It was an incorrect generalization. I know many biologists who use the word "devolution" which negates his premise that "biologists do not use the word 'devolution.'"
(Try remembering to remove the italics tags next time It makes your very deep and profound posts even more difficult for us flapdoodles to read.)
I'll name them as soon as you give us your home address and social security number.
1000?
1000
Not if they use the word in the sense of "catabolism" or "involution", instead of "reverse evolution" ("de-evolution") which is the meaning being discussed here...
Can you assure us that your "acquaintances" are actually using it in *that* way?
(Try remembering to remove the italics tags next time It makes your very deep and profound posts even more difficult for us flapdoodles to read.)
My italics tags were done quite properly. So what are you babbling about here, and why did you have "difficulty" reading it? Oh, and you seem to have omitted a period in the above passage. You're also misusing the word "flapdoodle."
I myself know several who use the word...and quite frequently. In English.
[Name them and state the fields in which they allegedly have experience.]
I'll name them as soon as you give us your home address and social security number.
Yeah, I didn't think you could... And no attempt to establish their actual existence any other way, nor even address my question about their fields, I see...
If you're going to have imaginary friends, you need to learn better how to sidestep questions about them.