There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution'

This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.

how is this different from any other scientific discovery?

all scientists understand that their work is building off the shoulders of others.

Originally posted by inimalist
how is this different from any other scientific discovery?

all scientists understand that their work is building off the shoulders of others.

Read the whole thread.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Read the whole thread.

I have read the entire thread (I started it) and I would like to see a direct answer to the question that inimalist posted. Please. 😄

Oh my.

I had already answered his question in my previous statement. It is why I asked him to read the thread.

Oh, and it isn't different nor did I argue it was different. He confronted without basis (If he read my previous installment to the thread, he would have had a basis) so there you go!

You'd know that too if you had read it instead of merely looking at it. I urge you to pay better attention next time as well.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
^ Thank you.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Read the whole thread.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Oh my.

I had already answered his question in my previous statement. It is why I asked him to read the thread.

Oh, and it isn't different nor did I argue it was different. He confronted without basis (If he read my previous installment to the thread, he would have had a basis) so there you go!

You'd know that too if you had read it instead of merely looking at it. I urge you to pay better attention next time as well.

This is the totality of your contribution to the thread. inimalist was responding to your second post 'built upon foundations.' inimalist wanted to know how that was unique? You responded with a defensive something or other and now we're here. Care to try again?

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Natural Selection.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
^ Thank you.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Read the whole thread.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Oh my.

I had already answered his question in my previous statement. It is why I asked him to read the thread.

Oh, and it isn't different nor did I argue it was different. He confronted without basis (If he read my previous installment to the thread, he would have had a basis) so there you go!

You'd know that too if you had read it instead of merely looking at it. I urge you to pay better attention next time as well.

Above are all of your posts in this thread. Now, maybe you didn’t understand the question, so I will post it again.

Originally posted by inimalist
how is this different from any other scientific discovery?

all scientists understand that their work is building off the shoulders of others.

Your posts do not answer the question, and obviously I have read all of your posts on this thread.

Now, how does the fact that Darwin built his theory on what other people had done, make evolution nonsense?

Oops. I seem to have missed a post. My bad. I think you got the picture though.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.

you think it is nonsense that Darwin is given credit for the theory because it was based on earlier work. This ignores that this is how science works.

Why is it nonsense if that is how science works and ALL practicing scientists would recognize that fact?

PS: I wouldn't downplay the importance of natural selection. He also proposed sexual selection and many other evolutionary principles if not being the first person in history to say one creature may have changed to another.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Above are all of your posts in this thread. Now, maybe you didn’t understand the question, so I will post it again.

Your posts do not answer the question, and obviously I have read all of your posts on this thread.

Now, how does the fact that Darwin built his theory on what other people had done, make evolution nonsense?

Please read. I urge you.

Oh, and it isn't different nor did I argue it was different. He confronted without basis (If he read my previous installment to the thread, he would have had a basis) so there you go!

That's the second time I answered.

And wait .... Where did I say Evolution was nonsense? I mean, since you've been reading the thread as you claim?

This ought to be interesting, Shakyamunison.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Please read. I urge you.

That's the second time I answered.

And wait .... Where did I say Evolution was nonsense? I mean, since you've been reading the thread as you claim?

This ought to be interesting, Shakyamunison.

If you keep this up I will report you as a troll.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Oh, and it isn't different nor did I argue it was different.

very well, though this doesn't answer the question

we agree that it is no different, so why is it then nonsense?

are you saying the attribution of theory to publishing individual is nonsense?

Originally posted by inimalist
very well, though this doesn't answer the question

we agree that it is no different, so why is it then nonsense?

are you saying the attribution of theory to publishing individual is nonsense?

DNFTT 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you keep this up I will report you as a troll.

Why? I'm doing the same thing you did to me. The difference is you are completely ignoring my question. Maybe I can ask one more time? I mean, you're already proving that you have not properly read the thread (Several times) so maybe you can change that for yourself, yes?

Where did I say evolution was nonsense?

Clear and concise, friend.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Why? I'm doing the same thing you did to me. The difference is you are completely ignoring my question. Maybe I can ask one more time? I mean, you're already proving that you have not properly read the thread (Several times) so maybe you can change that for yourself, yes?

Where did I say evolution was nonsense?

Clear and concise, friend.

Two does not make several. Here is the post that leads people to believe that the discussion on this thread is nonsense.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.

What you are doing is side stepping the issue and trying to pick a fight over some perceived transgression.

Now, please stop derailing the thread and get back on topic.

If you have something to add, please do. If you do not, I will simply ignore you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
DNFTT 😉

I don't know that one 🙁

but ya, you tell 'em Shaky!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Two does not make several. Here is the post that leads people to believe that the discussion on this thread is nonsense.

What you are doing is side stepping the issue and trying to pick a fight over some perceived transgression.

Now, please stop derailing the thread and get back on topic.

If you have something to add, please do. If you do not, I will simply ignore you.

Well, the discussion was. Why are you making assumptions? I never said evolution was nonsense. As I said previously, I urge you to pay attention. I merely said it was all nonsense because the discussion in this thread seemed a little scattered and messy.

Also, I did not derail the thread nor was I off topic, considering I was discussing Darwinism (Which is the nature of the relevant topic in this thread.)

I'm sure you knew that though. Right?

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Well, the discussion was. Why are you making assumptions? I never said evolution was nonsense. As I said previously, I urge you to pay attention. I merely said it was all nonsense because the discussion in this thread seemed a little scattered and messy.

Also, I did not derail the thread nor was I off topic, considering I was discussing Darwinism (Which is the nature of the relevant topic in this thread.)

I'm sure you knew that though. Right?

There is no such thing as Darwinism. Did you read the article?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as Darwinism. Did you read the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Evolutionary Biology and Darwinism? PoTAYto and PoTAHto.

Do you believe everything you read at first glance? I understand that you may have difficulties reading. Well, I'm done with this. It is clear I will get nowhere with you. I may be explaining things wrong or it may be a fault on your behalf.

Oh, you completely ignored the questions in my post. For the third time. Excessive?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I also like the word "Darwiniac"...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For example in Sci-Fi there are devices called Inertial Dampers but people often call them Inertial Dampeners which technically has a completely different meaning ...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...an intelligent suction cup.