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

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
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?

Reported.

Originally posted by Mindship
Well, I just learned something new...

It makes a great gag for etymology (not entomology) loving people to have the resident superscientist design a device that converts inertia into water.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Reported.

You're someone I will not be discussing things with in the future. If you're going to report someone every time you are caught off guard, there is no point in debating with you passively. It's like flipping the board when you're losing at chess.

Until I notice a more constructive pattern in your discussion rather than a destructive one, I can no longer even be bothered to socially speak with you. I apologize, Shakyamunison. Besides, this is the fourth time you've shown me you cannot answer a rather simple question.

😆

Man I got a good laugh out of this thread

Hey I just realized that Shaky's a creationist!

"There is no such thing as Darwinian Evolution"

😱

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hey I just realized that Shaky's a creationist!

"There is no such thing as Darwinian Evolution"

😱

😂 I don't believe in a creation. 😛

Originally posted by Da Pittman
😆

Man I got a good laugh out of this thread

😛 Thanks for your support, brother. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😛 Thanks for your support, brother. 😆

Originally posted by Da Pittman

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Besides, this is the fourth time you've shown me you cannot answer a rather simple question.

Seven now, man.

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?

This is rather frustrating. I URGE you to read above. I've answered several times. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? I'm being quite civil with you right now. I'd expect a shred of intellect.

I'm hoping large text might help, yes?

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.

(Source: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=502809&pagenumber=3)

Did you want it larger next time? I really don't mean to be condescending but you're a very difficult poster to deal with, it seems.

I'm not Shaky

you were ignoring me yesterday, and thus couldn't have asked me anything.

The answer to your question, erroneously posed to me, is that I never said you thought evolution was nonsense.

great, now, we have moved on from that. Would you possibly comment on the question that initiated this back and forth, mainly, why, if science is the process of building upon previous work, and the naming convention is to attribute theories to publishers, do you feel Darwin is being needlessly congratulated for his theory? My only supposition is that you are against the entire convention of attributing theories to individuals, which is understandable yet entirely an academic point, and moot in this thread.

Also, you aren't being civil if you are questioning my intellect. This might come as a surprise, but nobody here has nailed you to a cross.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not Shaky

Surprise!

you were ignoring me yesterday, and thus couldn't have asked me anything.

Wrong. Read. Please?

The answer to your question, erroneously posed to me, is that I never said you thought evolution was nonsense.

No, that was for Shaky. Read the posts above. Again.

if science is the process of building upon previous work, and the naming convention is to attribute theories to publishers, do you feel Darwin is being needlessly congratulated for his theory?

No, I don't.

Also, you aren't being civil if you are questioning my intellect. This might come as a surprise, but nobody here has nailed you to a cross.

My apologies, then. I've been frustrated due to your seemingly abundant lack of awareness. I should not have insulted your intelligence even though I felt you had missed something. I have not gotten enough time to know you. You're not quite understanding me. It may be a problem with the way I'm conveying information or you may not be understanding me. Either way, it is said and done. Allow us to move forward.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
No, I don't.

ok, well, that is what I got from:

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
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.

could you explain what this means if you aren't saying Darwin doesn't deserve the recognition?

EDIT:

Originally posted by inimalist
you were ignoring me yesterday, and thus [b]couldn't have asked me anything.[/B]

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Wrong. Read. Please?

ummm, there are 2 pages of this thread at least of you ignoring my direct comments to you. What would you like me to read that would show you weren't ignoring me after I wouldn't give you the time in another thread? (ya, I'm keeping this juvenile)

could you explain what this means if you aren't saying Darwin doesn't deserve the recognition?

I did not explain fully, however. It was an error on my behalf. This is what I intended when I stated people often missed that.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Well, it's not necessarily that. I don't think he deserves full recognition considering Erasmus assisted his theories. (His grandfather)

I did not explain fully, however. It was an error on my behalf. This is what I intended when I stated people often missed that.

what people miss this?

certainly no scientist would ever say Darwin didn't base his initial hypothesis on previously done work

Originally posted by inimalist
what people miss this?

certainly no scientist would ever say Darwin didn't base his initial hypothesis on previously done work

Of course. With my experiences, people often think he was the complete frontier on evolutionary biology and natural selection. This is just not true.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Of course. With my experiences, people often think he was the complete frontier on evolutionary biology and natural selection. This is just not true.

yes, people are ignorant