Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216926 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118714 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheers!
Good point .... uhhh pint.
Pints? I thought you are above perfect. The Grammar School thing.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118715 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Denmark and northern Germany (now how many times have I said this? 20 times?)
And Anglo-Saxon is generally considered to be the first stage of English. That is why linguists also call it "Old-English". Anglo-Saxon and Old-English are the same thing, they are synonyms. Old-English was until ~1000 mutually intelligible with the Old-Saxon spoken in Denmark and Northern Germany at those times. That's why German, Dutch and English are RELATED languages. They share the same ancestral language.
Hence, English (the language in its subsequent stages) did not start in England but was taken to England by the Jutes, Angles and Saxons in the form of Anglo-Saxon. And while Anglo-Saxon is considered by modern linguistics to be the first stage of the English language, English does not originate from England. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon spoken at the mainland of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon spoken of England are were too close.
Or, in other words, the Anglo-Saxon FIRST developed in Denmark and northern Germany and THEN was taken to England with the migrating Germanic tribes, where it continued to be spoken for several centuries until the Norman evasions brought French, which caused Anglo-Saxon to develop into Middle-English.
I have been repeating this, I repeat, England was not in existence then, it was named England by the same tribes that left Main land Europe. All languages were influenced including French.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118716 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not one clue about language development.
Latin was taken to France, Spain and Portugal up to Romania by the Romans when they conquered those areas. They superimposed their language and all the people there eventually dropped their own languages and started to speak Latin. But in France the original language was Gaulish, a Celtic language. In Spain and Portugal several languages were spoken: also Celtic but also several neolithic languages. Bask is one of the latter because it is not related to any of the other European, Semitic or Berber languages in the surrounding regions.
Later, after the collapse of the Roman empire, mainly Germanic tribes went on the move. They managed to migrate to all edges of Europe: Russia, Germany, Middle-Europe, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and even North-Africa. They also brought with them their languages. French, basically, is a Romance language. But is has acquired many words of Gaulish and Germanic origin.
If a native speaker of Celtic learned to speak Latin ,you get other results than the ones speaking neolithic languages. They bring in their own words and their tongue. This influence by the original languages is called substratum language. They even will influence the grammar.
Hence, the Latin brought by the Romans to Spain, France, etc. developed in different languages in the centuries thereafter.
The same happened with German and Danish.
Danish is a case apart. Until 1000 mainly West-Germanic dialects were spoken in Denmark, like Saxon and Jutish (dialects of the same language). From 737, there was a migration from the eastern islands to the mainland (still called "Jutland"). Those immigrants spoke Old-Norse. It was Old-Norse that eventually developed into Danish. Therefore Danish today belongs to the north-branch of the Germanic languages. Hence, modern Danish developed out of Old-Norse rather than out Saxon or Jutish dialects.
German developed out of a mix of several Germanic dialects.
German started with the so called High German consonant shift. This shift took place in the southern part of nowadays Germany, in the Alemannic dialects. It started between the 3rd and 5th century and was finished in the 9th century. The cause it the influence of Gallo-Romance. The southern parts of Germany were former Celtic areas, and the vicinity of Gaul (nowadays France) was tangible. Moreover, in Switzerland (today 70% German speaking) the Helvetti lived, a Celtic tribe.
The High German consonant shift gradually advanced to the north. Eventually it also affected the Saxon speaking population in the north and east. From that moment a definite split between Anglo-Saxon and Old-High-German occurred.
It is astonishing that you do not even realize how modern languages evolved.
The Dominant language in France even though there may be other, is French. There is no evidence but historical evidence of English in that part. But to this very day , that evidence is seen in England.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118717 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that language went into extinction in Denmark and Germany only to be preserved in England.
No it didn't went "extinct".
The old Germanic dialects spoken in northern Europe SPLIT UP.
Modern English is as different from those old 4th century dialects than modern German.

Compare it with family relations: when a couple brings forth children, those children are related but they all differ in the same time. That will be comparable with the related Germanic languages of the 4th century, which were:
- Scandinavian
- East-Germanic
- North-Sea Germanic (also called Ingveonic)
- Elbe-Germanic (also called Hermionic).

Those four languages were still pretty mutually ineligible. Something like differences between modern Norse, Danish and Swedish, which with some effort, understand each other. But the differences are to distinct to not call them different languages.

Those children also will bring forth children. This will produce cousins. They are still family but differ more from each other than brothers and sisters. In terms of language:
- Scandinavian basically was Proto-Norse which developed into later Norse, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic)
- East-Germanic developed in later Gothic and Burgundian (all extinct)
- North-Sea Germanic, basically had two main dialects: Frisian and Anglo-Saxon and gave raise to modern English, Dutch and Frisian.
- Elbe-Germanic which eventually underwent High-German consonant shifts and became modern German.

The High-German consonant shifts emerged in the very southern Alemannic dialects of the Elbe-Germanic and spread to the north, when it eventually also swallowed the Saxon dialects.

The tribes which migrated to England escaped from this consonant shift and underwent its own influences (French, Brittonic substrates, etc.). that's why English became a different language from German (but still is categorized as "West-Germanic"). Dutch emerged also by escaping the high German consonant shift.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118718 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The Dominant language in France even though there may be other, is French. There is no evidence but historical evidence of English in that part. But to this very day , that evidence is seen in England.
Irrelevant.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118719 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> English is the language of England, yes the Danes and Germans are close cousins to the English, they were one and the same people before the changes, English to this very day despite its many influences still remain, English.
Again a completely irrelevant post not addressing the subject.
You are lacking any understanding of language development altogether.
Basically you are tattling about things you have no clue of.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118720 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are indeed a noise maker, who are you? What do you think you have, that is making you to be proud? Now listen and listen very good, the language of England is English? True. What about Germany and Denmark? False. So, your conclusions based on that is false. Period.
COMPLETELY irrelevant post.
Your posts are getting worse with every new one.
There is no level below Kindergarten.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118721 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Crap. If you want to go by that analogy, English did not started in that place you claimed, it started from the East or far east, those tribes were barbarians that migrated to mainland Europe and later to Britain.
Muddle headed crap and rubbish.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#118722 Jul 19, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Devo fan, huh?
Abject lack of understanding of what evolution is; noted.
Lol - De-evolution of man. Good one.

I met those guys years ago in Coconut Grove, Fl. Funny this is they really believed in the whole de-evolution thing. Crazy times...
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118723 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't, but a biologist could. We know that many people cannot drink milk. The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
<quoted text>
I can't, but a biologist could. We know that many people cannot drink milk. The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
Or a case where a mutation is both positive and negative, I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
<quoted text>
The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
.
This is like saying cancer is recent, because we didn't record the data earlier. How do you know this wasn't termed colic?
.
Also the loss of ability is not supporting evolution.
.
<quoted text>
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
.
Are you going to be able to show that the bacteria didn't have the ability to metabolize nylon prior to the discovery?
What testing was done on the bacteria prior to its discovery?
.
<quoted text>
I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
.
How could a mutation that has caused most of those who have it be considered a positive mutation?
.
<quoted text>
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
Its not a persistence in not understanding it is questioning the conclusions and testing to show that these things actually happen. So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed.
.
Answer this one question. How could the12 million genetic changes needed to distinguish a chimpanzee from a human happened in only 6 million years?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#118724 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
.
This is like saying cancer is recent, because we didn't record the data earlier. How do you know this wasn't termed colic?
.
Also the loss of ability is not supporting evolution.
.
<quoted text>
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
.
Are you going to be able to show that the bacteria didn't have the ability to metabolize nylon prior to the discovery?
What testing was done on the bacteria prior to its discovery?
.
<quoted text>
I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
.
How could a mutation that has caused most of those who have it be considered a positive mutation?
.
<quoted text>
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
Its not a persistence in not understanding it is questioning the conclusions and testing to show that these things actually happen. So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed.
.
Answer this one question. How could the12 million genetic changes needed to distinguish a chimpanzee from a human happened in only 6 million years?
It isn't the loss of anything. Some populations have gained the ability to digest milk through mutation.

Sickle cell is a positive mutation because those heterozygous for the trait are provided protection from malaria. This is information easily found on the web. You could look it up yourself.

Since nylon is a synthetic material. It was invented in 1939. So, the question you would have to answer is why would a bacteria have a gene for enzyme active on a material it never encountered until after 1939.

Why wouldn't loss of function or structure not be part of evolution? In fact, it is. Parasites or troglobytic organisms have lost certain functions and/or structures and are highly adapted organisms.

Given all the questions and the kind of questions you ask, do you think you are up to the task of critically evaluating data on evolution?

For one thing the difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes is not based solely on changes that have occurred in our genome. The chimpanzee genome has experienced mutations as well. Even if all these 12,000,000 differences did come from humans alone, it would only be a couple of mutations a year, which is an order a magnitude below what we experience.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118726 Jul 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It isn't the loss of anything. Some populations have gained the ability to digest milk through mutation.
Sickle cell is a positive mutation because those heterozygous for the trait are provided protection from malaria. This is information easily found on the web. You could look it up yourself.
Since nylon is a synthetic material. It was invented in 1939. So, the question you would have to answer is why would a bacteria have a gene for enzyme active on a material it never encountered until after 1939.
Why wouldn't loss of function or structure not be part of evolution? In fact, it is. Parasites or troglobytic organisms have lost certain functions and/or structures and are highly adapted organisms.
Given all the questions and the kind of questions you ask, do you think you are up to the task of critically evaluating data on evolution?
For one thing the difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes is not based solely on changes that have occurred in our genome. The chimpanzee genome has experienced mutations as well. Even if all these 12,000,000 differences did come from humans alone, it would only be a couple of mutations a year, which is an order a magnitude below what we experience.
.
<quoted text>
It isn't the loss of anything. Some populations have gained the ability to digest milk through mutation.
.
How do you know that some of the population hasn't LOST the ability to digest lactose?
.
<quoted text>
Sickle cell is a positive mutation because those heterozygous for the trait are provided protection from malaria. This is information easily found on the web. You could look it up yourself.
.
You assume that I am not familiar with this. Regardless (even if this is a positive mutation) if the bearers of sickle cell are dying off and these genes are not passed on to non-sickle cell victims it is a dead end genetically and no positive benefit will be realized.
.
<quoted text>
Since nylon is a synthetic material. It was invented in 1939. So, the question you would have to answer is why would a bacteria have a gene for enzyme active on a material it never encountered until after 1939.
.
How about the enzyme can metabolize other materials, nylon just happens to be metabolized also. Since no test was made on the bacteria, we don't know if it had the ability before nylon was invented or not. What you have is an assumption, not tested science.
.
<quoted text>
Why wouldn't loss of function or structure not be part of evolution? In fact, it is. Parasites or troglobytic organisms have lost certain functions and/or structures and are highly adapted organisms.
.
Firstly you need to argue with Big Al on this as he (I believe) asserted evolution goes one way only. If we have a loss we are devolving (if I can make up a term). If this is possible who is to say that the fossil record is not showing a gain as assumed?
.
Secondly it was my argument that if evolution is random chance then there is a possibility of losing gains made while we are waiting for the multitude of changes needed to evolve from one kind to another.
.
Do you have data showing how many mutations are occurring each year? Remember also that the mutations must be significant enough to accumulate to make a change from an ape to a human. So neutral or negative mutations would not be expected to make any difference in changing an ape to a human. These mutations MUST also be passed on.
.
While I was looking up data on the difference between a chimp and a human I came across a study which showed we have more in common genetically with cattle than a chimp. Are we to conclude then we evolved from cattle?
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v44/n8/extre... page 10
.
<quoted text>
Given all the questions and the kind of questions you ask, do you think you are up to the task of evaluating data on evolution?
.
This seems the typical answer of evolutionists...you can't understand so we will give you straw for answers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118727 Jul 19, 2014
messainic, please don't try to argue from idiocy. You were give facts and figures and links. Go back and read them until you understand them. If you need a clarification on a point ask for it.

Please don't ask questions that show you did not look at the materials already given.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#118728 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Removed for space.
Because we know the mutations that result in the trait. Molecular techniques allow us to identify genes you know.

I am not assuming anything. I am drawing conclusions based on the evidence of your posts.

Nylonase is specific to the substrate nylon. What we have is an excellent example of evolution in the laboratory. It not only satisfies your unwarranted need for a mutation to create new function, it poses no known harm to the bacteria.

Who is Big Al? You mentioned it and I explained that it isn't so. A loss is still evolution. I realize this seems a difficult concept for fundamentalists/creationists/I Dists, but that is the way it works. The loss of function or structure is driven by natural selection and provides an advantage for organism that has the loss. Addition of structure is more commonly known, but it is not alone in what constitutes evolution. A pickup truck can have a camper shell, but a race truck doesn't need one. It would be a disadvantage if it had one.

Again, you provide evidence that I am drawing conclusions about your knowledge and not making assumptions. You say our knowledge of the fossil record is assumption because you don't understand what we know and it isn't to your advantage to acknowledge the facts. Our understanding of the fossil record is based on the evidence. The horse lineage for instance, is represented by the tiny, four toed Hyrocatherium, then you see a reduction to three toes in the later and larger Merychippus and finally the modern horse with the largest size and a single toe. This example is overly simplified for space, but is clearly seen in the fossil record.

Evolution is not solely random as has been explained on this forum so often it is ridiculous that the claim keeps popping up. Natural selection is not a completely random mechanism. Still chance does have a play and it is possible that an organism with a beneficial mutation might be lost before the mutation can be fixed. It would be a much lest probable event that a population with the advantageous mutation fixed would lose it and continue on. If the mutation is advantageous it is under the protection of natural selection. However, most organisms that have ever lived are extinct so it does happen due to extinction events. But if your remote ancestors become extinct, well you should be able figure that out.

Your closing statement is typical of the straw man arguments posed by those ignorant of the science, biased to their preconceived notions and with no better imagination than to pick tired insults to throw.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118729 Jul 20, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>

(The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.)

This is like saying cancer is recent, because we didn't record the data earlier. How do you know this wasn't termed colic?
Because in genetics we can estimate the age of mutations.
It is too extensive to explain here, you might read this one: http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/slatkin/monty/Sla...
wrote:
<quoted text>
Also the loss of ability is not supporting evolution.
Unless the ability serves no useful function WITHIN THE CHANGED ENVIRONMENT of the species. For instance, some Mexican cave fish lost their eyesight because in complete darkness they don't need them.
They lost them because growing eyes costs energy and usurps brain capacity that better can be used for other things. For instance, growing very sensitive sensors detecting movement and vibrations. Like those fish did.
They also lost them because unused eyes are prone to infections. When they still could see, the advantage of eye sights compensated the risk of infections. When it's dark, only the disadvantageous infections remain - better to get rid of those eyes then. First by overgrowing them by the eye lids then by gradual dystrophy. All these stages are observed in the different Mexican cave fish species.
wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to be able to show that the bacteria didn't have the ability to metabolize nylon prior to the discovery?
Yes we do. The reason that it indeed was an innovation is that nylon didn't exist until 1937. It is an artificial, man made substance.

It is impossible for bacteria to have the ability to metabolize substances that do not exist.
wrote:
<quoted text>
(sickle cell anemia).

How could a mutation that has caused most of those who have it be considered a positive mutation?
The mutation that causes sickle cell anaemia also happens to bring a better resistance against malaria. Evolution often is a bargain between advantageous and disadvantageous effects of traits.

In areas where malaria is a big threat, the scale tips in the direction of a high prevalence of sickle cell anaemia. We indeed observe this in areas where malaria haunts. Apparently the advantage of not catching malaria exceeds the disadvantage of anaemia. When malaria isn't much of a threat, for instance in Europe, the scale tips in the direction of a low prevalence of sickle cell anaemia. Because the disadvantages of sickle cell in absence of malaria prevail.

As a matter of fact, the differences in sickle cell prevalence between different regions along with the incidence of malaria, is a perfect example of evolutionary processes.
wrote:
<quoted text>
(creatards will persist in not understanding.)

Its not a persistence in not understanding it is questioning the conclusions and testing to show that these things actually happen. So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed.

Answer this one question. How could the12 million genetic changes needed to distinguish a chimpanzee from a human happened in only 6 million years?
I am getting fed up by your deceit.
For instances, the last question about the genetic differences between humans and chimps have been EXTENSIVELY and VERY ADEQUATELY addressed by at least THREE persons in the following posts:
-#118408 (SubductionZone)
-#118409 (Dude)
-#118410 (me)
-#118417 (dude again).

"So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed." is a lie, nothing more.

Moreover, these 4 posts (and others as well) are not rebutted by you.

The only thing you do is jump to the very next questions.

Is this your style of debating?

It's time to ASK YOU questions.
I promise you it will be embarrassing for you.

The first one will be: go to the posts mentioned above and ANSWER those.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118730 Jul 20, 2014
SubductionZone wrote:
<quoted text><answering Messianic
Dude wrote:
<quoted text><answering Messianic
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text><answering Messianic
We are walking with eyes wide open and in our right mind into the trap of creationism.

WE (creationists) ask the questions. YOU answer.
WE don't have any questions to answer because it all is in the bible. Goddidit suffices.
WE pose you questions and WE decide whether we rebut the answers.
If question 1 is answered WE ask the next question. If question 2 is answered, we pose question 3. If question 3 is answered, we pose question 4. If question 4 is answered, we pose question 5. If question 5 is answered, we pose question 6. If question 6 is answered, we pose question 7. If question 7 is answered, we pose question 8. If question 8 is answered, we pose question 9. If question 9 is answered, we pose question 10. If question 10 is answered, we pose question 11. If question 11 is answered, we pose question 12. If question 12 is answered, we pose question 13. If question 13 is answered, we pose question 14.... ad libitum.

And, of course, no answer will be rebutted.

Shall we put an end to this?
It is very easy, here are the rules of decent, public debate:
1) if you pose a question, rebut the answers
2) answers are substantial and on topic
3) questions are no valid answer
4) no fallacies allowed.

My last question to Messianic was: answer the issues raised in posts #118408,#118409,#118410 and #118417.

DON'T keep on answering the echo well.
DON'T keep on satisfying their never ending mission to discover flaws in evolution theory.
Because it will last until ALL imaginable subjects and details in modern biology, geology, paleontology, genetics and biochemistry have been covered. And after having done that, they just say (see KAB) "no, it's in the bible".

It is a clash between 21st scientific thinking and bronze age 5th century BC mythology.

As you see with KAB, YOU starting to ask the questions ends up in flabbergast.

It is OUR turn to ask the questions.
Let's start with mine. Or if someone even has a betterone, mention it.
From there we reset the debate. And one advise: do not accept ONE diversion. Nail him to the obligation to answer. Enjoy the course.

Agree?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118732 Jul 20, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol - De-evolution of man. Good one.
I met those guys years ago in Coconut Grove, Fl. Funny this is they really believed in the whole de-evolution thing. Crazy times...
Some of us remember disco. Dancing around flickering lights to heavy drum beats with costumes on... Perhaps they had a case.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118733 Jul 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No it didn't went "extinct".
The old Germanic dialects spoken in northern Europe SPLIT UP.
Modern English is as different from those old 4th century dialects than modern German.
Compare it with family relations: when a couple brings forth children, those children are related but they all differ in the same time. That will be comparable with the related Germanic languages of the 4th century, which were:
- Scandinavian
- East-Germanic
- North-Sea Germanic (also called Ingveonic)
- Elbe-Germanic (also called Hermionic).
Those four languages were still pretty mutually ineligible. Something like differences between modern Norse, Danish and Swedish, which with some effort, understand each other. But the differences are to distinct to not call them different languages.
Those children also will bring forth children. This will produce cousins. They are still family but differ more from each other than brothers and sisters. In terms of language:
- Scandinavian basically was Proto-Norse which developed into later Norse, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic)
- East-Germanic developed in later Gothic and Burgundian (all extinct)
- North-Sea Germanic, basically had two main dialects: Frisian and Anglo-Saxon and gave raise to modern English, Dutch and Frisian.
- Elbe-Germanic which eventually underwent High-German consonant shifts and became modern German.
The High-German consonant shifts emerged in the very southern Alemannic dialects of the Elbe-Germanic and spread to the north, when it eventually also swallowed the Saxon dialects.
The tribes which migrated to England escaped from this consonant shift and underwent its own influences (French, Brittonic substrates, etc.). that's why English became a different language from German (but still is categorized as "West-Germanic"). Dutch emerged also by escaping the high German consonant shift.
Despite the Many influences of ENGLISH Language , the language of the ENGLISH still remain dominant. That is the reason why instead of been absorbed it is absorbing others. Those in England preserved it to this very unlike their German and Danish counterparts.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118734 Jul 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No it didn't went "extinct".
The old Germanic dialects spoken in northern Europe SPLIT UP.
Modern English is as different from those old 4th century dialects than modern German.
Compare it with family relations: when a couple brings forth children, those children are related but they all differ in the same time. That will be comparable with the related Germanic languages of the 4th century, which were:
- Scandinavian
- East-Germanic
- North-Sea Germanic (also called Ingveonic)
- Elbe-Germanic (also called Hermionic).
Those four languages were still pretty mutually ineligible. Something like differences between modern Norse, Danish and Swedish, which with some effort, understand each other. But the differences are to distinct to not call them different languages.
Those children also will bring forth children. This will produce cousins. They are still family but differ more from each other than brothers and sisters. In terms of language:
- Scandinavian basically was Proto-Norse which developed into later Norse, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic)
- East-Germanic developed in later Gothic and Burgundian (all extinct)
- North-Sea Germanic, basically had two main dialects: Frisian and Anglo-Saxon and gave raise to modern English, Dutch and Frisian.
- Elbe-Germanic which eventually underwent High-German consonant shifts and became modern German.
The High-German consonant shifts emerged in the very southern Alemannic dialects of the Elbe-Germanic and spread to the north, when it eventually also swallowed the Saxon dialects.
The tribes which migrated to England escaped from this consonant shift and underwent its own influences (French, Brittonic substrates, etc.). that's why English became a different language from German (but still is categorized as "West-Germanic"). Dutch emerged also by escaping the high German consonant shift.
Wrong, they did not went to ENGLAND, BUT TO BRITAIN. It was in Britain, that part invaded was changed to England.
The language remained English to this very day , despite its many influences. This was not so in Germany and Denmark.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118735 Jul 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant.
You said they were other languages in France and i showed it to you, that French still stand out among others.
Likewise English in England.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 6 min andet1987 32,280
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 6 min Alex Nicole 15,273
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 8 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 67,269
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 8 min Mutant-cucumber 5,305
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 8 min Alex Nicole 148,489
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 10 min Mutant-cucumber 83,182
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 11 min andet1987 35,670
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 19 min grace---f a l l e n 207,215
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 28 min Old Sam 22,241
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr liam cul8r 30
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Snowflake Nation 2,481
More from around the web