Just a question: is it possible, to 'evolve' an oxymoron?

[jacknife]

As I said, interpretation is in my favour ("man" has been around longer than "animal").

That said, I find your objection to theory confusing... is your theory not theory?

Ok, so being theory, does it have limitations? Godel would say there is likely a way it may contradict itself?

Or are you afraid of what will happen to "Evolution", if it is revealed to be more theory than science?

That's not how definitions work they don't sit around and collect seniority over each other. Also Theory in science is the highest honor an idea can have.

 

[Shemjaza]

As I said, interpretation is in my favour ("man" has been around longer than "animal").

It's irrelevant how old a word is. It's important what it means now.

Using your logic a man can't be human because the word man has been used longer than the word human in the English language.

Man can specifically mean adult human males, or it can refer to the species as a whole, it depends on context.

That said, I find your objection to theory confusing... is your theory not theory?

Ok, so being theory, does it have limitations? Godel would say there is likely a way it may contradict itself?

Or are you afraid of what will happen to "Evolution", if it is revealed to be more theory than science?

Evolution is a scientific theory, so the phrase "revealed to be more theory than science" doesn't make sense.


However due to the way evolutionary families are named, there are instances where if you take labels literally they are oxymorons.

For example, there is a family of animals named tetrapods, literally four-footed, but one branch of this family is snakes, who have no feet.

So, a four-footed animal with no feet. Oxymoron.

But that's just a semantic curiosity, not a flaw in the theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We have an impasse here. It is possible that I may be corrected on the definition of animal, but the definition of man preceded that definition by 400 years. In other words, it is not clear that animals defined men in the original sense of the word "man".

Man: from Proto-Germanic mann, Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000);

Animal: early 14c., "any sentient living creature"

I can be corrected, up to the point that you say animals and men are "interchangeable". I maintain my position that what God created to rule nature and the nature that was ruled are two different things, which taken together form an "oxymoron" (like dry water, or heavy feathers).

EDIT: in other words what you have is "interrelateability" not "interchangeability"

Sometimes people behave like animals and sometimes animals behave like men, but your argument is that this is evidence of "Evolution" - without showing what the transition was.

For the sake of argument, I wonder if you can put aside particular definitions and just tell me "can you evolve an oxymoron?" (what's your intuition?)

Even if the definitions are different and one is older than other, humans are still animals. We fit the definition of animals to a T and also fit it biologically. Humans are animals.

And no, you can't evolve an oxymoron because an oxymoron is not something that is biological. Only something that is biological can evolve. LEARN THE SCIENCE!!!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We have an impasse here. It is possible that I may be corrected on the definition of animal, but the definition of man preceded that definition by 400 years. In other words, it is not clear that animals defined men in the original sense of the word "man".

Man: from Proto-Germanic mann, Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000);

Animal: early 14c., "any sentient living creature"

I can be corrected, up to the point that you say animals and men are "interchangeable". I maintain my position that what God created to rule nature and the nature that was ruled are two different things, which taken together form an "oxymoron" (like dry water, or heavy feathers).

EDIT: in other words what you have is "interrelateability" not "interchangeability"

Sometimes people behave like animals and sometimes animals behave like men, but your argument is that this is evidence of "Evolution" - without showing what the transition was.

For the sake of argument, I wonder if you can put aside particular definitions and just tell me "can you evolve an oxymoron?" (what's your intuition?)

These are the science forums; terms used here are taken to have their scientific meaning unless otherwise qualified. The etymology of the terms may be interesting but what matters is their scientific meaning and use.

Living things are classified as animals, or plants, or fungi, or a number of types of mainly single-celled organisms. Humans are clearly animals; in particular, in the family 'hominids', in the order 'primates', in the class 'mammals'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The parrot can mimic the words, but he doesn't then expect his progeny to heed the assertion.

Unfortunately too many posters in the forum can do no better than to parrot words they do not understand.

 

[Gottservant]

Just humour me, how would you do it?

My contention is that an oxymoron is unmutable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just humour me, how would you do it?

My contention is that an oxymoron is unmutable.

You can't evolve an oxymoron because an oxymoron is a figure of speech, not a biological organism that can evolve.
Why is this hard for you to understand?

 

[Gottservant]

You can't evolve an oxymoron because an oxymoron is a figure of speech, not a biological organism that can evolve.
Why is this hard for you to understand?

"This is a law for everything, except for something."

That's how you sound, to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"This is a law for everything, except for something."

That's how you sound, to me.

Then you're being horribly ignorant.

Oxymorons are words and phrases, which are not subject to evolution because they are not biological organisms since only biological organisms can evolve.

Do you understand this?

 

[Gottservant]

Then you're being horribly ignorant.

Oxymorons are words and phrases, which are not subject to evolution because they are not biological organisms since only biological organisms can evolve.

Do you understand this?

How is that different, from saying "unless it comes to life, it cannot be life"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How is that different, from saying "unless it comes to life, it cannot be life"?

Because you are trying to conflate two VERY different and completely separate things.

Here's an easy trick to remember: for something to evolve, it needs to be a living creature. It's that simple.

 

[Gottservant]

Because you are trying to conflate two VERY different and completely separate things.

Here's an easy trick to remember: for something to evolve, it needs to be a living creature. It's that simple.

But the subject of a discovery, has to have a trait.

You say "any trait, will do", for which is required a trait of 'generality'.

But you will not tell me, how it is that "Evolution" becomes general?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But the subject of a discovery, has to have a trait.

You say "any trait, will do", for which is required a trait of 'generality'.

But you will not tell me, how it is that "Evolution" becomes general?

Nonsense. You are talking nonsense as usual.

Seriously, please make an actual attempt and go and learn about evolution and the actual science behind it. It will do you a world of good.

 

[Gottservant]

Nonsense. You are talking nonsense as usual.

Seriously, please make an actual attempt and go and learn about evolution and the actual science behind it. It will do you a world of good.

You refuse to give a layman's explanation.

It smacks of hubris, but for the fact that you so sincerely say "believing it, for some reason, is possible".

It's not information, if you can't reappropriate it - you think you can "inform" me, but there is no process for the theory of Evolution to be reappropriated (from your grip, to mine).

Faith can help you do that, but you will have to trust the relationships faith reveals (I'm not really confident that you can do that, without faith in God, but I am willing to forebear).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You refuse to give a layman's explanation.

It smacks of hubris, but for the fact that you so sincerely say "believing it, for some reason, is possible".

It's not information, if you can't reappropriate it - you think you can "inform" me, but there is no process for the theory of Evolution to be reappropriated (from your grip, to mine).

Faith can help you do that, but you will have to trust the relationships faith reveals (I'm not really confident that you can do that, without faith in God, but I am willing to forebear).

Again, you are absolutely talking nonsense. Go and learn about what you want to know instead of asking these stupid questions on here.

 

[Gottservant]

Again, you are absolutely talking nonsense. Go and learn about what you want to know instead of asking these stupid questions on here.

I am just saying "make it make sense".

A good place to start, would be what you first identified was advantageous for you.

You didn't have "no" idea, what you thought Evolution meant, but since believing it, you have failed to communicate what that "idea" was.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am just saying "make it make sense".

A good place to start, would be what you first identified was advantageous for you.

You didn't have "no" idea, what you thought Evolution meant, but since believing it, you have failed to communicate what that "idea" was.

If you want it to make sense, then go and learn about it then. That's how you make things make sense, instead of making these asinine threads of yours continuously.
And make sure you take your medication.

 

[Larniavc]

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about, basically I am just testing a train of thought:The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

Humans might very well evolve into very different beings given long enough and the selective pressures.

There is no reason to think that the human species will not continue to evolve.

 

[Gottservant]

Humans might very well evolve into very different beings given long enough and the selective pressures.

There is no reason to think that the human species will not continue to evolve.

There is no reason, but is there resistance?

Resistance can only be gauged, as coming from outside the species?

For example, what is the Devil's perspective? Is he for or against "Evolution"?

 

[Freodin]

Just humour me, how would you do it?

My contention is that an oxymoron is unmutable.

Good... let's humour you...


You're wrong. But by now, you should know that.

Your problem is that you are simply incapable of understand the topic that you are talking about... that results into you mangling all sorts of words into a mess that has not much semblence to a reasonable line of thought.

Let's take a look at the words... because you are so interested in words and their meaning.

An oxymoron is a composition made from (usually) two terms with contrasting or contradicting meaning, in order to convey a new meaning.

"Man animal" is not an oxymoron, because the two involved terms are not opposed. They are complementary.

But then... this is not an oxymoron now, in the current available language. And language is evolving. The usage, the very meaning of words can change over time. It is even possible for the meaning of words to change into the opposite of earlier meanings.

So, yes, it is possible to evolve an oxymoron.