Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith (2 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,842 Year: 18,878/19,786 Month: 1,298/1,705 Week: 104/446 Day: 104/64 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation of the English Language
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 196 of 205 (461965)
03-28-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by MartinV
03-28-2008 3:16 PM


Re: Uniquest unique?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by MartinV, posted 03-28-2008 3:16 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 2:27 AM Vacate has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 197 of 205 (461979)
03-29-2008 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Vacate
03-28-2008 9:29 PM


Re: Uniquest unique?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Vacate, posted 03-28-2008 9:29 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Vacate, posted 03-29-2008 9:33 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 202 by Organicmachination, posted 03-29-2008 1:31 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 198 of 205 (462001)
03-29-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by MartinV
03-29-2008 2:27 AM


Re: Uniquest unique?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 2:27 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 10:17 AM Vacate has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 199 of 205 (462005)
03-29-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Vacate
03-29-2008 9:33 AM


Re: Uniquest unique?
Again - there are many theories of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Vacate, posted 03-29-2008 9:33 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Vacate, posted 03-29-2008 11:12 AM MartinV has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 200 of 205 (462011)
03-29-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by MartinV
03-29-2008 10:17 AM


Re: Uniquest unique?
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:

  • Why do you feel I am making a linguistic attack?
  • Why would a philisophical language be preffered for a technical realm of study?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 199 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 10:17 AM MartinV has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 201 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 12:36 PM Vacate has responded

      
    MartinV 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4118 days)
    Posts: 502
    From: Slovakia, Bratislava
    Joined: 08-28-2006


    Message 201 of 205 (462019)
    03-29-2008 12:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 200 by Vacate
    03-29-2008 11:12 AM


    Re: Uniquest unique?
    So did you involve in TOE also Orthogenesis proposed by Theodor Eimer?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 200 by Vacate, posted 03-29-2008 11:12 AM Vacate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 203 by Vacate, posted 03-29-2008 7:15 PM MartinV has responded

      
    Organicmachination
    Member (Idle past 3999 days)
    Posts: 105
    From: Pullman, WA, USA
    Joined: 12-30-2007


    Message 202 of 205 (462024)
    03-29-2008 1:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 197 by MartinV
    03-29-2008 2:27 AM


    Re: Uniquest unique?
    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?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 197 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 2:27 AM MartinV has not yet responded

        
    Vacate
    Member (Idle past 2890 days)
    Posts: 565
    Joined: 10-01-2006


    Message 203 of 205 (462042)
    03-29-2008 7:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 201 by MartinV
    03-29-2008 12:36 PM


    Re: Uniquest unique?
    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)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 201 by MartinV, posted 03-29-2008 12:36 PM MartinV has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 204 by MartinV, posted 03-30-2008 2:40 PM Vacate has responded

      
    MartinV 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4118 days)
    Posts: 502
    From: Slovakia, Bratislava
    Joined: 08-28-2006


    Message 204 of 205 (462094)
    03-30-2008 2:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 203 by Vacate
    03-29-2008 7:15 PM


    Re: Uniquest unique?
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 203 by Vacate, posted 03-29-2008 7:15 PM Vacate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 205 by Vacate, posted 03-31-2008 8:38 PM MartinV has not yet responded

      
    Vacate
    Member (Idle past 2890 days)
    Posts: 565
    Joined: 10-01-2006


    Message 205 of 205 (462162)
    03-31-2008 8:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by MartinV
    03-30-2008 2:40 PM


    Re: Uniquest unique?
    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:
    Your use of the suffix "ism" leads me to believe you are talking about the philosophy of evolution or the philosophy of Darwin

    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! )


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by MartinV, posted 03-30-2008 2:40 PM MartinV has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019