Darwinists? and other names for "evos"

I have encountered several Evolutionists that get rather indignant and defensive when I refer to them as Darwinists. Has anyone here had a similar experience? Can anyone suggest any reason why people who believe in evolution try to reject Darwin?

The people I have encountered that object to being called Darwinists have had no qualms about being called Evolutionists.Furthermore, I use the term Darwinist to identify anyone who accepts Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a mechanism whereby macroevolution can be achieved. But, no one has tried to explain to me how macroevolution can happen without Darwin’s survival of the fittest.

quote:

---

The term macroevolution comes up again. There isn't really such a separate thing you know. If you have your own definition it might be useful to supply it.

---

I have various sources that define macroevolution as the origination through evolution of taxa higher than species.Speciation within a genus is something that many Creationists and I accept as valid. But the variation is limited by the genetic material (as mutated) that God originally created.Minute changes that divide one population into two is really microevolution i.e. speciation.

quote:

---

There are genetic changes in individual organisms. These are usually very small and most often don't do much or anything. Some of these are large (polypoidy (sp?) for example ). That is all there is as far as changes in the genome go. Large or small these changes may not result in speciation and so they are all "micro" using the biological definition.

---

Genetic changes in an organism after birth can come only through mutation i.e. the erroneous copying of DNA when somatic cells reproduce and the erroneous copying of DNA for protein synthesis or the erroneous reading of DNA protein codes or the erroneous assemblage of amino acids to make proteins.Largescale genetic changes, like the ones involving chromosomal changes, generally happen during meiosis or fetal development. Changes show up in organisms only because they first appeared in gametes or arose during fetal development. Genetic changes after birth are generally small- but they are not always harmless- as carcinogens would indicate. Genetic changes after birth, that do not involve games, are not inheritable.

quote:

---

There is, in biology, nothing else but species. For convenience we group them into larger groups, (genus, family, order etc.) but those are just groups of species. There is nothing but species!

---

I don't argue this point, but since humans and apes are not part of the same species, you have to explain the speciation processes that allowed them to both to development; you must explain macroevolution.

quote:

---

One who embraces some of the core values of marxism while rejecting many of its excesses would naturally prefer to be called a socialist than a Marxist.

---

Give some examples of Marxist excesses that modern day advocates of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs would reject.

quote:

---

Similarly, one who holds to many of Darwin's original ideas but who rejects some of the original conclusions drawn or some particular aspects of Darwin's theories might reject the term 'Darwinist' in favor of 'evolutionist'.

---

Give some examples of some of Darwin's conclusions that modern day advocates of evolution via natural selection reject.And if you reject the idea that natural selection is necessary for evolution, explain why.

Did any Evolutionist object to being called a Darwinist before Eldredge and Gould came on the scene?As far as the fossil record goes:Darwinism: Evolution to slow to be noticed.Punct Eeek: Evolution to fast to be seen.

If Darwinian gradualism is found in the fossil record, where is the multitude of transitional forms that fossil record should contain?To my understanding Punct Eek was proposed to explain the lack of transitional fossil forms.Scientific Creationism (public school edition)
Henry M. Morris, editor
Creation Life Publishers
San Diego, Ca.
1974
0890510016 (paperbound)According to the fossil record:
Every kingdom and subkingdom that now has living representatives has existed since Cambrian times.
Every phyla of the animal kingdom has existed since Cambrian times.
Every class of the animal kingdom except vertebrates and moss-corals; insects, graptolites and trilobites has existed since Cambrian times.
Vertebrates and moss-corals have existed since Ordovician times.
Insects have existed since Devonian times.
Graptolites existed from Cambrian to Carboniferous times.
Trilobites existed from Cambrian to Permian times.
Every phyla of the plant kingdom except bryophytes, pteridophytes and spermophytes have existed since Triassic times.
Bacteria, algae and fungi have existed since Precambrian times.
Diatoms have existed since Jurassic times.
Every kingdom, phyla, class, order and family and most genera and species appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional precursors.So my description of Darwinian gradualism and Punct Eek stands.

quote:

---

Punk Eek was proposed to explain the pace of evolution that was observed in the fossil record.

---

And the fossil record is mostly one of sudden appearance of complete organisms. If evolution is true, the fossil record should be full of transitional forms. But, for the most part these transitional forms are not found.Furthermore, paleontologists have a bad habit of creating entire organisms out of the most fragmentary fossils- which more often than not can tell us nothing about the organism's behavior or physiology.And Darwinists do not always agree about what the fossils they do have really mean. For example: Australopithecus is in the textbooks as human ancestors. But, Darwinists like Zuckerman do not believe Australopithecus is anything but an ape- it has not human characteristics.

I don’t mean to start another thread here, but I have encountered many Darwinists/Evolutionists than have an aberrant view of the scientific method. They often insist that experimentation is not necessary and they usually insist that science can never prove anything- even for practical purposes (gravity for example).But consider the fact that science has never shown how living things can come from non-living matter without the input and control of an already existing living thing; science has in fact repeatedly proven that living things can come only from living things. But Darwinists/Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation as true just the same. You accept as fact something that has not been proven and by you own standards cannot be proven. So how is this science while Creationism is religion?Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Evolution in whatever form you want to take it is a faith system just like Creationism is- but I have never and will never call Creationism a science.

I have never met a professional Evolutionist i.e. an academician who was merely an "advocate for evolution" and not a full-fledged "dogmatic believer in evolution". I haven’t met many amateur Evolutionists who fall in the former category either.

Gould’s conclusion about the fossil record’s ’sudden’ origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) is exactly what old earth Creationism predicts. God created living things in stages that took long periods of time and these created beings reproduced faithfully, with little change until they died out.Young earth Creationists, such as myself, usually interpret the fossil record as the fossilization of ecosystems that were coexistent. Gould’s admission that the fossil record does not show a complete set of transitional forms coincides with the young earth Creationist model as well.According to Gould, Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. How is this possible? How can we have macroevolution without speciation? If the fossil record does not indicate speciation, how can anyone conclude that speciation occurred? Or is this simply Evolutionists taking things on faith yet again?

Since I am only responding to what others have posted here, and I don't have time to go on a wild goose chase in another thread, would you kindly explain how my list is flawed?

How do you explain the visceral reaction I get when I use the term Darwinist when the offended person does not yet know that I am Creationist?

quote:

---

Perhaps if you think about your own statement above you'll see the problem with calling all supporters of evolution "Darwinists", and then expecting them all to agree based on your labeling of them as such.

---

I take it you would identify Donald Johanson and the Leakeys as Evolutionists rather than Darwinists. Then explain why these Evolutionists are not in total agreement regarding Lucy.

quote:

---

If anything, you should see that your statement shows that evolutionary science is not dogmatic, nor does it simply worship the work of Darwin. Instead, scientists base their views on evidence, and sometimes multiple intrepretations can come out of the same evidence.

---

If evolution is not dogmatic, explain why none of the 3 college level biology textbooks I have give any reason to doubt that Australopithecus is not in the human lineage?

quote:

---

But Darwinists/Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation as true just the same.

​

No they don't. It seems you are again approaching science with dogmatic labels, then simply stating as fact your opinion as to what all scientists believe.

---

They don’t? Then what was Miller trying to prove with his bottled lightening apparatus that he had to rig to make amino acids?If the first living thing did not originate with spontaneous generation, how did it originate?If Darwinists/Evolutionists do not accept spontaneous generation, why did the college course I took on evolutionary biology at Emory University spend several class days discussing the issue?

quote:

---

"Abiogenesis" is the theory dealing with the arisal of life from non-life ("spontaneous generation" is a different theory and has been falsified).

---

Explain how abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation- you may want to consult http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0015900.html or http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=... first.

quote:

---

Also, the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Abiogenesis, so whether or not someone supports Evolution says nothing of their beliefs regarding Abiogenesis.

---

So you, as an Evolutionist, have never thought about how and why life originated? Doesn’t life have to originate before it can evolve?

quote:

---

Science deals almost solely with "theory" - "facts" and "truth" and "proven" are terms often misleadingly applied to theories.

---

If science never proves anything, why isn’t arsenic marketed as a remedy for the common cold?

quote:

---

And you've met how many professional, and how many amateur evolutionists? And you've met them where? I'm asking about the size and randomness of your sample.

---

Considering I have a B.A. in biology from Emory University, I have meet quite a few professional Evolutionists. And should I take it that you are yet one more amateur?