Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,026
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 234:
Line 234: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 14:51, April 19, 2011
, 14:51, April 19, 2011→Ants and other social insects: new section
: Sure it does, unless implausible and imaginary scenarios are resorted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
: Sure it does, unless implausible and imaginary scenarios are resorted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
::The more I think about it, the more I realize that you're probably right: all languages likely descended from the same small group of languages. However, the fact that we've never found it proves nothing, since you can't exactly discover a dead language that had no written form. We have found cave paintings and the like. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 12:55, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
::The more I think about it, the more I realize that you're probably right: all languages likely descended from the same small group of languages. However, the fact that we've never found it proves nothing, since you can't exactly discover a dead language that had no written form. We have found cave paintings and the like. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 12:55, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
== Ants and other social insects ==
We have two entries for ants and other social insects. Should they be merged? [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:51, 19 April 2011 (EDT)