IamJoseph writes:
All that I said was correct - w/o the jargon.
Which of the five were just jargon issues?
IamJoseph writes:
...it fails till it succeeds
1, and when a crevice of elevation is found, it is said to evolve into a higher
2, more hardy life - this is termed as a mutation
3 - while it helps a life form to progress to a new, higher level
2, it also destroys
4 the original host
5 form.
(superscripts are mine, and correspond to comments made below)
1. How is this a jargon issue? Failure in evolution means you die or you don't reproduce. Either way, your genes are
completely gone, and will never be around again. In evolution, you
succeed until you fail: you keep adapting to the environment, or else you die. As soon as you can no longer keep up with the environmental changes, you die. You should have said the exact opposite of what you did say, so I guess you could construe this as a “jargon” issue.
2. Evolution does
not proceed toward a “higher” goal of any flippin’ kind: it goes “up” and “down,” depending on what is better suited to the environment. Loss of a trait (like legs) could not possibly be construed as “higher” or “more complex” in any conceivable way, but it makes snakes, caecilians, glass lizards, legless lizards, dolphins, seals, etc. more suited to their environment. If jargon issues Include saying things that are wrong, you are right that you have a jargon issue here.
3. You're right about this one: it's a jargon issue. You got yours from X-Men, where "mutation"="cool new trait/ability." In evolution, "mutation"="random change in a DNA sequence." But, your statement was “this is termed a mutation,” which shows that you really haven’t read scientific materials at all, so it’s more than just a jargon issue.
4. You say the new type automatically replaces the old type. Read
here for thorough refutation (and unbridled mockery) of this idea. If ignorance is a “jargon” issue, then you’re right about this one being a jargon issue, too.
5. So, this one is also a jargon issue. But, you should really learn the jargon, anyway, because that’s how people tend to communicate with one another.
Some other "jargon" issues:
From Message #73:
IamJoseph writes:
The micro process has been traced to what is called a retro-virus, which, before perishing away, lodged an implant in a dna's gene, and this was passed on, even as the retro did not survive.
Retro-viruses can indeed cause changes in genome structure. However, so can UV rays, free radicals, random errors in the molecules that transcribe DNA, and a whole boatload of other mechanisms. So, if recognizing only one of several known mechanisms is a jargon issue, you’ve got another jargon issue here, alright.
IamJoseph writes:
While Darwin himself never said all life forms emerge from one molecule, or that there is cross-sepciation, this is the inferred premise, which has been expanded and accepted by the faculty called ToE.
Nobody really gives a wet slap what Darwin said anymore: he is not our prophet, and isn't even considered a real authority on evolution anymore. I know more about evolution with my B.S. degree in biology than Darwin ever did. When we have a question about how things happen, we do an experiment, or we talk to a modern specialist, we do
not consult
The Origin of Species. So, when you say "look what Darwin said," expect scientists to instantly consider you a moron who doesn't know how science (or evolution) works.
IamJoseph writes:
The highest species is definitely mentioned by a religious document, the same one which introduced evolution, and which placed humans a seperate category, and the final life from; this is vindicated w/o any confusion, and no need to wait millions of years or check it out in a lab. That's real science.
This is called quote-mining. It works well with the Bible (where it's called "Bible-bashing"), because every word of the Bible is supposed to be sacred and absolutely true. However, in scientific papers, it doesn't work: in order to make the paper cohesive, scientists have to write a few sentences that are not "sacred" (meaning, they're not part of the science)”so you don't get to just pull words out of stuff written by scientists and use it as scientific proof of anything, unless the words are the results of the experiment the paper is reporting on {AbE: and those words are still accepted in science today}.
For example, just because Darwin alludes to a Creator and that stuff in
The Origin of Species, doesn't mean he has scientifically shown that a Creator exists. If you have read the book, and were paying attention, you would note that his mentioning of a Creator does not follow directly from the work that he did. That makes it part of his opinion, not part of his science.
So, if quote-mining (or
Origin-bashing, if you want) is a jargon issue, you've got another jargon issue to fix.
If these all count as "jargon" issues, than the word "jargon" is as expansive and meaningless as the word "center."
Edited by Bluejay, : One addition.
I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
