Darwin - Half Right

[Hans Blaster]

Nevertheless, I believe both books* were inspired by the same author.

* The Struggle for Life and My Struggle.

So is this your next move? To misname both books and then imply satanic authorship?

 

[BeyondET]

Darwin had two theories that he thought worked in concert. The first was a theory that postulated through mutations that new genetic information was being added to life forms continuously. The second thesis was that because these differences would also differ in survivability, those that were unsuited would become extinct. To him this represented a continuing "upward" evolution of life.

The second theory seems supported by evidence that we are losing genetic information as species become extinct.

However in the 150 years since Darwin first presented his ideas, no one has observed a favorable mutation in a plant or animal. Mutations do occur such as with cancer and tumors. However, for a favorable mutation one would need millions of coincidental changes to all take place at the same time and in a reproductive cell so that those changes could be passed on.

There’s many processes in life not just mutations, just few are regeneration, adaptation, metamorphosis,

 

[AV1611VET]

So is this your next move? To misname both books and then imply satanic authorship?

Questions:

1. Do you misname The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life when you call it, The Origin of Species?

2. Do you misname The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life when you call it, Origins?

3. Do you misname a foreign book when you call it by its English title?

4. When you step down the authorship of the Bible from God to man; is it okay if I step down the authorship of a couple of books from man to Satan?

 

[driewerf]

Questions:

1. Do you misname The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life when you call it, The Origin of Species?

No. For that was the title. The part "by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was the subtitle, as can be seen on the front page of it's first edition.

2. Do you misname The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life when you call it, Origins?

I am inclined to say that it depends on the context. If it is done in a longer text, where the full title has been used previously, I would say no.

3. Do you misname a foreign book when you call it by its English title?

Agan, I would say that it depends on the context. For historical reasons, Mein Kampf is always referred to by it's German title. As is Marx' Das Kapital. Proust's A la rechereche du temps perdu is always referred to in French, etc.

4. When you step down the authorship of the Bible from God to man; is it okay if I step down the authorship of a couple of books from man to Satan?

Men do exist. Neither Satan nor god exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am inclined to say that it depends on the context. If it is done in a longer text, where the full title has been used previously, I would say no.

Agan, I would say that it depends on the context. For historical reasons, Mein Kampf is always referred to by it's German title. As is Marx' Das Kapital. Proust's A la rechereche du temps perdu is always referred to in French, etc.

Do you really think for one minute people blow a gasket when I ... ahem ... "misquote" those titles, that they're [um] sincerely [/um] upset that I'm disrespecting context?

Seriously?

 

[driewerf]

Do you really think for one minute people blow a gasket when I ... ahem ... "misquote" those titles, that they're [um] sincerely [/um] upset that I'm disrespecting context?

Seriously?

I am anyways.
It's a cheap and silly trick.
It sincerely reflects poorly on yourself that you have to use such childish rhetoric device.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am anyways.
It's a cheap and silly trick.
It sincerely reflects poorly on yourself that you have to use such childish rhetoric device.

Kinda like calling miracles "magic," isn't it?

 

[driewerf]

Kinda like calling miracles "magic," isn't it?

Deflection is equally a childish rhetoric device.

 

[AV1611VET]

Deflection is equally a childish rhetoric device.

As long as you miss the point, you can call it anything you want.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you really think for one minute people blow a gasket when I ... ahem ... "misquote" those titles, that they're [um] sincerely [/um] upset that I'm disrespecting context?

I don't think they would be upset, but only because they won't value the views of someone who uses such devices.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think they would be upset, but only because they won't value the views of someone who uses such devices.

Well, as I pointed out, it's okay for them to shorten the title, even to the point of changing one word from singular to plural.

But let someone outside their fold do it, even to mock it, and they blow a fuse.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, as I pointed out, it's okay for them to shorten the title, even to the point of changing one word from singular to plural.

But let someone outside their fold do it, even to mock it, and they blow a fuse.

But you only do it to troll.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you only do it to troll.

And what do you troll?

 

[VirOptimus]

And what do you troll?

I dont troll.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dont troll.

Then I don't either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then I don't either.

We can read your posts you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can read your posts you know.

I don't care. They can read yours too. And there are different ways to troll (or not to troll).

 

[Bradskii]

I don't care. They can read yours too. And there are different ways to troll (or not to troll).

If your forum figures are accurate then you've been posting on average one post every minute for the last 15 years. Now you've either got an incredibly large store of worthwhile things to write about. Or there's some trolling been going on there.

From my short time on the forum I'd suggest it's not the former.

 

[AV1611VET]

If your forum figures are accurate then you've been posting on average one post every minute for the last 15 years. Now you've either got an incredibly large store of worthwhile things to write about. Or there's some trolling been going on there.

From my short time on the forum I'd suggest it's not the former.

You wanna see me bounce my post count up by about 100 in 5 minutes or less?

If so, I haven't done it in a couple years, but I'll give it a good try.

In the meantime, let's cease with the trolling accusations, okay?

 

[Bradskii]

You wanna see me bounce my post count up by about 100 in 5 minutes or less?

If so, I haven't done it in a couple years, but I'll give it a good try.

In the meantime, let's cease with the trolling accusations, okay?

If you can write dozens of posts with all of three or four seconds between each of them then you defnitely don't have anything worthwhile to read.