Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think the author is wrong.

There's Lamarkian Evolution and two other "Dude's Name" Evolution ideas from way back when. There's also Modern Evolution which is actually different than what Darwin originally came up with thanks to the benefit of time and better tools.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think the author is wrong.

There's Lamarkian Evolution and two other "Dude's Name" Evolution ideas from way back when. There's also Modern Evolution which is actually different than what Darwin originally came up with thanks to the benefit of time and better tools.

I don't know anything about Lamarkian Evolution, but we don't distinguish a difference between what Newtonian physics and the theories of Einstein because one was built on top of the other. Therefore, we should not distinguish a difference between what Darwin started and what evolution is now, because one was built on top of the other.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's Lamarkian Evolution and two other "Dude's Name" Evolution ideas from way back when.
The French scientist Maupertuis discussed evolution years before Darwin, as did Diderot. Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin was another proponent of pre-Darwinian evolution.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

There's also Modern Evolution which is actually different than what Darwin originally came up with thanks to the benefit of time and better tools.

The Modern Synthesis basically incorporates Mendelian genetics into evolution by natural selection. It was created mainly by R.A. Fisher and Sewall Wright. (I'm sure that I'm missing someone.) The Modern Synthesis says that the laws of Mendelian inheritance are sufficient to explain the diversity of life when the concept of Natural selection is applied.



Lamarkian evolution is an explanation of why species change over time. He (Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) supposed that species persisted indefinitely, changing from one form to another. Species did not branch (through divergent evolution) or go extinct. He had a two part explanation of why species change:

The principal mechanism was an "internal force"
some sort of unknown mechanism (unknown) within an organism that caused it to produce offspring slightly different from itself
The changes accumulated over many generations to transform the species
The inheritance of acquired characteristics
The Girraffe's neck is the classic explanation: an organism's striving is somehow passed on to its offspring
Interestingly, this concept was the less important to him of his two mechanisms, even though it is the one for which he is remembered today

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The correct term is Evolutionary Biology.
What do you think?

"Evolutionary Biology" sounds like it's the Biology evolving.
"Evolution Biology" would've been better.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Evolutionary Biology" sounds like it's the Biology evolving.
"Evolution Biology" would've been better.

That sounds fine to me. However, the point of the thread was to counter those fundamentalists who use the word "Darwinism" as a hammer to beat on evolution. Darwinism does not exist.

Who cares...we know evolution is untrue...it says so in the Koran.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Who cares...we know evolution is untrue...it says so in the Koran.

I say fundamentalists and you post.

It irritates me greatly that religious fundamentalists always use Darwin's work and it's flaws as the basis of their arguments. Completely ignoring the fact that some 150 years has passed since he produced that work. You wouldn't argue against current aeronautic principles on the basis of 150 year old flying theories would you?...You don't see many religious fundamentalists saying "we can't fly because noone had done in the 1850's"...So why they keep insisting on using Darwin as the start and end point of evolutionary evidence is beyond me. But i'll hazard a guess...because they simply don't understand the science. They don't want to try and understand it. They'd much rather just live in their own ignorant world.

Originally posted by jaden101
It irritates me greatly that religious fundamentalists always use Darwin's work and it's flaws as the basis of their arguments. Completely ignoring the fact that some 150 years has passed since he produced that work. You wouldn't argue against current aeronautic principles on the basis of 150 year old flying theories would you?...You don't see many religious fundamentalists saying "we can't fly because noone had done in the 1850's"...So why they keep insisting on using Darwin as the start and end point of evolutionary evidence is beyond me. But i'll hazard a guess...because they simply don't understand the science. They don't want to try and understand it. They'd much rather just live in their own ignorant world.

They don't...

It says clearly in the Koran.

Originally posted by jaden101
It irritates me greatly that religious fundamentalists always use Darwin's work and it's flaws as the basis of their arguments. Completely ignoring the fact that some 150 years has passed since he produced that work. You wouldn't argue against current aeronautic principles on the basis of 150 year old flying theories would you?...You don't see many religious fundamentalists saying "we can't fly because noone had done in the 1850's"...So why they keep insisting on using Darwin as the start and end point of evolutionary evidence is beyond me. But i'll hazard a guess...because they simply don't understand the science. They don't want to try and understand it. They'd much rather just live in their own ignorant world.

And you said you didn't know. It sounds like you got it right to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Darwinism does not exist.

That would be more true if it wasn't completely untrue.

Natural Selection.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That would be more true if it wasn't completely untrue.


I would agree with you if I didn't completely disagree with you.

Originally posted by jaden101
So why they keep insisting on using Darwin as the start and end point of evolutionary evidence is beyond me. But i'll hazard a guess...because they simply don't understand the science. They don't want to try and understand it. They'd much rather just live in their own ignorant world. "Darwin" is a pop tag, like "quantum."

I was watching this show last night, about the trial in Dover, Colorado, where the school board was trying to get Intelligent Design taught as an alternative theory to evolution. And I've also recently had the "pleasure" (I say that with only partial sarcasm) of engaging in discussion with two real-live Creationists (one of them is a really nice person, at least willing to listen to the Other Side)...

...I gotta tell ya: it really is like shooting fish in a barrel. With regard to presenting a logical argument based on material evidence...there's just no contest. This was why I just couldn't come down on the nice one. It also just fascinates me their POV: a real exercise in "creative" reasoning.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Darwin" is a pop tag, like "quantum."...

Creationists also want to put a human face on evolution. This allows them to disprove evolution by belittle Darwin. I have heard people claim that Darwin had affairs and that somehow makes evolution false. I don't know if that is true or not, but the logic, or lack of logic, is mind boggling.

Evolution is NOT Charles Darwin's theory.

At all.

His grandfather first came up with it.

^ Thank you.

and greek philosophers hundreds of years before the birth of christ had postulated it too

Darwin did the research and published the theory, thus it is attributed to him. "coming up" with something is pretty much useless in science. Darwin found the requisite evidence.

Originally posted by inimalist
and greek philosophers hundreds of years before the birth of christ had postulated it too

Darwin did the research and published the theory, thus it is attributed to him. "coming up" with something is pretty much useless in science. Darwin found the requisite evidence.

Evolution existed long before human existed.

lol, I was just having a laugh at the posters above me

all hardcore anti-darwin and shit

Yeah there is. Even Atheism's poster-children use those words all the time, like Hitchens and Dawkins. They might be misnomers or "not real words" (like ain't), but they're still accepted terms that everyone knows what they mean.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah there is. Even Atheism's poster-children use those words all the time, like Hitchens and Dawkins. They might be misnomers or "not real words" (like ain't), but they're still accepted terms that everyone knows what they mean.

They should be done away with because because they lead to an incorrect conclusion. This is what the article said, and the article even said that a lot of people who should know better use these improper terms.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They should be done away with because because they lead to an incorrect conclusion. This is what the article said, and the article even said that a lot of people who should know better use these improper terms.

I think "Darwinian Evolution" is a redundancy, since its his theory.

But "Darwinism" makes sense. An "ism" is an idea that people subscribe to. I also like the word "Darwiniac" for someone who subscribes to Darwinism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They should be done away with because because they lead to an incorrect conclusion. This is what the article said, and the article even said that a lot of people who should know better use these improper terms.

There is usually a huge difference between the way things should be said and way people say them. That's part of language and does not hamper understanding by laypeople.

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 but the phrase is still completely understood. For that matter most native speakers of English use the totally non-existent word "gonna" to say "going to", native Japanese speakers pronounce "desu" as "des", French speakers drop the ends of many words.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think "Darwinian Evolution" is a redundancy, since its his theory.

But "Darwinism" makes sense. An "ism" is an idea that people subscribe to. I also like the word "Darwiniac" for someone who subscribes to Darwinism.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think "Darwinian Evolution" is a redundancy, since its his theory.

Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism) is Darwin's theory. Lamarkian Evolution is Lamark's theory. Modern Evolution is not the same thing as either one, in technical parlance there is a difference between the current theory of evolution and the one that Darwin came up with.

Nonetheless Darwinism is colloquially the same thing as Evolution and there's rarely a need to refer to Darwinian Evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


You realize we actually do call Newton's theories about gravity . . . . . . Newtonian, right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize we actually do call Newton's theories about gravity . . . . . . Newtonian, right?

But no "ism".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize we actually do call Newton's theories about gravity . . . . . . Newtonian, right?

We also use Einsteinian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But no "ism".

I hear "Newtonism" all the time on The History Channel. Neil de Grasse Tyson uses it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But no "ism".

Which is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is irrelevant.

Not to the point that I am making. Sure, people say the wrong thing all the time. Most of the time there is no problem. However, there is no active religious group that is trying to replace the theory of gravity with an intelligent suction cup.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not to the point that I am making. Sure, people say the wrong thing all the time. Most of the time there is no problem. However, there is no active religious group that is trying to replace the theory of gravity with an intelligent suction cup.

And what they call it would have no effect on their success.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And what they call it would have no effect on their success.

They thrive on confusion.

ya, but they will promote confusion anyways

Its not like they understand evolution in the first place

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, but they will promote confusion anyways

Its not like they understand evolution in the first place

But why should we (the supporters of evolution) give them any fuel? I think that is what the author of the article was trying to get across.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But why should we (the supporters of evolution) give them any fuel? I think that is what the author of the article was trying to get across.

what fuel?

"evolutionists" didn't come up with the term "evolutionist"

Originally posted by inimalist
what fuel?

"evolutionists" didn't come up with the term "evolutionist"

As posted above, people who should know better, use these incorrect terms. This usage legitimatizes their wrong interpretation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As posted above, people who should know better, use these incorrect terms. This usage legitimatizes their wrong interpretation.

I'd agree with that, other than to say it only legitimizes them to those who have something against evolution.

Many people use "evolutionist" to inaccurately describe anyone doing any research in genetics or evolutionary biology. Coming out against these terms is just as likely to alienate the layman who probably couldn't care less about what the the actually is.

In a lot of ways its like me trying to explain to my friends that I study neuroscience and not neurology.

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?

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 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"... How about "Darwinite"? Oh wait. That sounds like it might be deadly to creationists.

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 ... Well, I just learned something new...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...an intelligent suction cup. "That's gold, Jerry. Gold."

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. http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Hulk_Hogan/hulk_hogan.jpg

Originally posted by Da Pittman
http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Hulk_Hogan/hulk_hogan.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/God_Optimus_Prime/WWE/Ric%20Flair/Ric_Flair_02.jpg

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!



Wrong. Read. Please?



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



No, I don't.



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 couldn't have asked me anything.

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)

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.

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

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.

That is another reason the term 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' should never be used. Thank you for supporting my point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is another reason the term 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' should never be used. Thank you for supporting my point.

Good god, Shaky. I don't disagree. I don't think it should be utilized either. Unfortunately, it still is. That's why the aforementioned term and "Evolutionary Biology" go hand in hand.

It's similar to "Ironic" and "Ironical" without the circumstance. Only one is really necessary.

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. This would be the same as saying that Einstein shouldn't get credit for the Theory of Relativity because he didn't come up with Science, Math and all of that. Almost any theory that is out there and any science is based on something before it, almost nothing is completely new.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Good god, Shaky. I don't disagree. I don't think it should be utilized either. Unfortunately, it still is. That's why the aforementioned term and "Evolutionary Biology" go hand in hand.

It's similar to "Ironic" and "Ironical" without the circumstance. Only one is really necessary.

Then why make the big fuss?

If you want to know why I am making the big fuss? There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who glom onto the term 'Darwinism' as if it was an ice-cream cone in a two year old's hand. They are gleefully blinded about every flaw they can make up about the man and then apply it to evolution. I just wanted to knock the scoop off the cone.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
This would be the same as saying that Einstein shouldn't get credit for the Theory of Relativity because he didn't come up with Science, Math and all of that. Almost any theory that is out there and any science is based on something before it, almost nothing is completely new.

No, that's ridiculous and you're twisting what I'm saying.

I never said Darwin shouldn't receive credit because he didn't come up with the theory of evolution, science, etc. I merely said Erasmus deserved credit as well for largely helping Darwin.

Stick to laughing at the thread, yeah?

And James Burnett did the work that Erasmus based his principals off of. EDIT: which was (apparently) informed by Rousseau, who in turn was informed by many other enlightenment era thinkers, who based their ideas off of the rennissance which was fostered by Aquinas and a return to Aristatalian logic brought by Islamic thinkers (Ibn Sena , Ibn Rushd , Al-Ghafar) to Spain and Sicily through Muslim conquest. This knowledge was originally brought to the Muslim world by Haipatia and other scholars during the sack of Greece by Rome. Greece thrived because of these ideas, coming from Aristotle, Plato, Socretes. Each of these people having clear precursors from which they developed their philosophy.

I don't get what your point is

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
No, that's ridiculous and you're twisting what I'm saying.

I never said Darwin shouldn't receive credit because he didn't come up with the theory of evolution, science, etc. I merely said Erasmus deserved credit as well for largely helping Darwin.

Stick to laughing at the thread, yeah? No that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.

You could also say that Steven Hawkins is not the founder of Black Holes either, he didn't come up with the theory either but he proved it so should he give credit to the person (can't remember the name) who just had the idea?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
No that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.

You could also say that Steven Hawkins is not the founder of Black Holes either, he didn't come up with the theory either but he proved it so should he give credit to the person (can't remember the name) who just had the idea?

I think it was Einstein.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
No that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.

Yes, that's the point. What are you missing?



A.E. are the initials. Stick to laughing at the thread again.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Yes, that's the point. What are you missing?



A.E. are the initials. Stick to laughing at the thread again. No I'm not laughing at the thread, I'm laughing at you.

Do you realize what you are saying? You agree with my point that contradicts your point, how does that prove your point?

And at what you will say next

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it was Einstein.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
A.E. are the initials. Stick to laughing at the thread again.

to quote Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History



But guess what, we can reduce that all back to pre-socratic philosophy as well

Originally posted by Da Pittman
No I'm not laughing at the thread, I'm laughing at you.

Do you realize what you are saying? You agree with my point that contradicts your point, how does that prove your point?

And at what you will say next

How can you patronize me? I agreed with you because you self-pwned.

Originally posted by inimalist
Al-Ghafar

Al-Gafiqi, my bad

I agree.



This is untrue. Let me explain, please.

First, the critical mass challenging evolution are not Bible Theologians and/or Theology Professors; whoever they are, whether bias, mental, ignorant or born with 3 legs is irrelevant. They merely agree with what scientists -- molecular biologists, astronomers and physicists, for example -- have brought to the table.

Second, the fossil record is void of transitions. Planet Earth is approximately 5.5 billion years old! And hundreds and hundreds upon thousands of fossils have been uncovered and documented. Ask Stephen J. Gould about the fossil record:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. , "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst , "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).



This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many.



Peas? Okay....



This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs. Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry.

Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."



Shakyamunison, since the author of this article couldn't provide one (1) example, perhaps you can. Evidence is stronger than theory and/or blanket statements. And I'm not being arrogant.



How is this relevant to the topic at hand? Enough with the fancy-talk.



Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already.



What an intelligent statement! Where do I sign?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree.



This is untrue. Let me explain, please.

First, the critical mass challenging evolution are not Bible Theologians and/or Theology Professors; whoever they are, whether bias, mental, ignorant or born with 3 legs is irrelevant. They merely agree with what scientists -- molecular biologists, astronomers and physicists, for example -- have brought to the table.

Second, the fossil record is void of transitions. Planet Earth is approximately 5.5 billion years old! And hundreds and hundreds upon thousands of fossils have been uncovered and documented. Ask Stephen J. Gould about the fossil record:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. , "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst , "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).



This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many.



Peas? Okay....



This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs. Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry.

Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."



Shakyamunison, since the author of this article couldn't provide one (1) example, perhaps you can. Evidence is stronger than theory and/or blanket statements. And I'm not being arrogant.



How is this relevant to the topic at hand? Enough with the fancy-talk.



Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already.



What an intelligent statement! Where do I sign?

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
How can you patronize me? I agreed with you because you self-pwned. What kind of drugs are you on, really I have to know because they are some real crazy ones that make you talk gibberish.

OH please great one show me how I self pwned myself.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree.



This is untrue. Let me explain, please.

First, the critical mass challenging evolution are not Bible Theologians and/or Theology Professors; whoever they are, whether bias, mental, ignorant or born with 3 legs is irrelevant. They merely agree with what scientists -- molecular biologists, astronomers and physicists, for example -- have brought to the table.

Second, the fossil record is void of transitions. Planet Earth is approximately 5.5 billion years old! And hundreds and hundreds upon thousands of fossils have been uncovered and documented. Ask Stephen J. Gould about the fossil record:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. , "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst , "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).



This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many.



Peas? Okay....



This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs. Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry.

Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."



Shakyamunison, since the author of this article couldn't provide one (1) example, perhaps you can. Evidence is stronger than theory and/or blanket statements. And I'm not being arrogant.



How is this relevant to the topic at hand? Enough with the fancy-talk.



Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already.



What an intelligent statement! Where do I sign?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
What kind of drugs are you on, really I have to know because they are some real crazy ones that make you talk gibberish.

OH please great one show me how I self pwned myself.

Sorry, my bad.

You owned yourself twice.



One on illogical jargon and the second on ignorance.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Sorry, my bad.

You owned yourself twice.



One on illogical jargon and the second on ignorance.

Wow! you have a way with people. Much like herpes in a nudist colony.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Sorry, my bad.

You owned yourself twice.



One on illogical jargon and the second on ignorance. OH, I must have missed that lesson is my critical thinking class, please show me where my logic is wrong instead of just making dumb-ass claims. While you are at it please show me my ignorance in my second statement.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow! you have a way with people. Much like herpes in a nudist colony. You have to love those Trolls

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OH, I must have missed that lesson is my critical thinking class, please show me where my logic is wrong instead of just making dumb-ass claims. While you are at it please show me my ignorance in my second statement.

You know what? Absolutely not. I've done it twice now. Even if I did prove you wrong, you'd just accuse me of trolling. I cannot win. Hopefully, our next discussion will be a more civil one.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OH, I must have missed that lesson is my critical thinking class, please show me where my logic is wrong instead of just making dumb-ass claims. While you are at it please show me my ignorance in my second statement.

Da Pittman it seems you have a big pimple on your butt.

If you motives are truthful then I will debate you but from what I read just in the first two post and how you responded after that before I even became involved read like a troll then someone that wanted to debate the topic at hand. I do not think it was just me that feels this way, I look back at this thread and see that in just first two page the topic was being debated back and forth, opinions from both sides were being expressed and posted and then you post this...

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 inimalist
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 Forum Ninja
Read the whole thread.

You really come off as a troll in this situation long before I came in, if you really wanted to come here to debate maybe you should change your methods.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
If you motives are truthful then I will debate you but from what I read just in the first two post and how you responded after that before I even became involved read like a troll then someone that wanted to debate the topic at hand. I do not think it was just me that feels this way, I look back at this thread and see that in just first two page the topic was being debated back and forth, opinions from both sides were being expressed and posted and then you post this...



You really come off as a troll in this situation long before I came in, if you really wanted to come here to debate maybe you should change your methods.

No, I really wasn't trying to troll. Why are you bringing that up? It is irrelevant to what happened between me and you. You screwed up and joined in a debate with me not fully understanding my statement. You either didn't take the time to absorb the information or couldn't. Then, you have the gull to challenge me? After you made a mistake? Now, you're changing the subject and confronting me with a situation you weren't even involved in.

So who is really trolling here? I had the courtesy earlier to try and shrug it off, going as far as saying I wouldn't explain it to try and drop it. That is not what a troll does, Pittman.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
No, I really wasn't trying to troll. Why are you bringing that up? It is irrelevant to what happened between me and you. You screwed up and joined in a debate with me not fully understanding my statement. You either didn't take the time to absorb the information or couldn't. Then, you have the gull to challenge me? After you made a mistake? Now, you're changing the subject and confronting me with a situation you weren't even involved in.

So who is really trolling here? I had the courtesy earlier to try and shrug it off, going as far as saying I wouldn't explain it to try and drop it. That is not what a troll does, Pittman.

Da Pittman has not been trollish at all. You should spend some time reexamining the way you communicate.

If you have a problem with my comment, please PM me. Lets see if we can get back on topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If you have a problem with my comment, please PM me. Lets see if we can get back on topic.

^ That would have looked better like that. How have I been trolling when I was willing to step out earlier and HE pursued me and asked me to regurgitate what I had said earlier? Bias is terrible.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
^ That would have looked better like that. How have I been trolling when I was willing to step out earlier and HE pursued me and asked me to regurgitate what I had said earlier? Bias is terrible.

Lets please drop it, or take it to PM's.

So if Darwin copied exactly what someone else theorized then yes it wouldn't be his theory, if he took an idea that someone had and expanded on it can came up with his own conclusion then that would be his theory. It wouldn't make a difference if someone else came up with the idea first and he/she went off that idea and created their own theory. The idea of Evolution has been around a lot longer than Darwin but this is HIS theory, he wrote his words about it and used his conclusions.

As for it being Darwinism some do hold it to a "religious" standard but I think that would be against the very nature of it.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/05/alfred-russel-wallace-evolution-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_shermer.html

An interesting article, dealing with some conspiracy-esque claims that Darwin didn't actually come up with the idea of evolution first. It lays it to rest quite soundly.

I also disagree with the thread's premise, btw. It's main premise seems to be that Newtonian physics is used to distinguish it from another kind of physics, and therefore 'Darwinian evolution' implies a different kind of evolution, which is just patently silly. No such thing need be implied simply because it does in another instance. Are we creating a lexical rule based on a single example?

That creationists try to make it into a negative term is also no reason to drop it. Creationists would turn any buzzword into something negative to bolster their cause. Removing the label Darwinism would just force them to do the same thing to a different word or term.

As it is, Darwinism has been used for decades now as a commonly-accepted term that conveys a clear idea to those who encounter it. It's perhaps a needless label, sure, but also not a harmful one...or no more harmful than any other distinction would be. And beyond that, Darwin's original theory has been heavily modified and added to in the years since its inception, but the core elements (gradual differentiation via natural selection, divergence of species, etc.) remain intact. Therefore, it is not even a term that is misleading, for it does not point us to an archaic theory that has been disproven, but to a few basic principles that have since been broadened and supported with mountains of evidence.

Originally posted by Digi
It's main premise seems to be that Newtonian physics is used to distinguish it from another kind of physics,

also, the distinction between Newtonian and Quantum physics is not one that exists in reality, but more is illustrative of the fact we, as human scientists, do not have a theory that is able to unite both of these systems.

Newtonian refers more to which equations we use when observing actions, rather than a different type of physics.

I guess I am promoting entrenched thinking.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I guess I am promoting entrenched thinking.

No, you're promoting needless confusion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, you're promoting needless confusion.

I'm doing the opposite. I'm over defining, and eliminating terms that are used by "the enemy". This limits me, but I don't see how it leads to confusion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm doing the opposite. I'm over defining, and eliminating terms that are used by "the enemy". This limits me, but I don't see how it leads to confusion.

Then obviously you're blocking out the explanations given by Digi and myself that point out not only why you proposal would be confusing and ineffective but is also blatantly inaccurate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then obviously you're blocking out the explanations given by Digi and myself that point out not only why you proposal would be confusing and ineffective but is also blatantly inaccurate.

No, I simply don't agree. The only point were I do agree is what I said before.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution'

In short, it's time to put Charles Darwin in his place, with all due respect, and accept that his theory has evolved.

What do you think?

Darwinism today is just that part of science that will not ever even consider the possibility of an intelligent influence in the creation of life.

Darwinism has not much to do with darwin anymore: Its Atheism and all the scientific theories that fall into that category and explain the existence of life.

Originally posted by ImSoTired
Darwinism today is just that part of science that will not ever even consider the possibility of an intelligent influence in the creation of life.

Darwinism has not much to do with darwin anymore: Its Atheism and all the scientific theories that fall into that category and explain the existence of life.

'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' is something that some creationist invented to attack evolution. I'm not sure were you get your definition.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' is something that some creationist invented to attack evolution.
I'm pretty sure it was invented to differentiate between two concepts or to address a philosophy that wasn't named at the time the term was coined.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm pretty sure it was invented to differentiate between two concepts or to address a philosophy that wasn't named at the time the term was coined.

Why don't they just call it evolution? Maybe it is because evolutions is too difficult for them to understand.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Evolution is NOT Charles Darwin's theory.

At all.

His grandfather first came up with it.



Probably true, but Erasmus Darwin was still a "Darwin" ...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nkadPBEKFk

Didn't Darwin give up on his own theory later in life?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Didn't Darwin give up on his own theory later in life?

I hope you realize that evolution was not Darwin idea. Evolution had been around for a long time before Darwin, but no one knew how it worked. That is what Darwin discovered; evolution through natural selection.

^ I think he co founded that with Russel Wallace.

You're half-right. It's a chaotic selection.

Originally posted by Oneness
You're half-right. It's a chaotic selection.

What? That's an oxymoron.