996188

So, I would say, that there very well may be linguistic evidence of a common root for these words throughout the world's language. This is consistent with the Biblical assertion that humanity once spoke a common language. That being said, the thing wrong with young-earth views of this is that they place Babel far too late in history.

[bhukkadakota]

I was just wondering if the babel story is true, then why would there be so many similarities between world languages? Didnt the people walk away from babel speaking entirely different languages that they couldnt communicate to each other at all?

Anyway nice post.

[Jawa Man]

That's really interesting! I never knew there was evidence of similar words in most languages. Good stuff!

[Jawa Man]

I was just wondering if the babel story is true, then why would there be so many similarities between world languages? Didnt the people walk away from babel speaking entirely different languages that they couldnt communicate to each other at all?
I don't think the similarities were enough to communicate anything meaningful, or complicated, which is why everyone was disorganized at Babel, so everyone stays confused.

"So, want to go do something after we build this sucka?"
"Ghasd fojkh!?"
"What are you, nuts?"
"Gou dka judna."
"Um... want some water?"
"Ooo! ...akwa, hiadas...."

[bhukkadakota]

ahahaha nice explanation. I can see you've got a point there, i guess that could be possible.

[grmorton]

I don't think the similarities were enough to communicate anything meaningful, or complicated, which is why everyone was disorganized at Babel, so everyone stays confused.

When I lived in Peterculter Scotland (a village of Aberdeen) I often heard a dialect called Doric. If one writes it down, one can kind of make it out. But hearing it, I never could understand much of it. I had a guy at the office teach me a few words.

fooya deein. got a yokun? I hae nae bobbies.

which means, how you doing, got a job? I have no money.

Or how about "ye powk yir da. Es hae bleedie couter" Got any idea?

One can lose understanding by merely putting the accent on a different syllable. When in China, I was with a guy who could speak pretty good english. But when I asked about the lay of the land in a certain place he said (and this won't work written) it is a pin en SU la. I couldn't figure out what he was saying until it struck me he was saying penINsula with the wrong syllable accented.

[Jawa Man]

gm, I'm just wondering, was that just to be informative, or was it supposed to counter what I said?

Anyway, pretty interesting about the Scottish stuff, and I'll take a jab -

"ye powk yir da. Es hae bleedie couter"
You poked your... hmmm...? finger! He has a bloody cut.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Or how about "ye powk yir da. Es hae bleedie couter" Got any idea?



Nice day, if it don't rain.

[geochron]

Interesting post. There was a great article about this in "The Sciences" (a magazine I much regret the passing of) in the early 90s.. I remember "gnaw" - (tooth/chew) - being one of the words they thought they had traced back.

Isn't this what you would expect in the "conventional" view of history? The words are those that refer to things a fairly early culture would be occupied with. Isn't it notable that words for "tower/building" are more recent.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think the similarities were enough to communicate anything meaningful, or complicated, which is why everyone was disorganized at Babel, so everyone stays confused.

"So, want to go do something after we build this sucka?"
"Ghasd fojkh!?"
"What are you, nuts?"
"Gou dka judna."
"Um... want some water?"
"Ooo! ...akwa, hiadas...."
The common roots of languages are clear. The problem is that the timing of the tower of babel in history could in no way explain the variation of the languages and where the people are now in history.

[grmorton]

Interesting post. There was a great article about this in "The Sciences" (a magazine I much regret the passing of) in the early 90s.. I remember "gnaw" - (tooth/chew) - being one of the words they thought they had traced back.

Isn't this what you would expect in the "conventional" view of history? The words are those that refer to things a fairly early culture would be occupied with. Isn't it notable that words for "tower/building" are more recent.

The last time I posted this data was on Talk Origins, and they really, really didn't like it, which is why I expected the reaction to be a bit different. As to your question about conventional history one of the problems has been that linguists have thought that after about 5000 years, no words would be held in common.

"Following these arguments, and using this standard retention
rate as a guide, the date of splitting of any two related
languages could be calculated using the assumption that over a
period of a thousand years, each of the languages would have
retained 86 per cent of the basic vocabulary of the common
protolanguage. It was claimed that these regularities remained
valid until the level of merely chance similarity is reached,
which is set at about 8 per cent. This would correspond, on the
method outlined, to a time depth of 11.7 thousand years.

"Various computations have been undertaken on this basis,
offering as conclusions that Spanish and Portuguese split at
about AD 1586, Italian and French at the same date, Romanian and
Italian in 1130 etc. English and Dutch would have split in AD
860 and English and German in 590 and so on.
"Some linguists have criticized these calculations on the grounds
that they do not always give precisely the right answers. It is
known, for instance, that the Germanic languages became separated
at rather earlier dates than those proposed. But to my mind the
astonishing thing is that the answers from such calculations are
in some cases so close to a date of differentiation which can be
established on independent grounds."

But what they have figured out is that some words don't change very quickly and that is what provides the link.

Now could this be due to conventional history? Yes, but linguists were not the ones who predicted that humanity once spoke a common language. They are beginning to incorporate the concept. But in the past, they actually fought the concept and some still do.


To Charleen, Of my Doric sentence:

"ye powk yir da. Es hae bleedie couter" Got any idea?


you wrote:

Nice day, if it don't rain.

It means you poke your dad he has a nose bleed.

To shunyadragon

You wrote:

The common roots of languages are clear. The problem is that the timing of the tower of babel in history could in no way explain the variation of the languages and where the people are now in history.

And that is why I think Christians have to move that event way back in history if they want it to have any hope of being a real event. It is one reason I have argued for an interpretation of the Bible which moves everything way back. Nothing fits in the conventional YEC timeframe, inspite of AiG's assurances that it will if we just believe. That approach is nothing more than Dorothy clicking the heels of here red slippers together and saying, I want to go home. Saying it don't make it so.

For any YECs who might want to see an alternative view see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

[Nicholas]

Well, considering the fact that most, if not all, of the European languages are derived from Latin and the Tower of Babel story makes no sense anyway you wonder why anyone in this day and age would actually believe it was true. But let us take a look at the story shall we not?

11:1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
11:2
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
11:3
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
11:4
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
11:5
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
11:6
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
11:7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
11:8
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
11:9
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

So, what exactly does this all mean? What it seems to mean was that they were attempting to build a tower to reach the heavens, and this apparently either angered or scared God, because why else would he confuse them so that they couldn't build the tower? It seems that not only could these people build a tower out of brick and mortar high enough to reach heaven, but this bothered God quite a bit. I don't see why anyone would seriously believe that God created different languages in order to confuse people who were attempting to build a tower to the heavens.

(Bible Quotes are courtesy of the Skeptics Annotated Bible)

[DunnySaze]

Well, considering the fact that most, if not all, of the European languages are derived from Latin and the Tower of Babel story makes no sense anyway you wonder why anyone in this day and age would actually believe it was true.

I'm not sure it's completly accurate to say that most European languages derived from Latin in whole or even the main. Certainly Latin is very influential, but so is Greek. And in English, there are Norse components.

[Jawa Man]

Come on, the Babel story doesn't make sense? God commanded man to fill the earth.

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
(Genesis 9:1)

Man decided "Let's not fill up the earth, but stay together," so God forced them to seperate by confusing their language. God was not afraid at all, just angry that He was once again disobeyed.

[Nicholas]

Not to go off topic here but the fact that you said he was angry woule mean that he didn't know the would disobey him, and that isn't possible if he was omniscient. If he was omniscient he would have known that they would have disobeyed him, from Adam and Eve on forward. If he knew that they were going to do that, and supposedly being omniscient he would have, he should have no reason to be angry.

[Seasanctuary]

Well, considering the fact that most, if not all, of the European languages are derived from Latin) Well, except for all those that aren't...such as those Germanic languages like English and Swedish...those Slavic languages like Czech and Serbian...those Celtic languages like Welsh and Irish...those Greek speakers...and those oddball Basques.

[Seasanctuary]

The common roots of languages are clear. The problem is that the timing of the tower of babel in history could in no way explain the variation of the languages and where the people are now in history.
Not to mention all those separate languages that existed before Babel supposedly did. Oops!

[grmorton]

Not to mention all those separate languages that existed before Babel supposedly did. Oops!


Which is why, if one choses to believe in Babel, it is most certainly not in the time frame the YECs claim. It must be much older.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Not to go off topic here but the fact that you said he was angry woule mean that he didn't know the would disobey him, and that isn't possible if he was omniscient. If he was omniscient he would have known that they would have disobeyed him, from Adam and Eve on forward. If he knew that they were going to do that, and supposedly being omniscient he would have, he should have no reason to be angry.

Got kids, Nicholas? I get angry even when I know my child is probably going to do the wrong thing....

[A Beautiful Truth]

Which is why, if one choses to believe in Babel, it is most certainly not in the time frame the YECs claim. It must be much older.

Perhaps these were Semetic languages only--since the scriptures were given to the people of the covenent, this is their history, not the entire world's history.

Same would be true of the covenent given to Noah and his descendents. Noah is in the line of Christ. The rainbow covenent was to the people of the covenent.

[sylas]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but the whole discussion illustrates to me what is wrong with all the attempts to match up the bible with science (YEC, OEC, whatever). The same problem shows up also in attempts to criticize the bible for a purported lack of reconciliation.

From the thread, it would seem that the point of the story hangs on whether or not there was a common language for humanity in the past. By diverting the discussion in that direction, the whole reason for the story being given in the bible seems to be lost.

In the story as told in the bible (Genesis 11) humanity was caused to speak many languages because if they all spoke one language, then nothing would be impossible for them.

If we take this strictly literally, then it means that humanity could do anything if only we all understood each other; and that God intervened in history in order to sow confusion and ensure that humanity would not be capable of doing anything.

This also means that the date of the origins of diverse language should date from after the first constructions of big cities, and all humanity should be descended from those early city builders.

If you treat it more like a parable, then it can be taken as a statement about the consequences of disunity and the condition of humanity.

But when discussion validates or criticizes the bible by looking at common language and ignoring the rest, then I think the bible loses; no matter which side of the argument on languages wins.

Cheers -- Sylas

[rmwilliamsjr]

There is a real temptation to argue evolutionary theory from linguistics. The big problem in doing so is that human borrow words and ideas therefore languages do not show the nice nested hierarchical structures that ET shows in genetics. Blending and borrowing make languages much more messy to build a phylogenic descent chart.

[grmorton]

There is a real temptation to argue evolutionary theory from linguistics. The big problem in doing so is that human borrow words and ideas therefore languages do not show the nice nested hierarchical structures that ET shows in genetics. Blending and borrowing make languages much more messy to build a phylogenic descent chart.

But animals borrow genes from other species. some genes from GM crops have escaped to other species. I believe that is why Woese said that the phylogenies can only go back so far. Now, I will agree that the rate of borrowing is much lower than the rate of borrowing in languages.

[rmwilliamsjr]

But animals borrow genes from other species. some genes from GM crops have escaped to other species. I believe that is why Woese said that the phylogenies can only go back so far. Now, I will agree that the rate of borrowing is much lower than the rate of borrowing in languages.
1. GM is not natural, and is not involved in reconstructing past phylogenies
2. i am aware of the potential for retrovirus to carry gene fragments between species.
3. please detail this "animals borrow genes from other species" please. i am not aware of the mechanism and would like to study it.

tia

[grmorton]

1. GM is not natural, and is not involved in reconstructing past phylogenies

That wasn't what I said, or advocated. I said that genes had crossed species bariers from GM crops. The reason they know this is because the genes were the ones the experimentor put into the crop. It then appears elsewhere.
Being natural is irrelevant to whether or not the gene was borrowed.

2. i am aware of the potential for retrovirus to carry gene fragments between species.
3. please detail this "animals borrow genes from other species" please. i am not aware of the mechanism and would like to study it.

tia

A search on: gene transfer genetically modified crops brings up several interesting sites

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice08.htm

Go to google and do a search. or search on horizontal gene transfer

[rmwilliamsjr]

That wasn't what I said, or advocated. I said that genes had crossed species bariers from GM crops. The reason they know this is because the genes were the ones the experimentor put into the crop. It then appears elsewhere.
Being natural is irrelevant to whether or not the gene was borrowed.



A search on: gene transfer genetically modified crops brings up several interesting sites

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice08.htm

Go to google and do a search. or search on horizontal gene transfer your statement===> But animals borrow genes from other species

horizontal gene transfer is prokaroyotes AFAIK

imho, if there is widespread gene transfer among sexual higher animals then the dual nested hierarchical structure of phylogenies is mistaken.

i found a short piece....used transduction which is the method i am familiar with


Horizontal gene transfer is any process in which an organism transfers genetic material (i.e. DNA (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/DNA) dna (lower case) refers the enzymes involved in dna replication.

For alternative meanings see DNA (disambiguation) Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life and many viruses. DNA is sometimes referred to as the molecule of heredity as it is inherited and used to propagate traits. During reproduction, it is replicated and transmitted to offspring.


) to another cell that is not its offspring. By contrast, vertical tranfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g. its parent or a species from which it evolved. Most thinking in genetics (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/genetics) Genetics is the science of genes, heredity, and the variation of organisms. Humans began applying knowledge of genetics in prehistory with the domestication and breeding of plants and animals. Within organisms, genetic information generally is carried in chromosomes, where it is represented in the chemical structure of particular DNA molecules.

has focussed on the more prevalent vertical transfer, but there is a recent awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a significant phenomenon. Horizontal gene transfer is common among bacteria (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/bacteria) A bacterium (plural: bacteria) is a single celled organism belonging to the domain bacteria, in the three domain scheme. It can also be a type of organism belonging to one of the three major branches of life. Traditionally classified as one of the five kingdoms, bacteria are microscopic and relatively simple cells. They lack the nucleus and organelles of the more complex cells called "eukaryotes;" however, like the cells of plants, most possess a carbohydrate-based cell wall. In common speech, "bacteria" still refers also to archaeabacteria, although the latter recently have been classified as an independent branch or "domain" of life.


, even very distantly related ones. For example, this process is thought to be a significant cause of increased drug resistance (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/drug%20resistance) Organisms are said to be drug-resistant when they are no longer affected by drugs that are meant to neutralize them. The most prominent example of this is antibiotic resistance.
; when one bacterial cell acquires resistance, it can quickly transfer the resistance genes to many species. Also enteric bacteria appear to exchange genetic material with each other within the gut in which they live. Horizontal gene transfer can occur through the following three of the most common mechanisms:



Transformation (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Transformation)

Transformation has two meanings in molecular biology:
Transformation is the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the introduction, uptake and expression of foreign DNA.
Transformation is also the process by which normal cells are converted into cells that will continue to divide without limit. Normal cells can divide only a certain number of times before they will stop dividing. Cells that have been transformed no longer have such a limit (for example, cancer cells) are able to grow and divide potentially forever.
..... Click the link for more information. , in which cells take up naked DNA, i.e. DNA that is not contained in a cell. This process is relatively common in bacteria, but less common in higher eukaryotes (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/eukaryote)


. Transformation is often used to insert novel genes into bacteria for experiments, or for industrial or medical applications. See also molecular biology (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/molecular%20biology) Molecular biology is the study of biology at a molecular level. The field overlaps with other areas of biology, particularly genetics and biochemistry. Molecular biology chiefly concerns itself with understanding the interactions between the various systems of a cell, including the interrelationship of DNA, RNA and protein synthesis and learning how these interactions are regulated.


.
Transduction (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Transduction) Transduction is the following:


In genetics, transduction (genetics) is the transfer of viral, bacterial, or both bacterial and viral DNA from one cell to another via bacteriophage.
In physiology, transduction (physiology) is transportation of a stimuli to the nervous system.


in which a virus (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/virus) A common alternate meaning of virus is computer virus. Other meanings, as well as a discussion of pluralization, are at plural of virus

A virus is a small particle which can infect other biological organisms. Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites meaning that they can only reproduce by invading and taking over other cells as they lack the cellular machinery for self reproduction. The term
..... Click the link for more information.

or bacteriophage (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/bacteriophage) A phage (also called bacteriophage) is a small virus that infects only bacteria. Like viruses that infect eukaryotes, phages consist of an outer protein hull and the enclosed genetic material (which consists of double-stranded DNA in 95% of the phages known) of 5-650 kbp (kilo base pairs). The vast majority of phages (95%) have a tail to let them inject their genetic material into the host. Phages were discovered independently by Frederick Twort in 1915 and by Félix d’Herelle in 1917.


inserts its genetic material into a cell. This process is used to insert novel genes into higher eukaryotes, where transformation is generally not practical
Conjugation (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Conjugation) Conjugation is the following:


In grammar, conjugation is the modification of a verb from its basic form.
In biology, conjugation is sexual reproduction involving interchange of DNA between cells, rather than their fusion. Various forms of conjugation exist in different groups, such as bacteria (see bacterial conjugation) and ciliates.
In mathematics, the term is used in two senses:
. in which a living bacterial cell donates genetic material to another.
Analysis of DNA sequences (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/sequence) This is a page about mathematics. For other usages of "sequence", see: sequence (non-mathematical). In mathematics, a sequence is a list of objects (or events) which have been ordered in a sequential fashion; such that each member either comes before, or after, every other member. A sequence is a function with a domain equal to the set of positive integers.

The sequence of positive integers is: 1, 2, 3, ...,
..... Click the link for more information.

suggests that horizontal gene transfer has also occurred within eukaryotes, from their chloroplast and mitochondrial genome to their nuclear genome. As stated in the endosymbiotic hypothesis (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/endosymbiotic%20hypothesis) The endosymbiotic hypothesis is a hypothesis about the origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. According to this, these originated as prokaryotic endosymbionts, which came to live inside eukaryotic cells. The hypothesis postulates that the mitochondria evolved from aerobic bacteria (probably proteobacteria, related to the rickettsias), that the chloroplast evolved from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria (autotrophic prokaryotes). The evidence for this theory is compelling as a whole, and it is now generally accepted.
..... Click the link for more information. , chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/endosymbiont) An endosymbiont (also known as intracellular symbiont) is any organism that lives within cells of another organism, i.e. forming an endosymbiosis. For instance, some nitrogen fixing bacteria (e.g. in Rhizobium, Sinorhizobium and Bradyrhizobium) live in plants, and several insect species contain obligate bacterial endosymbionts. Several other examples of endosymbiosis exist.
..... Click the link for more information. of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell. There is also recent evidence that the adzuki bean beetle (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/beetle)
Families
many: see text For alternate meanings see: Beetle (disambiguation)

Beetles (order Coleoptera) are one of the main groups of insects. The order has more species in it than any other order in the entire animal kingdom, followed closely by the butterflies, bees and wasps, and flies. 40% of all animal species are beetles (about 350,000 species), and every day new species are discovered.
..... Click the link for more information.

has somehow acquired genetic material from its (non-beneficial) endosymbiont Wolbachia.

Horizontal gene transfer is a potentially confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/phylogenetic%20tree) A phylogenetic tree is a tree showing the evolutionary interrelationships among various species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor. A phylogenetic tree is a form of cladogram. In a phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and edge lengths correspond to time estimates.

A rooted phylogenetic tree is a directed tree with a unique node corresponding to the (usually imputed) most recent common ancestor of all the entities at the leaves of the tree. Figure 1 depicts a rooted phylogenetic tree, which has been colored according to the three domain system [Woese 1998].
..... Click the link for more information.

based on the sequence (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/sequence) This is a page about mathematics. For other usages of "sequence", see: sequence (non-mathematical). In mathematics, a sequence is a list of objects (or events) which have been ordered in a sequential fashion; such that each member either comes before, or after, every other member. A sequence is a function with a domain equal to the set of positive integers.

The sequence of positive integers is: 1, 2, 3, ...,
..... Click the link for more information.

of one gene (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/gene) The word "gene" is shared by many disciplines, including whole organism-based or classical genetics, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology and population genetics. It has multiple uses within each of these contexts, but in the primary sense, genes are material things that parents pass to offspring during reproduction; these things encode information essential for the construction and regulation of polypeptides, proteins and other molecules essential for the growth and functioning of the organism. This sense, which is common to all of the above disciplines, is also the original historical meaning of gene.
..... Click the link for more information.

. For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene, a phylogenetic tree (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/phylogenetic%20tree) A phylogenetic tree is a tree showing the evolutionary interrelationships among various species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor. A phylogenetic tree is a form of cladogram. In a phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and edge lengths correspond to time estimates.

A rooted phylogenetic tree is a directed tree with a unique node corresponding to the (usually imputed) most recent common ancestor of all the entities at the leaves of the tree. Figure 1 depicts a rooted phylogenetic tree, which has been colored according to the three domain system [Woese 1998].
..... Click the link for more information.

including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same, even though most other genes are substantially diverged. For this reason, it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies, such as the presence or absence of genes.



thanks for the pointer to widen my horizons....

[grmorton]

thanks for the pointer to widen my horizons....

My pleasure

[rmwilliamsjr]

That wasn't what I said, or advocated. I said that genes had crossed species bariers from GM crops. The reason they know this is because the genes were the ones the experimentor put into the crop. It then appears elsewhere.
Being natural is irrelevant to whether or not the gene was borrowed.



A search on: gene transfer genetically modified crops brings up several interesting sites

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice08.htm

Go to google and do a search. or search on horizontal gene transfer
no sooner than i learn something new, then i see it everywhere


ow infection with Typanosomacruzi—an intracellular parasite that can hide out in the cells of the body—results in the development of chronic Chagas disease has been a mystery. Now a study (http://www.cell.com/) in the July 23 Cell reports the integration of T.cruzi DNA into the genomes of infected patients, as well as chicken and rabbit animal models, suggesting that horizontal gene transfer may play a role in T.cruzi host–parasite interactions. T. Cruzi infects some 16 to 18 million people in Latin America, and one third of these infections are estimated to result in chronic Chagas disease (http://www.biomedcentral.com/pubmed/11871482), which may not manifest itself until decades after an initial infection. A "major controversy" in the area of chronic Chagas disease research has been whether the presence of the parasite or an autoimmune reaction is its potential cause, said David Campbell (http://www.mimg.ucla.edu/faculty/campbell/), from the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the Cell study.

[Snarf]

Well, considering the fact that most, if not all, of the European languages are derived from Latin

Language groups in Europe:(not an exhaustive list, and all have many dialects)
Germanic-English, Dutch, Frisian, High German, Low German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish

Latin-Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian (Moldavian?), Romansch (in Switzerland)

Slavic-Czech, Polish, Slovakian, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian

Uralic-Finnish, Hungarian (not Indo-European, related to Turkish)

Baltic-Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian

Greek
Basque and Catalonian (the former not related to any Indo-European langauge, I'm not sure about Catalonian.

Gaelic languages (still spoken in Scotland and Ireland)

Please, anyone correct me if there's some left out. As you can see, Latin-derived languages make up only a small proportion of the number of languages in Europe. Because of the numbers of English and Russian speakers, in terms of speakers the two largest families would be the Germanic and Slavic. Due to the wide extent of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, languages from other families have been influenced by Latin, and vice-versa (which is why French sounds so different from Italian, there was a heavy influence from the earlier Germanic languages).
Bye

[Nicholas]

I stand corrected, I apologize for the mistake.

[rogero]

Language groups in Europe:(not an exhaustive list, and all have many dialects)
Germanic-English, Dutch, Frisian, High German, Low German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish

Latin-Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian (Moldavian?), Romansch (in Switzerland)

Slavic-Czech, Polish, Slovakian, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian

Uralic-Finnish, Hungarian (not Indo-European, related to Turkish)

Baltic-Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian

Greek
Basque and Catalonian (the former not related to any Indo-European langauge, I'm not sure about Catalonian.

Gaelic languages (still spoken in Scotland and Ireland)

Please, anyone correct me if there's some left out. As you can see, Latin-derived languages make up only a small proportion of the number of languages in Europe. Because of the numbers of English and Russian speakers, in terms of speakers the two largest families would be the Germanic and Slavic. Due to the wide extent of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, languages from other families have been influenced by Latin, and vice-versa (which is why French sounds so different from Italian, there was a heavy influence from the earlier Germanic languages).
Bye

Good post!

Isn't Estonian in the Uralic-Finnish group? Latvian and Lithuanian are quite different from Estonian. They're very distantly related to Greek but also have some Slavic and Germanic influences, IIRC.

[Snarf]

Good post!

Isn't Estonian in the Uralic-Finnish group? Latvian and Lithuanian are quite different from Estonian. They're very distantly related to Greek but also have some Slavic and Germanic influences, IIRC.
I just checked that, you're right.