How do you define the word Evolution?

Ah, the PRATTS never die. Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: More Out of Context Quotations of French Scientists

quote:

---

Since the Revised Quote Book stated that "Prof. Bounoure" had served as the "Director of Research" at the "French National Centre of Scientific Research" I wrote the Center [The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research]. I asked them about the exact origin of the quotation and received the following reply, dated March 3, 1995 (translated by professional French translator, Jacques Benbassat, with some minor editing and paragraphs re-arranged in an easier to follow order):

​

quote:

---

Dear Mr. Babinski,
The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning the theory of evolution.

​

Here is the information I was able to gather:

​

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

​

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

​

As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions.

​

As far as Paul Lemoine is concerned, he is indeed a "famous French scientist" since he was the director of the National Museum of Natural History. In the Encyclopedie Francaise [French Encyclopedia, circa 1950s], volume 5, he wrote the following: "It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction." And this quotation often circulates among anti-evolutionist groups.
Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself.

​

The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.

​

This is the information that I am able to give you. if you would like to have more details, you could write to Jean Staune, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine, 1 rue Rene Panhard - 75013 Paris. This institute is associated with our own: The National Center of Scientific Research.

​

Very truly yours,
Marie-Antoinette de Lumley

---

---

Many have differed. Ignoring the responses doesn't change that.

Name 'em.

Depends on context. In the case of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" it's clear he means how different species originate from other pre-existing species.Bet you don't know what he meant by "reaces" either.

All theories are incomplete. Otherwise there would only be one theory.The issue is where to place a theory's boundaries. Since selection is an integral part of the ToE it's reasonable to say that if selection is not involved it's not covered by the ToE. We can't identify exactly where that boundary is but there are plenty of phenoma that obviously fit on one side.

That appears to be one. One is not impressive. Any more, or is that all?

Contradicting yourself. Humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is part of common descent. If you doubt one you doubt the other.

(the existence of) A is not evidence for (the existence of) A.Fascinating.

Logical proofs are only true in the real world when the premises are true in the real world.The errors in your made-up unreal premises have been pointed out many times.

You ignore and deny observed addition of genetic diversity. QED.{ABE} Falsified by observation. Unsupported assertion. But we can discuss it when you provide an operational definition of "kind". Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

FIFY.See my edited message above.

http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html
Observed Instances of Speciation An operational definition, the only kind of definition that is useful in science, specifies a procedure by which one can determine whether or not an arbitray item fits the definition. That is not an operational definition.

• You have not specified any way to determine if "genetic diversity has been reduced to the point that no further evolution is possible.".
• Your claim that there is a point at which "genetic diversity has been reduced to the point that no further evolution is possible" is an unsupported assertion. In fact, there are no observations or reasons to think such a situation exists.

Given any two arbitrarily chosen organisms, how do you determine whether or not they are the same kind?

Evidence, please?Oh, you don't have any. Just more unsupported assertions.

It matters. A lot. If it's a mutation your claims about loss of genetic diversity are false.

IOW a fantasy you made up and non-functional because there's no way to apply it. Sweet.