Replies

I don't want to be overly picky but that clause we are discussing is not an apositive but an an adjective clause.

It's still an appositvie; see below.

The sentence still makes perfect sense if you take the clause out.

Agreed; that the nature of appositives, or any independent clause or phrase. But the point of the appositive is to further explain or amplify on the word it with which it is in apposition. It tells us something more about it.

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

APPOSITIVE, APPOSITION

A word, phrase, or clause that has the same referent and the same or a similar grammatical function as a preceding word or phrase is said to be an appositive, in apposition with that preceding word or phrase: in My father, that tall man over there, always votes Republican, the words that tall man over there form a phrasal appositive for father. Her name, Arabella, was also her mother’s name, illustrates a single-word appositive. In This news, that my brother is getting married, astonished me, the words enclosed in commas are a clausal appositive. 1

I don't know why you're arguing this point so much. Darwin may have limited his views to biology. Mainstream science may limit "Theory of Evolution" to biology.

A fair question. My concern is that many lay people come to discussions of scienctific issues with "baggage" -- misconceptions of what science is about, misunderstandings of specific aspects of science, and sometimes victims of outright strawman confabulations of people who, knowingly or not, are misrepresenting what a particular aspects of science really says.

This entire discussion started when "Fester..." made a statement to the effect that the Theory of Evolution (presumeably, the biological one) encompassed not only the origin of species, but also the origin of Life itself, and (worse still) the origin and development of the Universe. This is the worst sort of baggage to bring to a discussion of scientific issues, because the (biological) "Theory of Evolution" does not cover any such thing, as I have tried to explain so many times.

If we come to the table with different ideas about what the words (like "evolution") mean, we can't make many progress. That's why the adage is: "first, define your terms." For scientists, and people knowledgeable in scientific matters, that's already taken care of by the education or reading they've done. But when lay people show up carting Creationist Canards, the discussion quickly deteriorates, and all progress becomes hopeless.

That's why, when I see an erroneous assertion about what a scientific theory claims to explain, I bristle, and I try my best to rectify the misconception. Think of it as my little intellectual public service program.....

There are obviously those, however, that seek to expand "theories of evolution" to the history of the universe and they obviously have influence in our culture. [snip]

Like I've said before, there are people who try to use Geometry to prove that crop-circles are made by Space Aliens, but that doesn't mean anything because scientists (for the most part) don't get sucked into these scams.

That said, I've never seen any credible assertion that The biological theory of Evolution somehow explains geology, plate tectonics, planetary formation, stellar evolution, formation of the galaxies, or the orgin of the Universe.

And frankly, if some crackpot out there actually DOES think that, it doesn't matter. He has no credentials. The world is not flying apart at the seams because of fruit loops like the Time-Cube guy post raving utter tripe on the web. Heck, look at the weirdness that Ted Holden (may his seven FR incarnations of the merry "medved" clones rest in peace) posts on his website. He's laughed out of the room; nobody takes it seriously.

That said, I know that there are Creationist sites the claim that there are theories lurking out there darkly that encompass "life, the Universe, and everything" (Doug Adams), but I've never seen one. The Creationists have created a boogey-man to scare you, and when you read Dawkins, et.al., you see the boogey-man, but he's not really there, because he doesn't exist.

Please take some consolation in what I'm telling you; there is NO "well-known" scientific theory "traceable back to Darwin" that purports to explain "life, the Universe, and everything." That's why I kept asking you for a peer-reviewed science journal citation for one -- because there isn't any. So you can relax. Don't take crackpot sites seriously, and consider the possibility that some boogey-men aren't real. Fair enough?

My concern is that many lay people come to discussions of scienctific issues with "baggage" -- misconceptions of what science is about . . .

Fair enough.

Exactly

This is the worst sort of baggage to bring to a discussion of scientific issues,

If we come to the table with different ideas about what the words (like "evolution") mean, we can't make many progress. That's why the adage is: "first, define your terms."

I agree

For scientists, and people knowledgeable in scientific matters, that's already taken care of by the education or reading they've done.

So what exactly does Dawkins mean when he says "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design?" And when did he join the creationist conspiracy?

Now the grammar:

Apositive: A word, phrase, or clause that has the same referent and the same or a similar grammatical function as a preceding word or phrase

That's a good definition of apositive. Keep it in mind as I continue.

The phrase

"Evolution, the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today, is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology"

"Evolution" is the noun. A noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, and abstract idea

"the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" is an adjective clause. This is a clause which acts as an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying words

Now does an adjective and a noun have the same grammatical function?


A word, phrase, or clause that has the same referent and the same or a similar grammatical function as a preceding word or phrase is said to be an appositive, in apposition with that preceding word or phrase: in My father, that tall man over there, always votes Republican, the words that tall man over there form a phrasal appositive for father. Her name, Arabella, was also her mother’s name, illustrates a single-word appositive. In This news, that my brother is getting married, astonished me, the words enclosed in commas are a clausal appositive.	1