|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
German language ability going into the depth of evolution and it's secrets is something outside the scope of English. According to your assigned differences of the languages this is incorrect. You state that German is a philosophical language and as such is inadequate for a descriptive language of a scientific theory. In your post you mention "neodarwinism" and "anglo-american neodarwinian" - could you define what you mean? In my post I was specifically refering to the Theory of Evolution and requires the concise and technical attributes of English. I cannot really address your comments, as it appears you are not talking about ToE but something else? Your use of the suffix "ism" leads me to believe you are talking about the philosophy of evolution or the philosophy of Darwin - I am not sure if this is accurate. I see I was the one who first introduced the words ToE, I stand by my original claims. If however you are in fact talking of the philosophy of evolution I would concede your point.
192 writes: My opinion is that prevalence of (neo)darwinism is tightly connected with English language. If your opinion is that German is best for philosophy then (neo)darwinism is not connected with english. Science is technical and a "philosophy of science" is philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
In your post you mention "neodarwinism" and "anglo-american neodarwinian" - could you define what you mean? In my post I was specifically refering to the Theory of Evolution and requires the concise and technical attributes of English. I cannot really address your comments, as it appears you are not talking about ToE but something else? Your use of the suffix "ism" leads me to believe you are talking about the philosophy of evolution or the philosophy of Darwin - I am not sure if this is accurate.
This is another linguistic attack regarding evolution. I don't see why neodarwinism (or new synthesis) equals TOE. Are perhaps Orthogenesis, Nomogenesis or Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis not theories of evolution? Of course Orthogenesis is another theory of evolution. Neodarwinism is only one of theories of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
This is another linguistic attack regarding evolution. Why would you say that? I was simply inquiring about the nature of your discussion.
Neodarwinism is only one of theories of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is a science, Neodarwinism is a philosophy. Are you saying this is a linguistic attack of some sort? There is no need for philosophy in the study of natural processes. Its not an attack to recognize the difference between a philisophical conculsion based upon a theory and the theory itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Again - there are many theories of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Again - there are many theories of evolution. Well sure there are. Analysis of the data does not always result in the same opinions. There is however no differing opinion that the data is not philisophical, people are. The Theory of Evolution is not an "ism". So agian:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
So did you involve in TOE also Orthogenesis proposed by Theodor Eimer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5735 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Neodarwinism is only one of theories of evolution. Neodarwinism is not a different theory from the TOE. It is simply the combination of Darwin's ideas and our modern genetic knowledge. When Darwin first formulated his theories of Descent with Modification, he did not know at all exactly how traits were passed down. In short, he had no idea what the genetics behind evolution were. He only knew that natural selection occurred and selected for certain traits over others, traits that were then passed down the generations through some mechanism. He did not know what this mechanism was. We know his theory, without the mechanism of genetic inheritability considered, as Darwinism. But beginning with Mendel's studies on pea plants, we began to understand just how traits were passed down, and now, in the 21st century, we know a lot about how genetics works. Now we know the mechanism by which the selected traits described in Darwinism are passed down from parent to offspring. This new understanding of genetic theory combined with Darwin's incomplete ideas about natural selection is collectively known as Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is not a separate theory from the TOE, but is simply a more complete version of Darwinism that makes up the TOE. Does this make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
So did you involve in TOE also Orthogenesis proposed by Theodor Eimer? If by Orthogenesis you mean "life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to some internal or external "driving force" and an "intrinsic drive towards perfection; natural selection unimportant". then no. (Wiki on Orthogenesis)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
OK. And what (or who) authorized neodarwinism (or New synthesis) to be the exclusively and the only "theory of evolution"? Orthogenesis, Nomogenesis (Berg's evolution by law) and Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis are theories of evolution as well I dare say.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
MartinV writes: And what (or who) authorized neodarwinism (or New synthesis) to be the exclusively and the only "theory of evolution"? When did I say that neodarwinism is the theory of evolution? As a matter of fact I have already made clear that I do not agree with this. I said earlier:
quote: I can appreciate what you are trying to say, but I disagree with the use of the word neodarwinism as a replacement of the Theory of Evolution. I have made this point several times now and in each case I was ignored or said to be making a linguistic attack. If you don't want to discuss what I have said, but instead wish to argue something I don't even agree with we are likely caught in a standstill. I asked for clarification on what you mean by neodarwinism or anglo-american neodarwinian and was clear on my reason for asking. (At least I thought I was! )
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024