This article explores the origin and evolution of chickens, starting with the classic question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? It compares Darwin’s theory of natural selection with Chomsky’s brain byproduct theory, and discusses whether the origin of life is a product of evolution through various evidence of language, evolution, and adaptation.
“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” the saying goes. We already know that the Earth, and by extension, the universe, is finite in age, so where did the first chicken come from? Chickens hatch from eggs, but the first chicken didn’t have parents to lay an egg for it to hatch from. The answer to this contradiction can be found in Darwin’s Origin of Species, published in 1859. Organisms have different characteristics, and only those with competitive traits will have offspring and pass on their genes to the next generation. This is how organisms evolve by passing on the right genes. The process by which only the most competitive individuals survive is called natural selection, and the adaptation of organisms to their natural environment is called adaptation. Organisms have evolved from self-replicating chemical molecules to chickens through natural selection, and then to talking humans through the process of evolution.
Adaptations explain many of the characteristics of living things. For example, polar bears, which live in snowy environments, need to have a color similar to the snow to avoid being seen. Bears with darker fur would not only be more conspicuous and exposed to predators, but they would also be harder to hunt. Therefore, their numbers would have gradually decreased until only white polar bears remained. In this way, polar bears’ white fur is the result of adaptation. Adaptation is the key to evolution, as it explains variation at the species level. Language, one of the most important human characteristics, is also a product of adaptation. There is some evidence for linguistic adaptationism.
The human vocal system is a highly complex system of multiple organs working together to produce sound. These vocal organs would not be necessary if we did not speak language to communicate. Evolution is directed toward leaving behind traits that are advantageous to an organism’s survival. Therefore, the existence of vocal organs is rationalized because communication through language was advantageous to survival, and language is an adaptation.
Furthermore, according to developmental psychology, there are critical periods in the development of human language skills. It’s during this critical period that development is almost complete, and conversely, if it doesn’t happen, language disorders occur. A case in point is the wolf boy from the Aveyron region of France. He was raised with wolves as a child and when he was found, he didn’t speak human language, only howled like a wolf. After he was rescued, despite years of care and the efforts of those around him, he never acquired language. The critical period shows an innate aspect of language acquisition, which strongly suggests that language arose by genetic and evolutionary processes.
Finally, there is research on the gene FOXP2, which is associated with language. FOXP2 has a direct effect on language ability. People with mutations in this gene have severe impairments in pronunciation and grammatical understanding. This gene is also found in chimpanzees, and a mutation that occurred 120,000 years ago seems to have set human FOXP2 apart from chimpanzees. Meanwhile, archaeological research suggests that culture arose about 120,000 years ago. Considering that culture is closely related to human communication, or language, it is likely that language also arose 120,000 years ago. This coincides with the time when the FOXP2 gene mutated, and researchers speculate that the development of language is linked to the FOXP2 gene. Thus, language is seen as the result of adaptation.
There are some who disagree with this aspect of language adaptationism. Paleontologist Gould and linguist Chomsky argue that language is not an adaptation, but rather a byproduct of our large brains: like a spandrel, a secondary structure to support an arch, language is a byproduct of the brain’s enlargement. However, there is some evidence against their theory. Ontogenetically, humans, chimpanzees, guanbirds, and parrots have similar vocal organs. Considering that chimpanzees, guanus, and parrots do not have large brains like humans, these vocalizations are not a byproduct of the evolution of large brains. Rather, a reasonable explanation is that vocalizations developed because they had a positive impact on survival through communication. In this explanation, language, which evolved alongside the vocal apparatus, is also an adaptation, not a byproduct. There are also many creatures that don’t have large brains but still communicate. For example, bees perform an ∞ or 0-shaped dance to communicate the location of nectar to their mates. The shape and speed of the dance is determined by the relative positions of the nectar, themselves, and the sun. Another example is ants, which leave behind pheromones as they forage for food. They only leave pheromones on shortcuts or paths that are easy to travel. The next ant that moves forward uses the trail left by the previous ant as a guide and leaves pheromones on the best path it finds. When several ants go foraging, the paths left by the pheromone become the best shortcuts. Once the food has been brought back, the ants leave no pheromones on the way back, and the smell of the pheromones fades away, allowing subsequent ants to find other food sources. Insects, which are considered to have relatively simple biological structures, also have complex communication systems, and this communication is not a byproduct of the brain, but rather an adaptation. To consider only the complex grammar of humans as language is an inappropriate view that focuses on the features of the grammar itself, ignoring the primary function of language as communication and its evolutionary implications.
In another objection to linguistic adaptationism, Chomsky argues that it is impossible for language to have arisen by adaptation, given that the primary function of language is monologue. If the primary function of language is monologue, then it is impossible for communication to improve survival and thus natural selection. If the primary function of language is monologue, as Chomsky argues, why have humans acquired language over the eons? It’s because monologue has a positive effect on intelligence development. Just as indigenous people with different linguistic expressions for colors have a better sense of color, language has a direct impact on thinking without being transmitted. Even if, as Chomsky argues, the primary function of language is monologue, language is ultimately the result of adaptation.
The evolutionary processes involved in the development of language are difficult to reproduce in the laboratory because they require long periods of time and many generations, so the answer to the question of how language evolved biologically can only be answered by extrapolating the process backwards. However, as shown in Darwin’s Table, the evolution of language has recently been studied through simulations. These studies show the evolution of language from primitive communication to grammatical language, supporting the argument that language is an adaptation.
Language is the result of this adaptation through natural selection of genes. According to Dawkins, humans are merely survival machines for carrying genes, and the development of language could be universal in any organism. However, we tend to think of language as a uniquely human trait, as evidenced by the phrase “humans are linguistic animals. This leads to the idea that language is not evolutionary, but human-created, a byproduct of a big brain. Dawkins argues that evolutionary theory does not provide value judgments about what is right, but rather tells us what is true. In other words, evolutionary theory does not provide a standard for value judgments. It only tells us biological facts. The value of many human achievements through language, such as beautiful poetry and brilliant novels, is not diminished by the fact that language is a natural product of evolution.
