A different take on the theory of evolution

Thank you for both editorials in your Feb. 1 edition of the Kingman Daily Miner.

By airing these ideas, the Kingman Daily Miner performs a valuable community service.

I could add a lot to what Dennis Praeger wrote, but my insights would not be unique.

With respect to the topic of evolution, however, I might have something unique to write.

I was raised in a family that honored Darwin (macro-evolution).

My beloved mother began teaching me about vestigial organs when I was six years old.

It was the only thing I ever heard growing up, at home or in any kind of formal education.

I began the study of linguistics in the autumn of 1968.

After nearly 50 years I can tell you, I still love linguistics. One day as an adult I read an article by a linguist who proposed a theory I had never considered. He suggested if Darwin were true, then language must have evolved from a grunt and a groan into the extraordinarily complex system of syntax, grammar and vocabulary which we speak today.

And if that were true, he continued, logically there must be evidence that somewhere, at sometime, in some place there once was a primitive language. After 50 years in linguistics I can tell you, for certain, there is no such evidence.

Darwin also suggested we evolved from sapiens.

At least we can still observe sapiens running around Earth. Man is not cross-fertile with any of them, which suggests we are not the same species.

But, alas, there are no primitive languages. Never were. Never will be.

Parenthetically, if the editor permits, there are about 4,000 Hebrew cognates in modern English.

The average person has an active vocabulary of somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 words in his or her native language.

Essentially, English is a dialect of ancient Hebrew. Go figure.

Mark J. Ruthenberg

Lieutenant Colonel, USA (retired)