"I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other."
Right in front of our noses? Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident?
"One leads to another"? That's the whole leap in assumption that we're arguing about. I guess I need to study Webster's more thoroughly for a more in-depth analysis of this controversy.
"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident? "
Are you normally this obtuse or are you just trying extra hard today?
They dig for bones A) because that's what archeologists do and B) A new find can help fill in the picture or provide information to modify / perfect the theory.
"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident? "
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum.
"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident?"
An over-generalization, but for our purposes here, archeologists generally study human structures. (Paleotologists study pre-history).
But to answer your question, paleotologists hunt for fossils for the same reasons archeologists keep digging up David's Jerusaleum --- to learn about and study the past.