Ah.
So you are saying, "based on the mutations between the first and last discovery of 'Evolution', the word for it would change".
But subsequent changes in the same process, would not necessarily arrive at 'Evolution' again.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly.
Evolution is just the word in English that we apply to the concept, there's nothing special about the term.
It's a Latin word for unrolling that became an English word for changing that was later applied to a biological process and a scientific theory about that process.
A separate civilisation with no knowledge of our history would have a different word, but the concept would be based on the same evidence.
The ToE like all science is provisional. It is not a religious dogma which is held by the believer to be true.
No, I'm not stating that at all.Ah.
So you are saying, "based on the mutations between the first and last discovery of 'Evolution', the word for it would change".
But subsequent changes in the same process, would not necessarily arrive at 'Evolution' again.
But they wouldn't call it "voltage" as it would not have been studied by some guy called Alessandro Volta in their civilisation.
The point is that they wouldn't come even close to 'Voltage', no matter how many times they discovered it, because as you say "it wouldn't be traceable to Volta".
And the fact is that we shouldn't care.
I don't understand your point.Jesus said "hypocrites strain out a gnat (something very small) and swallow a camel (something very hard to get on top of)" (gospels)
They would get the concept of electrical potential energy, which is the important factor, not what some dead civilisation named it.
I agree.
I don't understand your point.
Evolution is a process. Not an ideology to "justify".Ok, but this is the point: would it be rediscovered in a way that justifies "Evolution"?
Like would people wait to see the human race develop into something else? Or would the old colloquialism "men improved on apes" reappear? Or would it become "men grew out of a fear of octopi"?
If it (Evolution) was rediscovered in exactly the same way, wouldn't that suggest "design"? Doesn't the fact that Wallace almost discovered "Evolution" point to design?
Evolution is a process. Not an ideology to "justify".
None of the above.
Wallace, like Darwin, discovered the mechanism, of evolution, which is sexual selection.
Neither man discovered evolution, which was known about for centuries before.
If neither man had been born, we would still see the same process taking place.
They would name it, though, it is important not to forget that. Even if you become as competent as possible when dealing with selection pressure, there will be systemic discoveries that hinge on design: such as naming things that you have discovered.
What Jesus said was "Hypocrites! You strain out a gnat (in this context: alternative names for 'Evolution') but you swallow a camel (in this context: mixing selection pressure with mutation)". In common parlance this is similar to "not seeing the forest for the trees". The point is, that the temptation is to attribute everything that changes to "Evolution" when what you should be looking for, is the means to strengthen survival.
But science and naming are human endevours. I agree that they are absolutely a product of design.
That doesn't mean what they are studying are also the product of design.
Evolution is a description of the result after the fact, not about the individual chances of survival and change themselves.
Also, no one should attribute all survival to genetic advantages.
A genetic advantage will give a statistical advantage over the whole population... the individuals may have all manner of luck and personal choices (or even divine intervention if you believe in that) to give or take their chances of survival.
Religion and science are not at odds. It is the creationist literal interpretation of genesis that is at odds with science.You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Religion enables me to hold certain words to be "true", which in addition to Evolution is a potential: either for change or greater change.
That is a creationist misunderstanding, although it does appear that creationist organizations like AIG and DI have ulterior motives for perpetrating that misunderstanding.Suggesting that what is true can only come from within science, without holding certain words to be true in the process, leaves you at square one: with respect to that which is more than true, being discovered.
I don't have any objections to others believing there is a God but I don't know if there is a God and if there is a God that it is the Christian God.You can cut yourself short if you want, but whatever your object might be, you're only making it harder to reach (unless you are somehow forcing a greater hand from God, despite your objections to Him!).
You are misdirecting a strawman. I am not attempting to advance ideology. Be that as it may, you take the conversation backwards, by suggesting that a process on its own, is sufficiently perfect to define its own accountability. That simply is not the case.
The whole point is that we are not to be at a loss for words, for the sake of correctly interpreting that discovery.
Jesus correctly determined, that the use of a thing is more important than its discovery - I am merely bringing His words on the matter to light.
They may be, they may not be.
Stating something is a fact is not a fact - you keep saying Evolution "is fact" when the minutiae is unstated: which Evolution is fact? You can't have all of them (all the Evolutions)??
We don't need to boast about science, it's a practical tool. Same for evolution in particular, it's just a practical way to look at the history and changes in life... it's consistent with the evidence and is useful as a tool of understanding the physical world.The point is, if we are going to do this at all (interpret Evolution), we will do well to start with the Words of Jesus.
If Jesus says "hypocrites are vulnerable to boasting" then we had better be sure that we aren't boasting about science (hypocritically).
If Jesus says "don't think about it so much" then we had better be sure we are not unable to rest.
What Jesus said was "Hypocrites! You strain out a gnat (in this context: alternative names for 'Evolution') but you swallow a camel (in this context: mixing selection pressure with mutation)".
In this forum, by common agreement, there is only one evolution being discussed: biological evolution and the scientific theory which describes it.Stating something is a fact is not a fact - you keep saying Evolution "is fact" when the minutiae is unstated: which Evolution is fact? You can't have all of them (all the Evolutions)??
.
Do you think a theory about Gravity would always fall down?Yes, but precisely why would a theory about Evolution, not necessarily evolve (subsequent discovering)?
Which came first, God's eternal Word (the Map), or the territory (the Earth)?The map is not the territory, as the saying goes.
They came at exactly the same time. The Word is manifested through matter, it would not exist other than through matter.Which came first, God's eternal Word (the Map), or the territory (the Earth)?
I'm going to have to disagree here.They came at exactly the same time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?