Evolving "language species"

Although in the estimated five million years of human evolution, articulated language based on speech could be considered almost primitive or obsolete (not so much due to a lack of communicative forms, but rather due to its transmission speed limited to the 100-150 words per minute humanly expressible compared to the much higher number of communicative units required nowadays), language is nevertheless one of the main tools used by humans to communicate with each other.
Like any other form of culture, language itself is subject to changes and transformations over time, in a continuous process of adaptation to the needs or changing conditions of society. Linguistic evolution, however, is not always viewed favorably by linguistics and speech therapists, who often criticize the use of grammatically incorrect forms. At the heart of this thinking is the following question: can indiscriminate evolution of a communicative system cause the deterioration of the language itself?
We preface that language, like any other human process, has always been subject to evolution, a phenomenon historically proven by dialectical co-existence in every known linguistic system. Mutations that have always accompanied the epochs of our history, with a renewal, defined by some as a necessary passage to the modern.
Evolution consists of a gradual, spontaneous transformation process of linguistic structures and can be triggered by various factors: the influence of other peoples and cultures, population migration (and therefore the gradual acquisition of new habits related to climate or geoethnic factors), lifestyles and social behavior, as well as scientific evolution that lead to the abandonment of terms or structures that are no longer valid due to being obsolete or inaccurate after new discoveries.
In this context, ancient Egyptian is remembered, mainly used as a written system during the duration of the pharaohs' empire to document historical facts and religious beliefs (as it was used in liturgy and ceremonies, as well as to recording administrative activities with documents and contracts) which evolved in everyday use using a simpler writing system, called demotic, widely used in the Greco-Roman period.
However, is evolution just when it leads to a loss of complexity and linguistic nuances? The subjectivity of the observer plays an important role in the evaluation of such forms: sometimes greater simplicity, although it can lead to misinterpretation, is normally correctly understood by the receiver thanks to the practical contextualization of the communicative moment. In this sense, when a language is used in everyday speech, it is linked to the context of the conversation, which requires greater understanding, requiring less expressive details and lack of complex grammatical articulation forms.
To understand the broader picture of the language evolution process, we can associate it with the presence of reproductive errors. In fact, natural evolution is a universal phenomenon, and applying it to languages implies that, like every living being, every language tends to evolve according to the conditions in which it develops. It is easy to see, for example, how classical Latin has evolved over the centuries, giving rise to different languages such as Italian, French, Spanish, or Portuguese, which, although different in many aspects, still have common roots and a considerable affinity of structure and vocabulary. In this context, the aforementioned languages should be interpreted as "reproductive errors" or as "natural evolution"? As mentioned before, such "errors" are sometimes necessary to make the process of evolution progress, as any mutation can lead to a different and more functional form of language that can better satisfy the communication needs of speakers. However, while functional changes are generally defined as "evolution", while others are defined as "involutive" or "degenerative", in the case of a language, when communication still occurs with the same percentage of interpretation, is it legitimate to apply such terms?
From this perspective, in specific scientific or sectoral contexts, where there is uniformity of studies to reach these professional roles, the language used is certainly more "stable" and without exceptions: for example, consider the use of mathematical symbols, which have remained unchanged since their introduction, and likewise programming languages, with which thoughts could theoretically be expressed in the same way as natural language, for which "expressive" modifications are rare (perhaps too few, given the existence of an unresolved tower of Babel of unchanged formats over the years, which does not allow direct communication between two or more different systems).
The legitimate question arises: how important is it to pay attention to ensure that "error" does not lead to the loss of the complexity and variety of the language itself, or does not affect its communication power? Moreover, who should take on a supervisory role from this perspective? Given that language arises from thought (which makes it a phenomenon not directly controllable unless it is physically capable of modifying brain synapses), the logical conclusion is that any organizational form can at most establish guiding rules (from a grammatical point of view), judging as incorrect those forms that do not fit within such schemes, "punishing" not correct forms in a school or social context, but certainly cannot prevent their diffusion. Precisely for these reasons, neologisms such as "scannerization" (the act of scanning a document) or terms such as "scrolling" (the act of scrolling in a two-dimensional matrix) are reported as existing or integrated into dictionaries; in fact, we live in a context where statistical majority sets the boundary between acceptance or exclusion in society. In this sense, such neologisms are therefore considered no longer "errors" but, at most, exceptions, as there are already existing ones in every language.
In conclusion, let us reflect on the axiom that man carries out his life in a synaptic world where logic does not always go hand in hand with action: being framed in a society that accepts wars, hunger in the world, and social discrepancies as integrated phenomena in its structure, he is the first cause of the death of his own race. This, too, is statistics, or rather, the majority that, deciding the modus operandi of all, also drags along those who do not want or do not approve of such choices. Therefore, we should not be more surprised than necessary about grammatical errors or horrors; moreover, (more than ever) scientific truth clashes in a phenomenon of returning illiteracy that makes it appear as a mere point of view, together with many others.