Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by Remedy
But it meant something different, then, now didn't it? Or maybe you aren't aware of this.
The word "evolution" comes from a latin word, "evolvere," meaning "unrolling," as in "the unrolling of a scroll." In line with this etymology "evolution" carried a sense of the unfolding or unfurling of what already existed in fact or in programmatic potential.
Prior to Darwin the common scientific and biological usage of the term was with respect to the growth and development of organisms, for instance in embryology. Indeed this is the way Darwin himself most commonly used the term.
Others came to use "evolution" (or "development") to refer to the "transmutation" of species and to common descent, but Darwin long resisted this precisely because the sense of "unrolling" was contrary to his own view of evolution as a process resulting from variation and selection operating among the vicissitudes of reproductive competition.
Admittely the term "evolution" had been used, before Darwin, by Lammark to describe his own theory, but this was more appropriate. Lammark's theory was very different from Darwin's in certain respects, and Lammark did indeed envision that evolution followed a programmatic development, being channeled necessarily along the course of a universal "scale of being".
The point I'm getting at here is that the sense of the term "evolution" is different when referring to cosmic versus biological evolution. With respect to the former, evolution retains much of the orginal sense of "unrolling," since we dealing with the realm of universal, physical laws, whose effects are typically mathematically predictable. In the case of biological evolution we are dealing, to a much greater extent, with processes (such as natural selection) that are not predictable as to their specific results.
Your implication that the term evolution carries the same sense in both cases (the evolution of the universe according to physical law, and the origin of species according to random variation and environmentally driven selection) commits the fallacy of equivocation.
Nicely put.
Now unless you can prove biological evolution has nothing to do with "the order and course of nature" (which is absurd) - biological evolution does have something to do with cosmology.
Oh boy, the pick-your-definition game! I just love that one. Ok, here's *my* dictionary's definition:
Cosmology: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters (Merriam-Webster)Now unless you can prove biological evolution has something to do with "space-time relationships of the universe" (which is absurd) - biological evolution *doesn't* have something to do with cosmology.
So much for the definition game... Most amateur philosophers outgrow that one pretty fast, I see that you haven't yet.
You're right - that was amusing.
Just not in quite the way you intended.
Proving a know-it-all is wrong is fun.
You've got a lot to learn about the nature of "proof", son. And it's a more rigorous thing than just picking the broadest definition you can get your hands on in order to stretch a word beyond any useful meaning (i.e., by your definition and argument, *car repair* is related to cosmology). When a word is expanded that far, any "connection" you've claimed to have demonstrated is a Pyrrhic victory, at most.
Is this a relative of yours?
"There's glory for you!""I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don'ttill I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you *can* make words mean so many different things."
-- From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
The ancient Chinese attempted to measure the circumference of the Earth by walking around it (glub, glub) and the Indians reportedly tried to measure the circumference of the giant turtle that the Earth rode on but, as they tended to fall off the edge, they had to abandon the project.
Happy to help.
Ah, riiiiigghhhtt... The old "no, I wasn't being stupid, I was being, um, *ironic*, yeah, *that's* it..." excuse.
Sure, I buy that. You betcha.
BTW: your biological evolution has no connection to cosmology is a snipe. It is a factually incorrect statement meant to disrupt the debate.
No, actually, it's your grossly inaccurate twisting of what I *actually* wrote.
Why are you anti-evolutionist zealots always so fond of making up false "quotes"?
I don't recall the source of my information, but I believe that Aristotle's reasoning was based on the earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse (timely topic). The shadow was *always* circular. Aristotle reasoned that the earth must be a sphere because a sphere is the only geometric solid that *always* casts a circular shadow.
Good question, seeing as how there is no such thing as the (or a) "Theory of Cosmological Evolution". There are various theories within the field of cosmology that attempt to explain the evolution of the universe, or of galaxies, or of stars, etc, but these theories all have names (few of which include the word evolution, and NONE of which include the word "darwinism," "orthodox" or otherwise).
Evolution is that biological organisms give rise to different biological organisms ...
the big guns are loaded with poppycock !
Main Entry: pop·py·cock
Pronunciation: 'pä-pE-"käk
Function: noun
Etymology: D dialect pappekak, literally, soft dung, from Dutch pap pap + kak dung
Date: 1865
: empty talk or writing : NONSENSE
Apparently I've been reading the same literature as you, because I see the same problems with T-of-E
"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge ... or even a new enzyme."
(Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38)
I think that means the word has more than one meaning - therefore your comment that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology is false (all that was needed is one definition - not all of them)
BINGO!
There for the statement "evolutiuon has nothing to do with cosmology" is false.
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.