ORIGINS/EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE

The question that I would like to bring to the forum is in regards to the origins of language. My research had led me to believe that the origins of language are unknown since language is something that is learned and not innate, according to modern psychology.

Therefore, I think it would be interesting to inquire as to what an evolutionary or darwinist answer would be to this question.

Is it a possibility that language could in fact have evolved or does evolution not provide us with an adequate answer to this question?

From my understanding, the evolutionary explanation does not do justice to the topic since language is required for humans to think and since we know language is learned and not innate how can humans be able to start a fire without the instrument of language since starting a fire requires thinking and thinking is an impossibility for humans without language.

To clarify the above, we know that humans beings have made fires to survive from the dawn of man, however how can humans make a fire without thinking, since to make a fire requires thought and the use of ideas.  However, these thoughts and ideas cannot be compiled and organized in the mind without the median of a language. Since it is an impossibility for humans to think without using some kind of language.
From this I deduce that language is something that could not have evolved since to do any task that required the slightest bit of community or organization required thinking to complete tasks and as stated above, thinking necessitates language. Therefore, humans cannot have existed without thinking since without it we would be like the animal kingdom or even extinct since to make spears and things of the life require thinking. This leads me to believe that language is not something that evolved but rather existed from the dawn of man since without it we cannot think.

A sideline point to this that I would also like to mention is something I read in a book that I thought was very interesting which stated that language molds our thoughts; therefore you cannot think of something if there is not a word that represents that thought. For example, one cannot think of using the washroom if the washroom does not exist as a word since it is non existent to the mind until a word or something representing it is organized in the mind. The point the author was making is that we through language mold our way of thought such as words such as 'axis of evil' which is used by Bush are designed to frame our way of thinking with accordance of a certain objective through the median of language. Actually, I have not read the book but think George Orwell�s 1984 discusses this issue.

Anyway I would like to see what others have to add to this topic. So the more the responses I receive the more fruitful the engagement will be.

I agree there is no correlation between language and the ability to think. There are many examples in animals that would disprove this.

When you walk do you think to yourself "Okay, I'm going to lift up my right foot, shift my balance forward, plant my right foot on the ground, lift my left foot up, shift my weight again, oops I'm falling to my left so I'll slightly extend my right arm, good now I'm balaced again, now I'll plant my left foot on the ground..." or do you just walk?