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.
Nicely done. Unfortunately, I pointed out exactly the same fallacy to that same poster a few days ago, and it bounced off without a dent. Expect a long-winded, yet surprisingly empty response...
But it meant something different, then, now didn't it? Or maybe you aren't aware of this.
THE HELL IT DID.
Before Darwin and TODAY the word evolution has the same meaning.
Evolution - A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
Darwin did not change the meaning of the word evolution - what a silly statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Darwinism is merely a form of evolution.
Are you people really this ignorant related to this topic or do you just like to argue?