But there are language families, such as Indo-European, (since I am not a linguist, I don’t know the names of other language families off the top of my head and where they originated) which is believed to have its roots in Central Asia and spread to Europe and India. The earliest languages were very simple, perhaps names for animals that hunters would kill for food, and so forth. Then it became necessary to differentiate between the present, the past, and the future.

As various groups of humans settled down and developed agricultural societies, language had to become more complex to convey new ideas. As the populations of the agricultural societies increased, there became a greater specialization of labor, the need for government and for educated people to implement laws, devise a system of taxation for raising revenue. Language became more complex because it needed to be. It adapted to encompass words for new inventions, for passing on information, for calculating the movements of the stars, for developing calendars to predict the coming of the changing seasons and on an on.

Sometimes, a group of people who spoke a common language would become physically separated. While the language of the separated groups would retain similarities, over time they would grow greater as the groups interacted with other societies and incorporate some of their words. The separated groups would also develop their own words to express new things they encountered.

I am an English speaking American. If I were to go to England today, I would have no problem communicating with the people there. Sure, there are different slangs and terminology I would not be accustomed to, such as calling an elevator a “lift” or an apartment a “flat”. But if I were to go back in time to England 1,000 years ago, I would probably have a very difficult time communicating with the natives. Most of them would be English speakers, but of a much older version of the language. Go back another 1,000 years and English is not spoken in the British Isles at all, because the Angles and the Saxons had not yet invaded them. They are somewhere in Northern and Eastern Europe at this time, being one of many Germanic tribes. If I were to encounter the Angles and the Saxons at this time, our languages would probably be mutually unintelligible. But the English I speak today has its roots in the language they spoke 2,000 years ago.

The evolution of languages does not prove the evolution of humans of course, but it is analogous of it.

By the way im an Australian too

“On the other hand, evolution does not give you a gost to worship, and if your not a knowledge seeker, its better to stick with creationism, as it gives the simplest explanation: “god did it”

Evolutionist scientists say “evolution did it” they don’t PROVE evolution did it because there is no scientific proof, they just say it lol Don’t take my word for it go to Hallq’s site and check out the evolution debate under the heading of SocialScientist777 (which you can only access by scrolling down to the February 2006 archives and clicking on it to get all of February). I have just found out that Hallq is a uni student majoring in Biochemistry among other things yet you will see that I have defeated every statement he has made up to this point and he has not been able to produce one credible scientific fact or evidence to support the theory of evolution that can silence my reply or that I cannot repudiate with solid scientific evidence. Bear in mind I am not a scientist I am a social scientist (majoring in counselling, human services, community development etc.) this is how weak the argument for evolution is even an ametuer science buff like me can repudiate it!!