Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Vs. Evolution Vs. Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 03:48 AM

In this review of the book, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism--fyi, the title of the review is What Can Replace Religion?--there can be found numerous examples of the mis-use of the words "evolve" and "evolution". I have, consistently, objected to the use of the word outside biology, in fields of study wide and far removed from the subject of biological development.

The word "evolve" is used when the word "develop" is the equivalent.

This was to be my conclusion. Prior to that, I decided to take a look at my favorite online dictionary. I started with the entry for develop and went directly to the alphabetical list of "related words."

I did not find the word "evolve."

(There can be found the word, "evolute", but this is a term from Geometry.)

I became very suspicious and smelled a rat. I went directly to the list of related words for "evolve" to confirm that "develop" is absent. (It is, but I did find that, "dream up", is a "related word" of evolve, which is a hoot.)

Above the lists of "related words" for words, the Webster page always places the WordNet Dictionary entry for the subject word. This section contains curious entries for "evolve":
.

Verb 1. evolve - work out; "We have developed a new theory of evolution"
        Synonyms: develop, germinate
     2.	evolve - undergo development or evolution; "Modern man evolved a long time ago"
     3.	evolve - gain through experience; "I acquired a strong aversion to television"; 
        "Children must develop a sense of right and wrong"; 
        "Dave developed leadership qualities in his new position"; 
        "develop a passion for painting"
        Synonyms: develop, acquire

.
I doubt that anyone who hasn't already disengaged from society will dispute that we all live in a land of confusion. (Could be a song: Genesis, Disturbed, etc.)

When I read such things as, "The Cosmologist's essay attempts to describe how galaxies evolved", I may ask, will it include any references to genetic mutation, random or otherwise?

If I'm feeling less combative, I might ask, will it include the cosmological equivalent of natural selection? I have no doubt that someone could provide a description of the mechanism by which the "fittest" galaxy survives.

In the book-review at the American Renaissance link above, can be found references to "natural selection":
.

...
The advantage of taking charge of man’s evolution has been clear ever since evolution was understood. Before the Second World War, there were a great many eugenics societies in the United States, and many states passed eugenics laws. Nor was eugenics thought to be in conflict with religion. Just as the fundamentalist Christianity of Isaac Newton did not keep him from outstanding scientific achievement, the devout catholicism of the French anthropologist, Teilhard de Chardin did not keep him from writing this:
 

So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed.


Science, therefore, can be expected to discover a sound, human morality only when the scientists themselves are better people. They can become better, along with everyone else, through the conscious direction of human evolution. In the mean time, a makeshift morality consists in practices that improve the species, while immorality debases it.

This morality has enormous consequences. Now that men have, as Teilhard de Chardin predicted, suppressed the forces of natural selection, they can make of themselves greater, nobler creatures or they can destroy themselves. As is so often the case, not to choose is also to choose. For Prof. Cattell, an evolutionary morality has consequences not only for how a society should be governed, but how it should govern its relations with other societies.
...

.
What is the appropriate difference between "evolve" and "develop?" In the quote of the French anthropologist we find, "...a ... form of eugenics ... should be discovered and developed."

When humans create or invent things, they develop those things over time, possibly decades, sometimes centuries. When a historical account of these developments is written, one may find a description of how they evolved.

There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 03:07 PM

...
There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

.
The other "moment of clarity" can be expected when there is an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth.

#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:48 PM

 

...
There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

.
The other "moment of clarity" can be expected when there is an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth.

 

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.



#4 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 29 August 2017 - 01:51 AM

...
There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

.
The other "moment of clarity" can be expected when there is an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth.

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.

.
That's nice.

#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 30 August 2017 - 06:19 AM

...
There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

.
The other "moment of clarity" can be expected when there is an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth.

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.

.

...
That's nice.

.
Please note that the sentence about Brown is ambiguous: the trailing clause can be interpreted to mean that there has been life discovered off Earth.

This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible.

#6 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:34 PM

The deceased, veritable Albert Einstein invokes the dreaded "evo" word in an essay titled, Principles of Science. From the book Essays in Science, an abridged edition of The World as I See It, by Albert Einstein, 1933, translated by Alan Harris, page 4 of essay:
.

...
The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all with an equal amount to be said for them; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But evolution has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to all the rest.
...

.
After repeated reading, I still can't determine exactly his meaning in the usage of "evolution."
.
The paragraph continues:
.

... Nobody wo has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system; this is what Leibnitz described so happily as a "pre-established harmony." Physicists often accuse epistomologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact. Here, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried on some years ago between Mach and Planck.



#7 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 02 September 2017 - 07:27 AM

Woops! He did it again!

The guy who had funny hair, Albert Einstein, used (mis-used?) the dreaded "evo" word in an essay titled, The Mechanics of Newton. Before and after the word can be found the word "development." Infer what you will. From the book Essays in Science, an abridged edition of The World as I See It, by Albert Einstein, 1933, translated by Alan Harris, page 38:
.

...
In a more formal sense also Newton's mechanics prepared the way for the field-theory. The application of Newton's mechanics to continously distributed masses led inevitably to the discovery and application of partial differential equations, which in their turn first provided the language for the laws of the field-theory. In this formal respect Newton's conception of the differential law constitutes the first decisive step in the development which followed.

The whole evolution of our ideas about the processes of nature, with which we have been concerned so far, might be regarded as an organic development of Newton's ideas. But while the process of perfecting the field-theory was still in full swing, the facts of heat-radiation, the spectra, radio-activity, etc. revealed a limit to the serviceableness of the whole intellectual system which today still seems to us absolutely insuperable in spite of immense successes at certain points. Many physicists maintain--and there are weighty arguments in their favor--that in the face of these facts not merely the differential law but the law of causation itself--hitherto the fundamental postulate of all natural science--has collapsed.
...

.
(Bold emphasis mine. I did take Differential Equations after 3 semesters of Calculus.)

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2017 - 07:48 AM

Schera, if I had to have a bet as to who is in error, you or Einstein.....erm, I'm going to go with Einstein, because it doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.  :rotfl3: 

 

Schera, I am afraid a lot of the time you simply confuse yourself. Words can have more than one meaning. Usually the meaning being used by the person can be understood if you concentrate on the context.

 

You seem to be employing a kind of unrealistic pedanticism. In real life people use words loosely, and even this is perfectly acceptable to most people. What he meant by the "evolution of our ideas about the processes of nature" is that our own understanding evolves from a more primitive understanding initially, and unfolding. Einstein simply meant it in this usual and common way;

 

"the evolution of formula one racing has led to sophisticated aerodynamics."

 

He means that as time goes on, we "evolve" in the sense of "change", there is a change, an unfolding or a transition from one state to another. 

 

I'm sorry but Einstein used the term, "evolution" completely correctly here.


  • Mike Summers and Gneiss girl like this

#9 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 02 September 2017 - 08:20 AM

Ah, the fresh air, splendid. I sure do like the fresh air.

Goku
m-the-pee-stream
Blitzking
KenJackson
what if (as I mentioned, re-arranged to the end of the line)

#10 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 06:17 AM

Please note that I did not color the words within the {code} IP.Board script codes.

Verb 1. evolve - work out; "We have developed a new theory of evolution"
        Synonyms: develop, germinate
     2.	evolve - undergo development or evolution; "Modern man evolved a long time ago"
     3.	evolve - gain through experience; "I acquired a strong aversion to television"; 
        "Children must develop a sense of right and wrong"; 
        "Dave developed leadership qualities in his new position"; 
        "develop a passion for painting"
        Synonyms: develop, acquire



#11 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:27 PM

 

 

 

...
There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

.
The other "moment of clarity" can be expected when there is an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth.

 

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.

 

.

...
That's nice.

.
Please note that the sentence about Brown is ambiguous: the trailing clause can be interpreted to mean that there has been life discovered off Earth.

This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible.

If you thought I was making such a claim, you could simply have asked for clarification. 

 

Frankly, in context, I thought it was pretty clear that Brown's argument was that he had the answer if "undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth" were discovered.  Not that such life had already been found.



#12 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 02:08 AM

...
There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

.
The other "moment of clarity" can be expected when there is an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth.

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.

.

...
That's nice.

.
Please note that the sentence about Brown is ambiguous: the trailing clause can be interpreted to mean that there has been life discovered off Earth.

This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible.

If you thought I was making such a claim, you could simply have asked for clarification. 
 
Frankly, in context, I thought it was pretty clear that Brown's argument was that he had the answer if "undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth" were discovered.  Not that such life had already been found.

.
What would be "clear" is a link to Brown's argument, not "paisan"'s interpretation of something I and we can't evaluate.

Do you follow?

#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:21 AM

 

 

 

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.
Please note that the sentence about Brown is ambiguous: the trailing clause can be interpreted to mean that there has been life discovered off Earth.

This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible.
If you thought I was making such a claim, you could simply have asked for clarification. 
 
Frankly, in context, I thought it was pretty clear that Brown's argument was that he had the answer if "undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth" were discovered.  Not that such life had already been found.
.
What would be "clear" is a link to Brown's argument, not "paisan"'s interpretation of something I and we can't evaluate.

Do you follow?

Same thing.  If you wanted documentation, you could have simply asked.

 

Here are a few of Brown's comments on the matter:

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars

Link:  http://www.creations...Sciences15.html

 

Today, a popular belief is that comets brought life to Earth. Instead, comets have traces of life from Earth.4 [See “Rosetta Mission” on p. 306.]

Link:  http://www.creations...html#wp34745278

 

Some will say that these organic compounds were precursors to life on Earth. Neglected is the more likely alternative: these compounds were fragments of organisms living on Earth that were destroyed in some cataclysm.

Link:  http://www.creations...ok/Comets5.html

 

If pulverized vegetation launched by the fountains of the great deep was incorporated into Pluto, as indicated above by the carbon-monoxide lake, then bacteria would have been attached.....

Link:  http://www.creations...Asteroids4.html

 

(Note:  Walt Brown's on-line book undergoes constant revision.  Links are accurate at the time of this post, but are more than likely to change over time.)



#14 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:49 AM

Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth ..... it originated from Earth and was transported to space by a huge steam explosion.

Please note that the sentence about Brown is ambiguous: the trailing clause can be interpreted to mean that there has been life discovered off Earth.

This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible.

If you thought I was making such a claim, you could simply have asked for clarification. 
 
Frankly, in context, I thought it was pretty clear that Brown's argument was that he had the answer if "undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth" were discovered.  Not that such life had already been found.

.
What would be "clear" is a link to Brown's argument, not "paisan"'s interpretation of something I and we can't evaluate.

Do you follow?

Same thing.  ...

.
What is the same thing?

Do you understand the question?

#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 September 2017 - 05:28 PM

 

 

Same thing.  ...
.What is the same thing?

Did you read the rest of my statement before you cut it off?

 

Let's look at the history:

Post 1:   You went on a rant complaining that the term "evolution" has multiple uses.

Post 2:   You commented about " an undeniable, unambiguous proof of life off Earth"

Post 3:   In response to post 2, I commented that "Creationist Walt Brown already claims to have an answer for discovery of life off of Earth"

Post 5:   You complained:  "that the sentence about Brown is ambiguous" and "This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible."

Post 11:  I pointed out: "If you thought I was making such a claim, you could simply have asked for clarification."

Post 12:  You again complained.  This time about the lack of a link to Brown's comments.

 

That brings us to the present complaint.  You copied "same thing" and asked what the same thing would be.  The remainder of the sentence, the part you deleted has the answer.  "If you wanted documentation you could have asked." 

 

It was the "same thing" as your initial complaint about an "ambiguous" sentence.  In other words, the answer both times is you should have asked.  First for clarification, then later for documentation.

 

Do you understand the question?

Obviously not.

 

The first time you complained about ambiguity and I answered that complaint. 

 

In response you complained about something else entirely.  The new problem being a lack of documentation that Brown claims to have an answer if life is found in space.  You were provided with a list of four citations in Brown's on-line book showing Brown proposes Earth as a source of living matter if it is found on Mars, comets, and even Pluto.

 

As I see it, you've raised two issues with my comment and I've addressed both of them. 

 

I have no idea what else you may expect.



#16 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 06:08 PM

Same thing. ...

.What is the same thing?

Did you read the rest of my statement before you cut it off?
...

.
Yes.

I read the whole thing, then went back and couldn't figure out the two word sentence: "Same thing."

Then.

I asked a simple question.

I will attempt again:

What is "same thing?"
.

Piasan: All of the modern flood models have the same fatal flaw.....
...
An ad nauseam statement you must have repeated about twelve times now and I have answered twelve times. I'll say it one more time, ....
...

.
Do you think you are part of the problem in the insane asylum?

It won't be "said" "one more time" after the 13th: the gerbil runs round and round the cage.

That's what I see. Oh yes.

#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 September 2017 - 07:08 PM

 

 

 

Same thing. ...

.What is the same thing?

 

Did you read the rest of my statement before you cut it off?
...

 

.
Yes.

I read the whole thing, then went back and couldn't figure out the two word sentence: "Same thing."

Then.

I asked a simple question.

I will attempt again:

What is "same thing?"

Explained in post #15.  Again, if you wanted information you should have asked.

 

You've complained about a perceived ambiguity in my initial post in this discussion, that was addressed.

 

You complained about an absence of references to Brown's claim.  You were given four.

 

Do you think you are part of the problem in the insane asylum?

It won't be "said" "one more time" after the 13th: the gerbil runs round and round the cage.

That's what I see. Oh yes.

I see no need to continue this.



#18 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 07:51 PM

Same thing. ...

.What is the same thing?

Did you read the rest of my statement before you cut it off?
...

.
Yes.

I read the whole thing, then went back and couldn't figure out the two word sentence: "Same thing."

Then.

I asked a simple question.

I will attempt again:

What is "same thing?"

Explained in post #15. Again, if you wanted information you should have asked.

You've complained about a perceived ambiguity in my initial post in this discussion, that was addressed.

You complained about an absence of references to Brown's claim. You were given four.

Do you think you are part of the problem in the insane asylum?

It won't be "said" "one more time" after the 13th: the gerbil runs round and round the cage.

That's what I see. Oh yes.

I see no need to continue this.

.
Oh, yes. You are most definitely part of the problem, as I identified in post #5: the ambiguous statement; it perpetuates the insanity. This, it turns out, was my attempt to elaborate on my initial bad reaction to the troublesome sentence, which was, "That's nice."

Those were the only two words that I could spit-out originally.
.

...
This is the kind of thing that makes discussion around here close to impossible.

.

Piasan: All of the modern flood models have the same fatal flaw.....
...
An ad nauseam statement you must have repeated about twelve times now and I have answered twelve times. I'll say it one more time, ....
...

.
I ask again: Do you think you are part of the problem in the insane asylum?

#19 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 05 September 2017 - 11:59 AM

... Science can study the material things, how they behave, how they evolve, etc.

.
It's not trivial to make the error that "Science does" or "should" or "will" do anything. It's worse than shoddy expression and might suggest shoddy thinking.

If there were a Grand Exhalted Mystic Ruler of Science, then one might be justified in stating, "science can study ____."

Next.

The phrase "how they evolve", how material things evolve, the evolution of material things.

The evolution of civilized society.
The evolution of the combustion engine.
The evolution of mountain ranges.
The evolution of spiral galaxies.
The evolution of species.
The list of such sentences with the same word can be extended until...who could "say?"

What common mechanism is denoted by the appearance of this single word, spelled precisely the same in each instance?

There is no common mechanism for all.

There may not be a common mechanism for any two, ...who could "say?"

Language pollution at it's finest.

I consider the author of the sentence to be part of the "problem."

#20 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 September 2017 - 01:07 AM

To point out the obvious: the word "evolution" existed before the "biological theory of evolution", and words often have more than one meaning. The word "evolution" does not derive its' definition from biology, rather biology used an existing word to name a theory based on the definition the word already had. So when people talk about the "evolution of dance", or what have you, the definition of evolution is not derived from the biological theory of evolution but the older and broader definition of 'change' or 'development'. Similarly in other areas of science or academia, e.g. evolution of society or stellar evolution, the word evolution is taken from this older and broader definition, and not the definition associated with biological evolution.

 

I decided to take a look at Schera Do's "favorite online dictionary" and I noticed a few things.

 

I first looked at his link regarding the word "develop", and you will notice that several of the definitions given have "evolve" under the "synonym" category. In addition one of the definitions of "develop" given (v. i. 1) starts off saying "To go through a process of natural evolution or growth". Interesting.

 

I then looked at his link regarding the word "evolve", and again one of the definitions given (v. i. 1) states "To become open, disclosed, or developed". Another one of the definitions defines evolve as (Verb 2.) to "undergo a development or evolution". Similar to the "develop" page, you will find the word "develop" in the "synonym" category under various definitions for "evolve".

 

Schera Do said he went directly to the "related words" section, so I looked there too, and Schera Do is correct that you do not find the word "evolve" in the "develop" related words section, and vice versa. I haven't exhaustively confirmed this, but I did check it with more than just these two words, and it appears that the site does not list synonyms of words in the "related words" section, which would explain why Schera Do did not see either of these two words in the said "related words" section. It would also make logical sense as "synonym" and "related words" are not the same thing.

 

So it would appear that his "favorite online dictionary" does in fact support the idea that in many contexts outside of biology the words "evolve" and "develop" are interchangeable.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users