Human Language Origin
Human Language Origin
- Matt Nailor Feb 16th 2019
- Project: Language Origins
This study is vitally important because the conclusion will revolutionize how mankind views their past. Right now history is portrayed as though man slowly progressed over deep time and evolved the ability of language. This data will show you that the statistical probability of this occurring with human language is highly improbable, to the point where you could say it never happened. The implications of my research will have a profound impact on society and how we view our historical past. With new insight never before considered, you are about to witness the collapse of an old system and the rise of a new one.
They tell us man grunted language into existence. But who are “they”? Scientists, that's right. Not linguists who actually study and specialize in language. Are you going to take some paleontologists, zoologists or anthropologists idea’s for human language development from people who know nothing about the subject nor has never studied it? That is not logical. So before I get into why this is impossible developmentally, neurologically, mathematically and statistically that language can not arise on its own. I want you to ask yourself, “why would man wait hundreds of thousands of years before using the same skills of today to record history?”
Speech IS a fundamental part of evolution, even Darwin himself said: “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animals!” So no one can say that language has nothing to do with evolution, it most certainly does. And Linguistics requires intelligence"- Where does it come from? "Language as a code only comes from an intelligence". Although Darwin attempts to explain the rise of language as a part of the evolutionary process in The Descent of Man, he fails miserably. As a result, in the entire debate over the Evolution of man, language—was abandoned, thrown down the memory hole and forgotten. This is why today, language origin is ignored by evolutionists and they so quickly SCREAM, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. But if tomorrow a monkey started talking it would be front-page news and proof of evolution. You need to see the double standard bias these people really have.
So now, let's get into the details of language; What I have noticed from studying stochastic models (a tool for estimating probability distributions of potential outcomes by allowing for random variation in one or more inputs over time), is that human language could not have arisen on its own, and the numbers required for it to have, don't come even close to telling the real story. Anyone can take a look for themselves at ANY of the stochastic models and notice the same. As all of them take into account possibilities of human populations anywhere from as low as 10,000 (as assumed by the world population average 200,000 years ago (World_population_estimates) to as high as 1 million (a high over-estimate).
I am not talking about communication, I am talking specifically about language! Huge Difference.
Keep this in mind, Epoch 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with geology, paleontology or time. It is a period used to denote the transition from non-language (epoch 0) to language (epoch 1). An epoch is a period that represents a state. epoch 0 has no grammar and therefore no language. Epoch 1 is the first use of grammar and accordingly the first use of language. The period between epoch 0 and epoch 1 is not a day, a week, or a year. It is any period, and gradations required for the transition between the states. That is why it's called an epoch and not a year.
Reviewing all possible stochastic models associated with the age of complexity constraints of language acquisition, it is clear that there were not enough people and that human mental development could never have allowed humans to invent language. These models are what have helped me determine this information to be a fact, that no evolutionary theory or debate can get around. I will get into more detail, but for now, I think this first lesson on the Markov processes is far more important to help you understand how this process can be used to show a transition between states (No language to Language) “epochs”.
Draw 2 bubbles side by side. In the left bubble put the letter A. In the right bubble put the letter B. Your bubbles represent states: State A and State B. If we further define the states, we can say that State A represents an epoch of no language and state B represents an epoch of language. We begin with our entire world population in bubble A. They can only move to B if they can pass the burdens associated with the age and complexity constraints which are based on more than 300 years of medical, psychiatric, and linguistic observation. At epoch 0 there aren't enough people in bubble A to overcome the burdens and move to bubble B. And it is not even remotely close. There are a lot of definitions and math associated with the full explanation which I will elaborate a little bit on below, but I do not want this to be boring and get lost on you. In a nutshell, it is a population problem, where language cannot arise on its own. There weren't enough people at epoch 0 to overcome the burdens of the constraints. And people don't get to graduate to bubble B for free. They have to (overcome) pass the constraints. If there weren't enough people to overcome the burdens at epoch 0, then language is not a byproduct of nature. If language is not a byproduct of nature, then language came from somewhere else. If language came from somewhere else, then evolution is false. And because it only takes ONE piece of evidence to falsify the theory of evolution, I have done just that with this irrefutable evidence.
I guess the next best way for me to describe this model is by looking at multiple cases of feral children or totally neglected/isolated children. Specifically let’s look at the data from Genie Wiley's case, mostly because I like this one.
Using Dr. Eric Lenneberg and Professor Susan Curtiss’s work regarding the age and complexity constraints of language acquisition and then applying that data to a small world population (hint all world populations were small until agriculture began), then it forms an infinite no language loop (parent to child to parent to child over and over). And there is no natural exit from the loop. Studies found once a human is in the loop they are trapped. There aren't enough people to overcome the statistical burdens, it's not even remotely close even in a larger population. If it was even in the ballpark, then I would give evolution the benefit of the doubt. But it isn't, and that means there is no natural path to language acquisition. One would need a population size that is sufficient to meet the burdens that are imposed on the population. Language came from somewhere else it seems and nature had nothing to do with it.
You were raised normally which means that you were provided with language stimuli and you met the standards for language fluency before you turned 5 years old. The defining difference between a Language acquisition (L1) and a Second-language acquisition (L2), is the age of the person who learned the language. For example, linguist Eric Lenneberg used second language to mean a language consciously acquired or used by its speaker after puberty. Language is only learned for L2. L1 is not learned. L1 is acquired. And there is a huge difference between learning a language and acquiring a language. Genie was a prime example of that difference. We are not talking about communication here, we are talking about language.
You can use your L1 for the rest of your life to learn any new abstract concepts or for gradations to learn a new language (L2). That is not a challenge. Before there was language, there was no language. The challenge was not to get primitive man to use his L1 (to learn new abstract words). Primitive man would have been like Genie Wiley (no language at all) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child). She had no L1, nor did primitive man. Dr. Eric’s challenge would have been to create grammar because none existed. So you can't compare primitive man's challenges to your ability to use your L1 to learn new abstract things. I have noticed from all the research that abstract words can not be learned after puberty because abstract concepts cannot be learned. The information I have gathered comes from the work of Dr. Lenneberg, and his book “Biological foundations of language” and more than 300 years of medical observations. I am just taking it to the next level and combining it with others’ work and have concluded there is a major problem that is greatly overlooked because the research itself wasn't trying to figure out where language came from, but rather how to teach these poor feral children how to communicate. Which in the end was futile because it's an impossibility.
Nativist Noam Chomsky suggested that acquiring language could not be fully explained by learning alone. Instead, he proposed that children are born with a language acquisition device (LAD), an innate ability to understand the principles of language. Once exposed to language, the LAD allows children to learn the language at a remarkable pace. Linguist Eric Lenneberg suggests that like many other human behaviors, the ability to acquire language is subject to critical periods. A critical period is a limited span of time during which an organism is sensitive to external stimuli and capable of acquiring certain skills. According to Lenneberg, the critical period for language acquisition lasts until around age 13. After the onset of puberty, he argued, the organization of the brain becomes set and no longer able to learn and utilize language in a functional manner.
Again, I'm not saying that people with an L1 can not learn new abstract words. Humans have an L1, so they can learn any new abstract words. Primitive pre-language man did not have an L1 according to the theory of evolution. I'm saying that there is a time limit for homo sapiens to acquire L1 which science has found to be age 13. If they miss that window, no amount of time, money, skills, technology, resources, education, or effort can fix it. If you were language deprived for the first 13 years of your life it can't be fixed, no matter how much time and effort are thrown at the problem you will never learn human language. Language deprived post-pubescent homo sapiens can never become fluent. The ability is forfeited if not acquired before puberty. Primitive man would have had the same limitations but with a much smaller world population. And it would have been statistically impossible for them to exit the loop.
Trying to argue that a certain number of people are not needed to form the first language, only proves that they have never heard of HJ Eysenck and his work with the rarity of creativity (hint creativity is extremely rare. Most people are not creative at all). Most are unfamiliar with the work of Dr. Lenneberg and Professor Susan Curtiss regarding these age and complexity constraints as well. The results are devastating to the theory of evolution of man grunting language into existence.
Sadly today public teachers just irrationally say “all primitive homo sapiens must have been creative”, even though all the evidence says only a tiny percentage are or could have been in the past. I have found that in the academic world they ignore the 300 years of evidence surrounding the age constraints culminating in Dr. Lenneberg's book and they just say “there is no age limit, any language deprived person of any age can acquire L1”. Even though the evidence shows that to be unequivocally wrong. In today's world of the unchallenged theory of evolution, we ignore Professor Curtiss’s work on complexity constraints and just pretend that grammar formation would not have been an immensely complex task for language deprived primitive man. We also ignore that writing worldwide seems to have developed at the same time, farming at the same time, calendars, math, and inventions all just arose out of seemingly nowhere worldwide all at the same time.
When it comes to language, the only way to get around this is to ignore every bit of scientific evidence in this field. Again there is no cutoff point for humans to learn new meanings to words that describe physical objects that can be seen (nouns). However, there IS A HARD CUTOFF POINT for language deprived people to learn abstract words (grammar). That is why no language deprived post-pubescent person has ever been able to achieve fluency.
Words without grammar are just vocabulary. Fluency can not be achieved without grammar. Grammar is what can't be learned by language deprived people after puberty or after 13 years of age. There is a huge difference in a post-puberty person's ability to learn the difference between the words cat vs rain or dog vs yesterday. The words for physical objects are capable for them to learn. But the words for anything abstract are impossible if they are over 13 and language deprived. This same limitation would have had a huge negative effect on primitive man.
Think about this; You can see nouns. You can point to nouns and say the word to teach a language deprived person what a noun is. You can't point at abstract things. Genie Wiley was taught the meanings of hundreds of nouns by James Kent and Susan Curtiss. She never learned the meaning of a single word of grammar. So it's obvious the problem is with the abstract words and thought. The evidence shows that grammar for L1 must be learned before you turn 13. If it is not learned before 13 then you will never learn L1. Noam Chomsky said they threw millions of dollars and spent years trying to teach genie grammar and the most brilliant minds in the world couldn't do it because it is not possible. If it is not possible then when looking for candidates to form the first grammar by primitive man, you have to eliminate everyone over the age of 13 from the model.
The evidence shows that this is an impossibility, man had to have been taught language, exactly what the Bible says. Again people can learn nouns but can contribute nothing to the formation of grammar. And that is 75% of the people NOT including the elimination for complexity. Over 75% are just the people that are too old to contribute. There also has to be elimination based on the evidence of complexity/creativity. Complexity constraints wipes out everybody else. There is no one left that is qualified to be a candidate to form the first language. There were not enough people. Not even close. Logically, mathematically and scientifically this destroys evolution's theory of language formation. Especially considering 100,000 years is the time frame origin of language that these renowned experts like Noam Chomsky, Susan Curtiss, and other leading professional linguists used to calculate this phenomenon. It doesn't matter if it was 2,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, or 200,000,000 years ago. The characteristics of the problem forms an infinite loop from parent to child that contains no natural exit. It is not possible to transition from non-language to language naturally because there is no natural exit from the loop. It is impossible for homo sapiens to transition from non-language to language. Humans have always had a much higher density in our lower jaw, as compared with the top teeth, and this is consistent with spoken language. So we apparently always have had that ability since humans were created. Even secular scientists agree and they hate Creationism.
Without abstract words, grammar doesn't exist. Without grammar, language doesn't exist. And that cutoff occurs around puberty. This single constraint wipes out approximately 75% of the pre-language world and renders them incapable of contributing to the formation of the first language. And unfortunately, that is not the only encumbrance to the formation of the first language. The 2nd constraint wipes out everybody. There are no candidates left to form the first language after the constraints are applied. There weren't enough people, that is the main problem and a fact of the situation. Even if you add 1 billion people to the model, it wouldn't be enough. It’s not about time, either, 900 million years it still wouldn't matter, it's all about population size.
Wolves don't have a language, they have primitive communication techniques. Fish don't have a language. They have primitive communication techniques. No professional linguist would say that wolves possess a language or that fish do because non-humans do not communicate by using language. To be classified as a formal language, grammar must be present. Wolves and dolphins, for example, have no grammar, even my friend’s bird who can pronounce words has no language. Only humans have grammar. So all known fish, birds, primates and wolves can't talk about yesterday or tomorrow or past activities or future activities. They can only make sounds about current activities or base nouns. Only human children possess the ability to learn grammar for L1. Adults then can take their knowledge of L1 and use translations to learn an L2, but no language deprived adult can ever learn grammar without L1. If a person has been deprived of language for the first 13 years of life then it is over.
Other study results found that anatomically speaking, apes and monkeys are perfectly well equipped for humanlike speech even compared with a human! The simulated monkey’s voice sounds flat and gravelly, but the words are clear and comprehensible. They even share the same broca and wernicke regions of the brain responsible for speech and language called area 44 and F5 https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/brocas-and-wernickes-areas. Then why can’t they speak? Because their brain is not the same as ours! Not the so-called larynx location vocal cords & larynx muscles which they have been lying to you about. We were created differently and nothing can change that. They can never reach L1, their brains are only able to comprehend basic epoch 0 (nouns). The same applies to apes and sign language. They tell you that apes can talk to us easily using sign language. Well, the best to ever live and the most popular ape “Koko”, does not have attributes that any linguists would say is language. There is a big leap between "communication" and "language." There is no evidence that her signs used consistent syntactic rules. She seemed not to be able to talk about the past or future or things that were not present. She strung words together, and Dr. Patterson would rephrase them to be coherent, or simply say what she believed Koko meant. Koko would communicate about food by, for example, pointing to something in Dr. Patterson's pocket and signing about eating. Koko's use of words were the exact same as Genie, the girl who was raised until about 13 without language, and who learned words but not the other aspects of language. Like Koko, she would string words together to get some meaning across without actually creating sentences. In reality, Koko was the best ape in history at sign language and in those experiments, she only mastered 50-100 words, though they taught her 2,000 and to sign 1000.
Koko and other apes signing is not truly linguistic. For example, when shown a picture of a swan, Koko is reported to have said "water bird". The researchers claim that this is the "name" Koko gave to what she was seeing. However, with the new research proving L1 is not achievable, it actually just proves that Koko was simply describing what she saw in the picture: water and a bird. Much of the research results appear to be the result of confirmation bias (what the researchers WANT to see is interpreted as being so) rather than actual evidence that these animals are not producing true linguistic forms at all.
It is significant as well that almost every Deaf person involved in this research with animal sign language has left this work, because most deaf people refuse to ascribe linguistic capability to uncertain evidence, and are almost always overruled by non-native Hearing supervisors of this research in order to justify their research. Of course, in the movies, TV and tabloids, signing apes are always portrayed as being more linguistically competent than they really are in life, which gives the general public a misunderstanding of what is truly happening with this research. In reality, even the most gifted of apes (such as Koko) have never mastered ASL beyond the level of an infant. Whether it is in sign language, or in your theoretical vocal transplant, the apes have not, and never will, master human language.
They begrudgingly admit this “Talking birds and signing apes rank among the most fantastic claims in the literature on language evolution, but examination of the evidence shows fundamental differences between child language acquisition and nonhuman species’ use of language and language-like systems. For instance, dogs can respond to a few hundred words, but only after thousands of hours of training; children acquire words rapidly and spontaneously generalize their usage in a wide range of contexts. Similarly, Nim Chimpsky, the chimpanzee that produced the only public corpus of data in all animal language studies, produced signs considerably below the expected degree of combinatorial diversity seen in two-year old children, and with no understanding of syntactic structure or semantic interpretation. Though these studies are of potential interest to understanding the acquisition of specialized, artificial skills — akin to our learning a computer language — they do not inform understanding of language evolution.”
They conclude: “For now, the evidence from comparative animal behavior provides little insight into how our language phenotype evolved. The gap between us and them is simply too great to provide ANY understanding of evolutionary precursors or the evolutionary processes (e.g., selection) that led to change over time.”
I feel like I should mention that most Deaf people find the use of signed language with primates to be insulting. This is because since the middle of the 1800s, Oralists (people against the use of signed languages in the education of Deaf people) have justified Oralism by stating, among other things, that the use of sign language is an evolutionary throwback to when humans (cavemen, Neanderthals, etc) did not communicate through speech, and used gestures. Modern-day Oralists will often use the research on primates to assert a claim that if "monkeys can learn sign language, then that goes to show signed languages are not true languages, since language (meaning spoken language) is what separates humans from animals". Of course, this is far from the truth, but it brings up a painful history that we are still trying (without much success) to overcome.
Remember, it is not about communication, we can communicate with a dog. It’s about language formation, not simple communication skills. To argue and say early man primates had nouns, and all they had to do was add verbs is now proven wrong! And to argue that children could have formed the first language is also wrong because the cut off was age 13, maximum. Man had to be taught language, and the Bible says exactly that. And considering ancient Paleo Hebrew “Adam’s language” which has all mathematical, pictorial, descriptive and diverse to the highest degree of all languages, it is not logical that apes nor children developed this. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_edenics.html
To argue that Numbers have nothing to do with it is also 100% wrong. The number of people has everything to do with it because you need a population size that is sufficient to meet the burdens that are imposed on the population. How many people there are on earth affects the probability of everything we do. Consider this logic. A world with 3 billion people is statistically far better odds to send a man to the moon than a world with only 3 million people. A world with 3 million people is far more likely to have knowledge of mathematics than a world with only 3,000 people, etc.. Saying that there aren't enough people also doesn't mean zero probability. It means extremely low probability. For zero probability you can throw all the people that ever existed at a problem and it won’t change the fact that it is still zero probability. If you had ever taken a stats course then you would know this. With words, we know statistics play a huge factor as well because its an empirical law under Zipfian distribution called power-law probability distributions. The amazing thing about this law is that it shows no matter what language humans speak, “the” “of” and “and” are the 3 most used words in existence.
Another good thing about language is that we actually have specific detailed data based on more than 300 years of medical observations (not theory) that we can use to build a Markov process and then apply that process to the population size that evolutionary biologists believe existed back then. The Markov process shows there weren't enough people. And it isn't even remotely close. Even if we add 1 billion people to the model, it fails completely… https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~roni/papers/survey-slm-IEEE-PROC-0004.pdf. So again, Nouns are still able to be learned, but grammar becomes an impossibly heavy lift that no language deprived teenager or adult has ever been able to lift. If the evidence shows this to be an impossible task for any language deprived person that is over 13 years old, then all people that are over 13 must be eliminated from pre-human language models because the evidence shows that it would have been impossible for them to contribute to the formation of the first grammar. But the problem doesn't stop there. The children that are below 13 have to pass the constraints to be candidates to form the first grammar. If you wanted to see how many people in a group can bench press 1,000 lbs you would look at empirical evidence to determine how common of an event this would be. You would then take your discovered evidence and apply it to the group in question to make a prediction about how many could bench press 1,000 lbs. You wouldn't just say “well my test group has 1,000 people in it, so I think all of them can bench press 1,000 pounds.” If bench pressing 1,000 lbs is a rare event, that fewer than 1 out of every 10,000,000 people can perform, then you would need a very large test population to find the 1 person to make the lift. If you only had a test group of 20 people, you wouldn't expect the lift to be successful. It would be extremely statistically improbable for a random test group of size 20 to produce someone capable of performing the lift. This is analogous to the language "lift" you are imposing on the small world population at epoch 1 (Early Earth's population). It is a statistical extreme improbability that contradicts all of the available scientific and mathematical evidence. There weren't enough people and it’s not even close.
The SPECIFIC problems that language has arising on its own, make it impossible for homo sapiens to transition from non-language to formal language because an infinite loop is formed that contains no natural exit. And that infinite loop is caused by very specific problems. The model even uses a 100,000 years ago base, as the origin of language because that is when renowned experts like Noam Chomsky, Susan Curtiss, and other leading professional linguists believe it began. The amazing part is, when it actually began doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it was 200,000 years ago or if it was 6,000 years ago. The characteristics of the problem forms an infinite loop from parent to child that contains no natural exit. It is not possible to transition from non-language to language naturally because there is no natural exit from the loop. Once humans are in the loop they are trapped there. There is no natural way out of the loop.
RECAP; All of the evidence above is paired from medical observations of isolated, abused, neglected, and feral children worldwide, with population estimates from evolutionary biologists, which shows that there is a huge mathematical problem. Without abstract words, grammar doesn't exist. Without grammar, language doesn't exist. And that cutoff occurs before, or at puberty (age 13). This single constraint wipes out approximately 75% of the pre-language world population and renders them incapable of contributing to the formation of the first language. And unfortunately, that is not the only encumbrance to the formation of the first language. The 2nd constraint wipes out everybody. There are no candidates left to form the first language after the constraints are applied. The case files of Genie Wiley alone contain objective evidence that destroys evolution theory. And to say this doesn't qualify as evolution, it absolutely does, both the evolution of language and on humans themselves as homo-sapiens are the focus of the study.
At epoch 0 (Let’s give it approximately 100,000 years ago for the benefit of the doubt) there were not enough people on earth to overcome the burdens of the age and complexity constraints and out of hundreds of years and thousands of cases of neglected, abused, traumatized and feral children. Since observations and study began in 1644, not a single case of a child over the age of 13 has ever been able to learn language. And that is not based on creationism or any religious belief. This is all based on medical observations over the past 250+ years. Based on the accepted criteria for falsifying evolution theory by professional scientists, this problem meets that criteria, because for evolution to be true, there has to be a natural path to everything that all species possess.
Knowing all of this, imagine now the idea that propagates today that humans unconnected worldwide all managed to form language independently and roughly at the same time without knowledge of one another. Utter nonsense and this falsifies the concept that language arose on its own and that man grunted it into existence. Evolution falsified once again with observable facts.
Demonstrating a failure in heritability, selection, variation or Quantitative linguistics (QL) is a sub-discipline of general linguistics and, more specifically, of mathematical linguistics... QL is empirically based on the results of language statistics by itself disproves evolution. Darwinists don’t realize or want to acknowledge this. Most actually think that to disprove evolution requires disproving just the supporting evidence. But real scientists know that to disprove the theory only requires a single successful challenge against it and then the theory becomes untenable.
As you should know now, even Darwin himself acknowledged language is the major factor in human evolution and I have given verifiable, testable, provable, observable evidence that has 100% falsified the theory of evolution. Considering evolution predicts everything so that it can never be falsified, that's pretty incredible, wouldn't you say? For those of you who think this doesn't and it's too trivial, you are wrong. Falsifying something is basically evidence to prove the current concept wrong. Something small and seemingly insignificant will also do the trick. If someone is accused of a crime, all it takes is a single piece of evidence, no matter however small and seemingly insignificant, which proves the person's innocence or guilt to nullify the thousands of other pieces of evidence.
Highly trained police officers and highly experienced police detectives are forever at risk of falling victim to their belief bias when it comes to evaluating evidence that proves a suspect's guilt; just as the general population and scientists themselves are forever at risk of falling victim to their belief bias when it comes to evaluating evidence for evolution. They go in already assuming evolution is true and then look for evidence to prove it to continue getting grant money. That's not science, that is a joke.
We can look at the Beginning of this research and find that ten such children all the way back in 1735 and a few even back in the 1600s have helped us conclude that the cut off for being able to ever learn language is 12 to 13, it could be even younger (since puberty range is 8-13) but we so far have no one younger to study, and let’s hope it stays that way for the children's sake. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/curtiss/1974%20-%20The%20development%20of%20language%20in%20Genie.pdf
Marc D. Hauser et al puts it perfectly in their study titled; The mystery of language evolution. When stated “Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved. We show that, to date, (1) studies of nonhuman animals provide virtually no relevant parallels to human linguistic communication, and none to the underlying biological capacity; (2) the fossil and archaeological evidence does not inform our understanding of the computations and representations of our earliest ancestors, leaving details of origins and selective pressure unresolved; (3) our understanding of the genetics of language is so impoverished that there is little hope of connecting genes to linguistic processes any time soon; (4) all modeling attempts have made unfounded assumptions, and have provided no empirical tests, thus leaving any insights into language's origins unverifiable. Based on the current state of evidence, we submit that the most fundamental questions about the origins and evolution of our linguistic capacity remain as mysterious as ever, with considerable uncertainty about the discovery of either relevant or conclusive evidence that can adjudicate among the many open hypotheses. We conclude by presenting some suggestions about possible paths forward.”
Since science deals with p-value which is statistical hypothesis testing, of what the probability value is for a given statistical model, the probability that, when the null hypothesis is true - the statistical summary would be greater than or equal to the actual observed results. That said, all evidence shows that human language formation cannot arise on its own and because of p-value, stochastic models have all falsified the theory of evolution regarding language formation. Thus by the criteria put forth by science which is capable of falsifying a theory. Then scientifically, human language evolution is falsified and the Bible is correct again.
All 6 known theories of human language origin (https://mentalfloss.com/article/48631/6-early-theories-about-origin-language) have just been dispelled. With actual testable, repeatable, observable science in well over 300 years. Man never grunted language into existence and it’s impossible for primates to ever learn language. If you were able to prove any of this work wrong, then you’re in line for a Nobel Prize, because it would change everything! This is why I said in the beginning, I won't hold my breath for you to debunk me. No one has, and no one can.
The Creation story tells us that Adam was Created by God, and Adam’s mind would have been like an empty child's. Notice what Scripture tells us what God let Adam do “Adam gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.” Gen 2:20. Notice Adam was using nouns, perhaps this is how God even taught Adam eventual Grammar.
Special Thanks Dr. Eric Lenneberg & Professor Susan Curtiss for this current research into language development http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TPonawWuW8gJ:cbsd.org/cms/lib010/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/2100/Genie%2520Wiley%2520Reading%2520and%2520Documentary%2520Questions%2520-%2520Copy.docx+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usThe mystery of language evolution Marc D. Hauser,1 et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019876/