Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[tallhappy]

Are you asserting that species are prefigured?

No.

I don;t even know what you mean.

[js1138]

What is it that is unrolling, and why do you bring up this concept?

[tallhappy]

I am referring to the root for the word evolve.

It means to roll or unroll. The car Volvo is a play on this latin word as well.

Evolution is a step wise continuum. It is rolling or unrolling as it were. Questions of the origin of molecules associated with life are part of this same evolutionary continuum.

[js1138]

The root word is irrelevant. Biological evolution is not an unrolling. The word was in use long before Darwin and long before the modern synthesis was reached.

Why is "unrolling" significant to you?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I am referring to the root for the word evolve.

It means to roll or unroll."

Evolution is actually an unfortunate term for the process. Darwin used the term *transmutation*, which is more accurate.

That being said, the roots of the word are irrelevant because the meaning of the word has changed. In biology evolution is not used as *unrolling*.

[dmz]

I miss the old days, when some of the trolls were amusingly creative. This present batch is just so dreary.
____

I still particularly miss mlc1952 or what ever her handle was. She periodically had a sense of humor about her posting (although I think it was Mineral Man who really got under her skin).

I must have been traveling when she got banned.

[js1138]

Someone seems to have succeded in unraveling the thread, not that it was worth saving.

[PatrickHenry]

I was thinking more of some from a few years ago. True, they were insane, but they were amusing.

[balrog666]

I happen to think tallhappy does a very good imitation of the Eliza troll.

It's good for an occasional laugh anyway.

[atlaw]

How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?

I'm making a wild guess here, but ... 1/2 second?

[tallhappy]

What I notice is you and others cannot and do not talk about actual sceintific questions.

Once JK Rowling who wrote Harry Potter went to an online forum where they talked about Harry Potter books and characters and the plot etc...

Rowling made some contributions and she said people reacted to and treated her with disdain, that she was a troll idiot and had no idea what she was talking about.

[js1138]

What I notice is you and others cannot and do not talk about actual sceintific questions.

What I have notice about you on this thread is that you start stuff and then drop the subject when follow up questions are asked.

So far I have asked you politely to explain your position regarding evolution. Since you think we are all wrong, it is reasonable to ask you what your alternative position is.

Within the last couple dozen posts you asked about the definition of life, but have so far failed to follow up with your definition, and have failed to explain why you brought the topic up in the first place.

Same with the concept of unfolding.

[tallhappy]

I have answered your questions, the issue relates to origin as life under the rubric of evolution and is in the context of the discussion I was having with "Patrick Henry".

Please read Of Mice and Molecules by Crick for some background.

[tallhappy]

And, sorry, it is Of Molecules and Men, not of Mice and Molecules.

[dmz]

yea, once I roll one, I rarely unroll it, unless there is a stem breaking through the paper.

[balrog666]

What I notice is you and others cannot and do not talk about actual sceintific questions.

Oh, come on, at least we can spell "scientific" and chew gum at the same time.

[tallhappy]

When one has to resort to harping on a typo I think my point is made.

You are all empty bluster, like a puffer fish or cat with its hair standing on end.

All sizzle no steak.

Afraid of your own shadow.

[Dimensio]

Evolution comes from the root to roll or unroll. Evolution is a continuum and is studying how life as it exists now unrolled. This goes all the way to its initial origin.

You are incorrect. Reproduction is a crucial component of evolution. As the origin of replicating life must, by necessity, involve at least one step when no replicating entities it logically follows that the mechanisms of the theory of evolution cannot apply and, as such, the theory cannot explain that process.

I stated that reproduction is a necessary element for evolution in my previous posting. I do not know why you have chosen to ignore that point.

[tallhappy]

As the origin of replicating life must, by necessity, involve at least one step when no replicating entities it logically follows that the mechanisms of the theory of evolution cannot apply and, as such, the theory cannot explain that process.

I'm not sure this is a coherent sentence or thought.

You are focusing in though, it seems, on the point where life would begin.

[Dimensio]

You are focusing in though, it seems, on the point where life would begin.

I am explaining that the process of abiogenesis necessarily involves at least one stage where a crucial component of evolution is not present. As such, the theory of evolution cannot explain the process.

Also of note is that the process of evolution is not dependent upon life coming into existence through any specific process.