In post 25 you spent some time defining “natural selection” for me.
In post 27 you explained “evolution of biological populations” to me. You also went into a little detail on “genetic change”, “adaptation”, and (again) “natural selection”. You were also at pains to distinguish between “biochemical adaptation capabilities” and “the accumulated changes in the genome”.
Now post 28 was addressed to Hostage. In that post, you defined “species”, and you made a general statement against Hostage, you claimed: “you obviously do not understand the definitions of the terminology you are using”. And further you you say to Hostage “you do not even know the meaning of “Evolution” and its related terminology”. And you finish comment 28 (to Hostage) by saying “You do not even understand what “Natural Selection is and is not, because you have totally misused the terminology”.
Now although your comment at 28 was addressed to Hostage, I did reply to your comment 28 and I said “you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary”.
That's really the central thing I've been saying to you over a entire series of posts. Look above and try to make the claim that you haven't been critiquing a whole array of terminology.
Since then you have been hammering ME because “the huge differences between the Apes you commented about” and “your comment about the vocabulary, which was about the Apes” and you demand that I take a position one way or other on the claim “Humans are descended from Apes”.
For me, the word “A-P-E” is not terribly important. I think Evolution is bad science from start to finish.
All I’m saying is that you haven’t been discussing science or evolution – you just focus on terminology and claim that your understanding is at a higher level than others. Which is what Marxists do. For me, Evolution is really just politics, not science. It's like Marx's "scientific socialism" and it's like "global warming". Politics -- not science.
Feynman was the man. Science is just an explanation of nature. It is a tool for understanding and ultimately manipulation of nature.
Einstein was proven useful (notice not truthful) with the atomic bomb. Einstein also set back science as I understand it, a long ways with thought experiments. His was ultimately proven more useful than others, but in biology thought experiments have overtaken real testing. Niche fulfillment testing started recently...after almost 200 years? The birds that changed were posited to be different species...but did interbreed while the biologists weren’t looking...embarrassed or more private than the thought experiments gave credit to.
ToE’s tend to be crappily tested hypotheses that ignore testing in favor of argument. I “believe” most of this will fall away, because biologists will be crowded out by hard science scientists that need real world results that can only be accessed by real world experimentation and manipulation.
And I said that without using the term creationism.
Although I think it is hilarious that when we start actually manipulating what may be evolution, we will actually be fulfilling the role of a creator.
DK
“That’s really the central thing I’ve been saying to you over a entire series of posts. Look above and try to make the claim that you haven’t been critiquing a whole array of terminology.”
The natural outcome of making a point by point rational review and critique of the statements made by Hostage is and must be by definition the “critiquing a whole array of terminology.”
“Since then you have been hammering ME because ‘the huge differences between the Apes you commented about’ and “your comment about the vocabulary, which was about the ‘Apes’ and you demand that I take a position one way or other on the claim “Humans are descended from ‘Apes’.”
You chimed in with your own criticism of my comments because I was criticizing Hostage for his statements of logical fallacies, many of which were logical fallacies due in the first part to his use of an erroneous vocabulary. One of his most egregious false statements illustrating his apparent inability to understand and use the scientific vocabulary and scientific concepts was his statement alleging “Evolution” (meaning current evolutionary theory) proposes the descent of Humans from Apes. Given the obvious fact evolutionary theory does not propose the descent of Humans from Apes, using such an obvious error as an easily discerned example of Hostage’s erroneous and irrational argument made his statement the best and most immediate flaw to focus attention upon.
When you came along to chime in about my criticism of his misuse of the vocabulary, it was only natural to narrow the focus of my response to you to the very same egregious and immediate example of his error.
“For me, the word “A-P-E” is not terribly important.”
The question of whether or not the word is important to you is a separate question and change of subject away from the immediate question about whether or not Hostage’s comment about Humans being descended from Apes was an example of an erroneous and false statement regarding “Evolution?”
“I think Evolution is bad science from start to finish.”
You have repeatedly stated what you think as an opinion, but so far you have failed to support what you think with actual observational evidence produced by the use of the scientific method. You were given the opportunity to do so with respect to Hostage’s comment claiming Evolution said Humans descended from Apes. Since this is a rather straightforward question of whether or not evolutionary theory makes such a claim at all in the first place, your comments claiming “Evolution” is bad science can be evaluated for their validity if your response was based in part upon Hostage’s claim Evolution proposed that Humans being descended from Apes. Rather than assume you agree or disagree with Hostage’s comment about what Evolution says about Humans descending from Apes, I exercised the courtesy of asking you what your position is with respect to his use of that part of the vocabulary. So far, you have avoided answering that question and thereby avoided disclosure of whether or not you base your thinking about Evolution being a bad science upon a belief that Evolution says humans are descended from Apes.
“All I’m saying is that you haven’t been discussing science or evolution – you just focus on terminology and claim that your understanding is at a higher level than others. Which is what Marxists do.”
Anyone who has the smallest understanding of science and logical reasoning knows that learning the language and terminology of natural science is a mandatory first step towards gaining a comprehension of the scientific concepts that are to be communicated. Lacking a correct understanding of the terminology perforce means the scientific concepts cannot be communicated correctly or accurately. Perhaps ignorance of such matters is in part why you falsely state “you haven’t been discussing science or evolution” when in fact such topics as whether or not “Evolution”, meaning current evolutionary theory, proposes Humans descended from Apes is clear and obvious proof I am “discussing science or evolution” despite your hampering such efforts to discuss them through your non-cooperation.
Your comment accusing me of using the tactics of “Marxists” is exactly contrary to reality and better represents your own behavior as we watch you use smear tactics as you proclaim your “beliefs” and what you “think” while carefully avoiding a discussion of scientific evidence that could validate or invalidate what you “believe” and “think”. If you truly want to have a discussion about whether or not “Evolution” is bad science, you can begin by addressing the validity or invalidity of Hostage’s statement about what “Evolution” claims or does not claim in regard to Human descent from Apes.
“For me, Evolution is really just politics, not science.”
You can also believe or think Alice in Wonderland is a description of reality all you want, but that would not mean anyone else should regard such belief and thought as having anything to do with reality, rational behavior, or with natural science.
“It’s like Marx’s ‘scientific socialism’ and it’s like ‘global warming’. Politics — not science.”
Unfortunately for your argument and your beliefs, “the “Global Warming” issue is a Marxist style of pseudo-science using falsified data and experiment whereas evolutionary theory is based upon real science and real scientific evidence subject to the kind of independent experimental verification which “global Warming” never has and never will be able to accomplish.