This article addresses the debate over whether human language is a byproduct of the development of intelligence or the result of adaptation by natural selection, exploring the issue from different perspectives and ultimately arguing that it is a product of adaptation.
“Why do we exist?” is the question Richard Dawkins first posed in his book The Selfish Gene. Few people can answer this question with clarity. But Charles Darwin answered this question in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species and his theory of evolution. The theory of evolution had a profound impact on society at the time, and it remains at the center of debate to this day. However, there are differences between the debate today and when the theory first emerged. Initially, evolution and creationism were opposed. Over time, evolution gained more support than creationism. As the saying goes, the proverbial “rolling stone” of evolution pushed out the “stuck stone” of creationism. Today, there is little disagreement in the scientific community that evolution is correct. Today’s debate centers on the mechanisms of evolution, or how it works. That’s why it’s called “evolutionary theory” rather than “the laws of evolution.
Darwin’s Table, written by South Korean professor Dae-Ik Jang, is a book that presents a hypothetical debate on how evolution works. In this book, Team Dawkins and Team Gould debate the theory of evolution. The debates take place over the course of a week, each with a different topic within the larger framework of evolution. We’re going to focus on the first day’s debate, which is called Adaptation.
The first day’s debate is called “The Power of Natural Selection,” and it’s all about adaptation. Adaptations are the result of a mechanism called natural selection, which Darwin introduced in On the Origin of Species. In other words, in evolutionary theory, adaptations are those that have evolved under the strong influence of natural selection. Both Dawkins and Gould agree that adaptations are the result of natural selection, but they disagree on how strong the force of natural selection is. Dawkins’ team is an “adaptationist” who believes that natural selection is a powerful force, while Gould’s team is an “anti-adaptationist” who believes that natural selection is not very powerful. For example, there was a discussion about whether human language can be considered an adaptation. I support the Dawkins team’s position on this, and believe that human language evolved as a result of adaptation.
To support this argument, I will begin my discussion with a rebuttal to the article “What is the Scope and Level of Evolutionary Theory?” in the Appendix. In this article, the author supports the Gould team’s position and argues that human language is not an adaptation. He explains that human language is a byproduct of the development of intelligence. I present two arguments. The first is that human speech organs appear in similar forms in other primates, and that other creatures also have different ways of communicating and the speech organs to do so. However, human grammar is the most developed, and human brain development is the highest, suggesting that human language is a product of brain and intelligence development. The second argument is that chimpanzees, one of the most intelligent animals, were taught human grammar to form sentences, and that chimpanzees are less intelligent than humans, so they have limited ability to learn language.
Taken together, the text in the appendix argues that language arose because of the development of the human brain and intelligence, and emphasizes the limited ability of less intelligent chimpanzees to learn language to prove it. But let’s look at it the other way around. Language is just one of the ways humans communicate, and chimpanzees have their own ways of communicating. Based on the text in the appendix, we can conclude that chimpanzees are not capable of mastering the communication styles of more intelligent humans. But what about humans? You might ask whether humans can learn to communicate with chimpanzees. Of course, humans don’t fully communicate with chimpanzees. We don’t fully understand how they communicate either. We may be able to mimic them, but we don’t understand their intentions. It’s no wonder that chimpanzees have a hard time understanding human language. If you want to argue that humans have developed language because of their high intelligence, you need to prove that language is a superior form of communication. You also need to draw a proportional relationship between higher intelligence and superior communication. However, it is possible that chimpanzees’ communication methods are more efficient than language in their lives. In the case of bats, they communicate through ultrasonic waves, which means that it’s hard to compare human language with other forms of communication. Each species communicates in the way that is most efficient for their environment. Therefore, it is not correct to claim that human language arose because we are more intelligent.
Given that each organism communicates in an efficient way, some might argue that each organism has no choice but to communicate in a way that suits its own organization. In other words, organisms choose to communicate according to their structure. For example, humans have language organs that allow them to use language, and bats have organs that produce ultrasonic waves, so they communicate with ultrasound. Other organisms have ways of communicating that fit their anatomy. So you could argue that we can’t learn how other species communicate. This allows for the interpretation that organisms do not communicate in the most efficient way, but rather in the way they can.
Of course, this view also suggests that different species have structurally different ways of communicating. However, as mentioned in the appendix, not only humans but also primates such as chimpanzees have similarly shaped language organs. So why didn’t chimpanzees choose language as their mode of communication? As mentioned earlier, it’s not a matter of intelligence that chimpanzees didn’t choose language. It’s more a matter of the different lifestyles of chimpanzees and humans, which necessitated different ways of communicating. Humans are social animals, and relationships with other people are very important to us. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have less interaction than humans. Therefore, the two species have different lifestyles, which affects the way they communicate. Chimpanzees have chosen a form of communication that suits their lifestyle and allows them to express themselves quickly, which is the result of natural selection. Human language is similarly a product of natural selection that developed in response to our social lifestyle. Therefore, human language is an adaptation.
So far, we’ve discussed whether human language is an adaptation or not. Gould’s team argued that human language is a byproduct of the development of intelligence. In this article, we’ll refute this idea and show that human language is not a byproduct of intelligence development. After all, language is just a human way of communicating, and other organisms have their own ways of communicating, so it’s difficult to make simple comparisons. These ways of communication are the result of adaptation to their environment. Human language is also the result of natural selection to fit our social lifestyle. Human language is therefore an adaptation.
