Mutations

[JohnR7]

Mutations just give variation, they aren't necessarily bad nor are they going to give someone super human powers. They happen all the time when your DNA replicates itself, but most are neutral so you won't notice them.

Why does science keep changing the meaning of words?

To evolve use to mean to improve, make progress or get better. A mutation use to mean something abnomal or freakish. Even strange, unusual or bizzar. At least according to Rigley who spent a lifetime trying to collect that stuff.

 

[notto]

5 entries found for evolve.
e·volve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v. tr.

1.
1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: “the schemes he evolved to line his purse” (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.


v. intr.

1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology. To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.


5 entries found for evolution.
ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.


Very litte reference to improvement here exept in the laymans definition. Who is trying to change the definition?

 

[notto]

6 entries found for mutation.
mu·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (my-tshn)
n.

1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
3. Genetics.
1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
3. A mutant.
4. Linguistics. The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.


No mention of abnoral or freakish here. Who is trying to change the definition?

 

[JohnR7]

Very litte reference to improvement here exept in the laymans definition. Who is trying to change the definition?

You can not really change definitions. A dictionary is only a mirror. It only lists the words that are in common use, and the way they are commonly used. And the way they are commonly pronounced.

Needless to say the English language is always evolving. New words and terms are being coined all the time. So that is why I wonder why science hijacks a word and changes it's meaning, rather than just to come up with a new word.

Of coures the answer is so that people will more quickly accept their theorys. Sense the words they use have already established themselves, even if they do change the meaning of the word.

 

[notto]

So that is why I wonder why science hijacks a word and changes it's meaning, rather than just to come up with a new word.

What exact word has science "hijacked" and how has it changed in meaning? Can this hijacking be documented? How is the way scientists use the word evolution and mutation different than their original meanings which include change and differences?

You really should try to base your statments on something other than your own want for things to be as you would like them to be instead of the way the actually are.

 

[JohnR7]

You really should try to base your statments on something other than your own want for things to be as you would like them to be instead of the way the actually are.

It has nothing to do with my 'want for things". It has to do with the way words are used. Their common usage. To evolve means to get better, to progress, to improve.

 

[notto]

It has nothing to do with my 'want for things". It has to do with the way words are used. Their common usage. To evolve means to get better, to progress, to improve.

You have yet to document that this is the case. This is how you wish to use the word. To many (and by definition) to evolve simply means to change.

 

[notto]

Evolution:
From the latin, evolvere, to roll out, unfold.
Base of various Indo-European roots; to turn, bend... turned toward, inward... Old English wyrd, fate, destiny, "that which befalls one"... "rolled thing"... to twist, curved... magic wheel... "to wind around."

 

[Arikay]

No one changed any definition, they just added to it.

There was no real "bang" in the big bang. Will you now argue that science has changed the word "bang?"

 

[notto]

From MY persective, it is the layperson, not the scientist who "hijacked" the word evolution due to the laypersons concept of evolution leading to more advanced things.

In Darwins original thoughts, evolution was simply change that was a combination of mutations and natural selection that allowed things to survive. (edited to add) Actually, in Origins of a Species, the term evolution is not used as far as I can tell, only the word "evolve" and its use seems to match the use of the word for "roll out".

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

There is no link here with evolution being defined as getting better, only that the more survivable forms evolved (rolled out) of the processes that Darwin was studying.

There is no "better" or "worse" in terms of differences between species, there is only "survive" or "extict".

The layerpersons understanding of the word evolution may have caused them to use the term incorrectly, and then it became common to do this. In the end, scientists have always used the word to mean change over time, which would seem to match the current defined meanings of the word and their historical base.

 

[wblastyn]

Why does science keep changing the meaning of words?

To evolve use to mean to improve, make progress or get better. A mutation use to mean something abnomal or freakish. Even strange, unusual or bizzar. At least according to Rigley who spent a lifetime trying to collect that stuff.

Maybe you've read too many comic books. Like in the X-men the mutants (who have mutations that give them super powers) are seen as "abnormal and freakish" by the non-mutants.

 

[EvolvEarth]

I don't ever remember when evolve meant to improve and get better.

 

[lucaspa]

You can not really change definitions.

Sure you can. In Darwin's time "evolution" meant what we mean today by "development" of an embryo.

What you are doing is trying to can definitions in the dictionary to what you want, because the definitions there don't help your attempt to undermine evolution.

In order to have "improvement", you have to define a direction of change for that is "improvement". Scientists can't pass that sort of judgement.

A dictionary is only a mirror. It only lists the words that are in common use, and the way they are commonly used. And the way they are commonly pronounced.

Well, the way the words "evolution" and "mutation" are commonly used are not the way you use them. So, why don't you follow your own advice? If you want a word the means "freakish genetic change", why don't you "just to come up with a new word".

So that is why I wonder why science hijacks a word and changes it's meaning, rather than just to come up with a new word.

In your two cases, science didn't hijack either "evolution" or "mutation". I think "mutation" was invented by scientists. It is you who are tryint to hijack the definition.

Why didn't religion make up a new word for Jesus' rise from the dead rather than hijack "resurrection"?

 

[lucaspa]

It has nothing to do with my 'want for things". It has to do with the way words are used. Their common usage. To evolve means to get better, to progress, to improve.

Since the dictionary says differently, and that is our reference for what words mean, your usage isn't the common usage. So, the situation has everything to do with what you want. You want evolve to originally mean "to get better, to progress, to improve". But it doesn't.

 

[Cantuar]

To evolve use to mean to improve, make progress or get better.

Needless to say the English language is always evolving.

You mean it's improving and getting better? How does a language make progress, anyway? Somehow I doubt that all the crusty old scholars of English in places like Oxford and Princeton would agree that English is getting better. Most of the comments seem to be along the line of how much better the language was in their day.

 

[JohnR7]

Somehow I doubt that all the crusty old scholars of English in places like Oxford and Princeton would agree that English is getting better. Most of the comments seem to be along the line of how much better the language was in their day.

It is a tradition. People expect them to say things like that.

My mamma use to say that anyone can use gutter language, but it takes a educated person to speak English properly.

Of course what you guys speak in England and what we speak here is two different things.

 

[lucaspa]

It is a tradition. People expect them to say things like that.

My mamma use to say that anyone can use gutter language, but it takes a educated person to speak English properly.

Of course what you guys speak in England and what we speak here is two different things.

and once again we see distraction instead of discussing the subject.

 

[JohnR7]

and once again we see distraction instead of discussing the subject.

You missed your calling, you should have signed up for the cyberpolice so you patrol the innernet and keep people in line. Maybe it is not to late, you could apply to the FBI, they may have a job for you there.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You missed your calling, you should have signed up for the cyberpolice so you patrol the innernet and keep people in line. Maybe it is not to late, you could apply to the FBI, they may have a job for you there.

A non-sequitor, followed up by the inevitable personal attack.

Johnny, you really are getting too predictable.

 

[GREG]

please lets not attack anyone......