Human Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Unreal.

Expected -- but still unreal.

No, it's quite real. Theory is a word with more than one meaning, depending on usage. The English language has quirks like that.

 

[Frank Robert]

When reading a scientific publication you have to also examine the sources quoted:

Phenotypic variability induced by parasites: - PubMed

Your link was to examine DNA manipulation and now you you say it was not in the article but in the sources of the article. You sent me on one wild goose chase so why not just tell how your new source shows the frequency of parasites manipulating DNA.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's quite real. Theory is a word with more than one meaning, depending on usage. The English language has quirks like that.

Let's bottom-line this tilt-a-whilrl, shall we, Warden of the Storm?

Is there such a thing as "evolutionism"?

YES or NO?

And before you climb all over me about calling out your name, for someone who defends his name as just a video game character (or whatever it is, I can't remember), you seem to live up to it.

Coincidence?

I think not.

 

[Frank Robert]

Data has been and is being gathered. Data gathered has to be interpreted ... the interpretations of the data gathered varies.

When the data collected were predicted from the hypotheses the data is evidence for the hypothesis. No interpretation necessary.

 

[Astrid]

No, it's quite real. Theory is a word with more than one meaning, depending on usage. The English language has quirks like that.

Check the many meanings of "frog".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's bottom-line this tilt-a-whilrl, shall we, Warden of the Storm?

Is there such a thing as "evolutionism"?

YES or NO?

And before you climb all over me about calling out your name, for someone who defends his name as just a video game character (or whatever it is, I can't remember), you seem to live up to it.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Mountain out of a molehill on my name, as per usual, since you really have nothing else to say that I'm wrong.

There is certainly a word 'evolutionism', but there is no practice, belief system, methodology, philosophy, or anything else that carries that name that is recognised as 'evolutionism'.
So NO.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Check the many meanings of "frog".

If I remember right, there's a Chinese poem that is literally just one word when transcribed into English, but it has like MANY different connotations and meanings depending on usage.

 

[AV1611VET]

So NO.

So if someone uses it in a sentence, you would have no idea what they are talking about ... is that correct?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So if someone uses it in a sentence, you would have no idea what they are talking about ... is that correct?

Oh, I have a fairly good idea what they're talking about, since they're using an erroneous and derogatory phrase to refer to the theory of evolution on something the theory does not talk about.

So not correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I have a fairly good idea what they're talking about, since they're using an erroneous and derogatory phrase to refer to the theory of evolution on something the theory does not talk about.

So not correct.

Yes, I happened to notice from the Wikipedia article that it is considered a derogatory term.

Now.

But at one time, it was an accepted word.

And it makes me wonder who plutoed it? evolutionists or creationists?

Use the word "creationism" and academia hardly bats one of its false eyelashes.

But use the word "evolutionism" and academia throws a fit.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, I happened to notice from the Wikipedia article that it is considered a derogatory term.

Now.

But at one time, it was an accepted word.

And it makes me wonder who plutoed it? evolutionists or creationists?

Use the word "creationism" and academia hardly bats one of its false eyelashes.

But use the word "evolutionism" and academia throws a fit.

Words just fall out of fashion or become offensive/derogatory over time. Like the word niggardly was a word that referred to someone being stingy with money, a miser, which developed from the word niggard (late Middle English) which came from the Middle English word nigon, which has a very different root to the N-word, but now is very often seen as offensive.

It also helps when the people who use the word evolutionism never actually refer to the theory of evolution but to their own pet theory/hate on what they think the theory says.

 

[AV1611VET]

Words just fall out of fashion or become offensive/derogatory over time. Like the word niggardly was a word that referred to someone being stingy with money, a miser, which developed from the word niggard (late Middle English) which came from the Middle English word nigon, which has a very different root to the N-word, but now is very often seen as offensive.

Good example, but Wikipedia makes the point that, since evolution is accepted by consensus of opinion now, that the word "evolutionism" is now obsolete.

But even if that was true, I see no sense in treating that word like it never existed.

Especially if English wasn't my first language.

It also helps when the people who use the word evolutionism never actually refer to the theory of evolution but to their own pet theory/hate on what they think the theory says.

To me, it simply means "belief in evolution."

Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't criminalize it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't criminalize it.

Persecution complex is showing. I'm not criminalizing it at all, just pointing out correctly that you are using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means and that your usage of it is wrong.

And the only one saying the word shouldn't exist is you. Everyone else simply points out that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also, no-one BELIEVES in evolution. People accept the science of evolution. Big difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, no-one BELIEVES in evolution. People accept the science of evolution. Big difference.

Which comes first?

 

[eleos1954]

Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause with a mind just is and it could not be otherwise, but not logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause without a mind just is and it could not be otherwise?

And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?

Naturalists must follow an evolutionary chain from the organisms living today back to the beginning of the universe.

For them, complex animals came from simple animals which came from simpler organisms which came from chemicals which came from stardust. If one of these pieces is missing, evolutionary thinking loses its foundation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which comes first?

And I think it's at this point where you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

 

[Astrid]

And I think it's at this point where you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Creationists got there long ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I think it's at this point where you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

That you have to believe it before you accept it?

What do you call accepting something sight unseen?

Faith?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That you have to believe it before you accept it?

What do you call accepting something sight unseen?

Faith?

Not in the slightest.

And I think that when you're stuck trying equate acceptance of science to religion, then you have definitely ran out of arguments, boyo.

 

[Astrid]

Naturalists must follow an evolutionary chain from the organisms living today back to the beginning of the universe.

For them, complex animals came from simple animals which came from simpler organisms which came from chemicals which came from stardust. If one of these pieces is missing, evolutionary thinking loses its foundation.

Whatever a " naturalist" is supposed to be.
The theory of evolution hasnothing
to do with the origin of the universe.

No more than music theory does.

That is why is ridiculous for evolution
deniers to keep bringing it up.

The chain of evidence you refer to isn't.
linked to the stars.

hat is hard to understand about that?