Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by Remedy
No, as I tried to explain very carefully, even going briefly into the etymology, this is NOT what "evolution" meant prior to Darwin. Click back to message #923 and try reading it again.
Also, here is some more:
"It often happens that when a Greek or Latin word is given a new lease on life in one of the major modern languages, and especially in English, the original meaning of the word may be replaced by a rather different one. This is particularly the case when a word, which was a strongly transitive verb in the classical context, is resuscitated as a generic noun in the modern diction. The word evolution is a case in point. The root of that all-important modern noun is the Latin verb evolvere. Whether used by historians like Tacitus and Livy or by poets like Ovid and Catullus or by philosophers like Lucretius, Seneca, and Cicero, the verb evolvere either meant to eject someTHING with a rolling or coiling motion, or to cause someTHING to flow out or roll out from somewhere, or to unwind someTHING, or to unwrap or uncover someTHING. In all these cases it was clearly assumed that the thing or the object of the action had already been there. Only one and uncertain case is found in classical Latin literature for the noun form evolutio of the verb evolvere, according to the testimony of the two-volume Oxford Latin-English dictionary." (Jaki S.L., "Monkeys and Machine-Guns: Evolution, Darwinism, and Christianity", in "The Absolute beneath the Relative and Other Essays", University Press of America: Lanham MD, 1988, pp188-189) [Found here]
I still need to find you something, I suppose, documenting the scientific usage of the term prior to Darwin. I have a pretty good collection of books on the history of science, but they're all packed away. In the meantime, I assure you, that the sense of the term in 1859 and previously was to refer to a process whereby something already existing unfolds or "unrolls," or at least where some process proceeds or developes in some predictable and regular manner. IOW the original scientific usage was based on the classical sense of the term, documented above.
"Evolution" was most commonly used, prior to Darwin, to refer to biological development (embryology and growth). The term most commonly used back then for what we would call evolution today was "transmutation," or (somewhat confusingly) "development".
Darwin did not change the meaning of the word evolution - what a silly statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never said Darwin changed the meaning of the term. In fact I said that he did not even use it himself initially, precisely because he was familiar with it in its classical sense. Darwin preferred the formulation "descent with modification." However the meaning of "evolution" wrt biology did change to embrace "transmutation" or "descent," and Darwin ultimately accepted the term in its new sense and began using it.
Look. See for yourself. The first link below is the FIRST edition of the Origin of Species (1859), complete in a single text file. The second link is the SIXTH edition (1872). Search them for yourself. You will find that the term "evolution" does not occur at all in the 1st edition, but occurs some 6 or 8 times (in it's modern sense) in the 6th edition.
ftp://sailor.gutenberg.org/pub/gutenberg/etext99/otoos610.txt
More anti-intellectual, elementary-school-playground victory-dance crap from Aric2000. Seem this Cat is a one-trick-pony.
This is a great example of Orthodox Darwinism. Not only is this clown a know-it-all – he actually believes that Lord God Darwin changed the very meaning of the word “evolution”
FRetiquite requires that you include "this clown" in the "To:" field when you refer to him.
Btw, I don't claim to "know-it-all," but I am fairly well read, for a layman, in the history of science, including 19th Century natural history. I have also read a good deal about creationism and about Darwin, both books about Darwin and large portions of his own works and his correspondence.
That is bullsh*t. Evolution of thought was discussed even before Darwin. Your so-called evidence does not support your claim. Like I said - one person's opinion does not change the meaning of the word - if you actually read it he is not addressing the meaning of the word - he is addressing the assumption that something already existed which is not even part of the definition of the word (what we are talking about) - it refers to connotation and assumptions related to the word.
The meaning of the word "evolution" is the same today as it was the day before Darwin was born - assumptions related to the word have changed (and that is all your supporting evidence addresses)
Why should my personal opinion of a persons comments be placed in the "To:" field? You are not making sense again.
Oh, really? After Lord knows how many tiresome and arm-waving posts over the course of two threads, I think you owe us a specific example. What biological theory has any significant or material effect on a cosmological theory? How in the hell are bacteria, plants or animals supposed to influence and effect the evolution of universes, gallaxies or stars?
...and that proves what? The word evolution existed before Lord God Darwin - and the meaning did not change - the connotation and asumption relating to thinks already existing may have changed but that is not included in the meaning of the word.
Darwinism is just ONE example of evolution. Period.
Show me a dictionary that claims the meaning of the word changed after Darwin. (it didn't) but other assumpted related to by not defined by the word have change.
We use dictionaries to define the meaning of words - please show me a dictionary the supports your claim
Failure to do this is not a bannable offense (I don't think) and this is not included in the official posting guidlines, but it is universally accepted by FReepers as bad manners to "talk behind someone's back," i.e. not ping them when they are being dicussed or quoted in a message.
Look up the word Cosmology. In the context of philosophy and theories of the universe in totality - biological evolution is part (unless you think life on this planet is not part of the physical universe)
You are stuck in the erroneous trap of assuming one meaning of a word is the only meaning of a word
I have made no direct reference to you
Herbert Spencer viewed evolution as a law of nature, a movement from the “incoherent homogeneity to coherent heterogeneity”. He believed philosophy differs from science in terms of scope, its principles being universally applicable; its goal is a total unification of knowledge. From this standpoint the principle of evolution is philosophical, and Spencer proceeded to make this principle – defined as passage from “relatively indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to relatively defined, coherent “synthetic” philosophy for the first time resting on the full range of scientific date. (Herbert Spencer 1820-1903 English philosophy (mostly subscribed to the empiricism school of philosophy)
-Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought. W.L. Reese
Here is a question for you - how could a theory that address the universe in totality not include biological evolution (look up the word totality)
Because it's irrelevant. It makes no difference. The evolution of a star, for instance, is simply not effected in any material way by whether or not there are living organisms on one of it's planets.
Your whole argument is like claiming that the color of a circuit board is "part of" the science that describes the electrical properties of the circuit.
I mean, we all understand your point, that cosmological theories are about the universe, and that life is part of the universe. DUH! (It hardly requires dozens and dozens of messages across two threads to state this!) But this is utterly trivial.
Again, how -- in terms of a specific example, please -- do biological considerations of any sort, play any role in any (scientific) theory in the field of cosmology?
You seem to fall into the trap a lot of “science people” fall into – desire to make the world a binary world where everything can be categorized as right/wrong, black/white, on/off. Nothing in our known universe really falls into this structure. (my Hummer/Mini-Cooper example in a previous thread was an attempt to demonstrate this point – in that example I stated Hummer can be both a way to make an automobile and an automobile itself – my statement was not 100% correct nor was it 100% wrong – thus the nature of almost everything - there are few simple binary answers)
You know my points have validity. You know your point has validity and you are giving very frustrated that you cannot prove the binary nature of the topic.
Here is the problem: you perspective is valid but it is not the only correct answer. Cosmology has more than one definition and it means different things in different contexts. I never claim my usage of the word cosmology is the only correct usage – I just claim it is valid. You are trying to argue your usage of the word is correct (which is pretty much true) but you are also trying to argue that you usage is the only usage that is correct (which is false).
In philosophy – cosmological theories are an attempt to “explain it all” – soup-to-nuts – how everything was created and the process that has guided (or been observed) throughout history. The universe in totality (EVERYTHING). A cosmological theory in physics or astronomy is quite different in scope – nonetheless, they are both cosmological theories. The word has more than one meaning depending on context – the dictionary proves this. If a word has more than one meaning it is fallacious to claim the existence of one definition negates all the other definitions.
But let's experience the jaw-dropping, mind-numbing effect, of Spencers full definition, shall we? (From Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy, I'm typing this in as quoted in The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A study of the Protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900 by James R. Moore, Cambridge Univ Press, 1979, page 165):
Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.
A footnote in Moore's text give a much clearer reworking of Spencer's definition by the mathematician Thomas Penyngton Kirkman (1876) which is often incorrectly attributed to William James (who merely quoted it approvingly):
Evolution is a change from a nohowish, untalkaboutable all-alikeness, to a somehowish and in-general-talkaboutable not-all-alikeness, by continuous somethingelsifications and sticktogetherations.
Sorry, but this waste of ink by the buffon Spencer does not constitute a material connection between the sciences of biology and cosmology. Try again!
The physical universe is not limited to planets and stars (unless you have delineated and delimited the universe as is done in the study of physics or astronomy) Universe includes everything including me and you and a dog named boo and the fish was are supposed to have evolved from. I told you to look up the word totality. Maybe you need to look up the word universe
Universe - All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Your whole argument is like claiming that the color of a circuit board is "part of" the science that describes the electrical properties of the circuit.
Not even close. The color of the circuit board is part of the nature of the circuit board which includes the electrical properties - just because electrical properties are more important in the functioning of the circuit board does not mean the color is not part of its nature. Basically you still don't get it.
I mean, we all understand your point, that cosmological theories are about the universe, and that life is part of the universe. DUH! (It hardly requires dozens and dozens of messages across two threads to state this!) But this is utterly trivial.
You are free to have this opinion but as I said before - you just don't get it. A theory of everything must include everything or it is not a theory of everything - no matter how trivial YOU think it may be.
My original point is: In school, when studying cosmology (not delimited as in physics and astronomy)- all theories should be presented (evolution-based cosmology and religion-based cosmology) because all cosmological theories have about the same amount of scientific evidence (very little - evolution has biological evolution and religion has the big bang). I also stated this has no relationship to teaching biology because cosmology falls more into the philosophy department (and is not a big issue in the study of science in general). Look back - that is my point - the rest of this was nonsense subject-changing
No, I understand this, "dad". Cosmology is an entirely different subject in science, philosophy, and then again in religion btw. But you're trying to make biology, as a science, part of cosmology, as a science, and that just don't work. You're tyring to claim that the word "evolution" carries the same sense in cosmology (or, I might add, in physical science generally) as it does in biology, and this just isn't the case.
I appreciate your attempt to educate me, but you haven't been sucessful. Frankly I have not found one byte of useful information in any of your messages. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Again, to be brutally frank, some of your (admittely implicit) notions are incredibly stupid. For instance you have this apparent notion (if I'm not misinterpreting) that "evolution" has to mean the same thing, anywhere, anytime, in any context. For God's sake, you've actually posted dictionary definitions here. Didn't you ever notice that the meanings (NOTE PLURAL) of the words in a dictionary are NUMBERED, and that the different numbered definitions are sometimes very different from each other?
I give up. You are a perfectly oppaque being. If it's a performance, I congradulte you. If it's not, well, I'm very, very sorry.
What BLOODY differance does youe personal opinion make? NONE - ZERO - ZIP - NADA
You asked for a cosmological theory and I gave you one.
Clearly you do not understand the different between biology, physics, astronomy, and philosophy. Not to mention you think your personal opinion has merit in an intellectual debate
Sorry, but this waste of ink by the buffon Spencer does not constitute a material connection between the sciences of biology and cosmology. Try again
Are you a high school student? Have you ever studied philosophy? It is a philosophical theory, not a physics theory. You asked for a theory – I give you one – and now you think your personal opinion and lack of understanding of philosophy somehow negates the presence of this theory.
You call a philosopher a buffoon only because you don’t understand the different between physics, biology, and philosophy.
You have entered ludicrous-land
EXACTLY!!!!!!!
But you can't grasp this wrt "evolution". Amazing.
That is complete crap - I am doing no such thing. The only relationship between biology and cosmology is a theory of everything must include everything by definition (including biology)
Please don't misstate my position just because it makes your job - as attacker - easier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.