> There's another absurd misunderstanding of evolution in which the article manages to suggest that because evolution is necessarily continuous in the space of

> There's another absurd misunderstanding of evolution in which the article manages to suggest that because evolution is necessarily continuous in the space of genomes, it thus must be continuous in the space of outcomes (i.e. language is so large a leap, it couldn't have evolved). I'm sure many creationists feel the same way about the eye You're misunderstanding. It's not that it couldn't have evolved, it's that it couldn't have evolved so quickly and with no evidence of a mass extinction. The eye had millions and millions of years to evolve, and there are examples of different stages of eye evolution throughout the animal kingdom. There is one confirmed example of a language-using species, and on an evolutionary timescale it got language basically instantaneously. The implication is that language is a learned skill like agriculture, not a biological entity like the eye.