Re-Theory of Evolution

As Admin has already pointed out to you, the word "evolution" has many uses in the English language.When someone talks about the evolution of a star, it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution. Even if stars were static and never-changing, and "stellar evolution" was compeltely disproven, biological evolution would remain seperate, and valid so long as it remains a highly accurate model.When we talk about the evolution of automobiles, it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution.The word "evolution" is used in the English language in the szame way that the word "theory" is flung about - both have very specific meanings when you are talking about the Theory of Evolution. In science, the word "theory" does not mean "an idea I had one day" like it can in common usage, and "evolution" does not simply mean "change over time."You're acting as if the dictionary definitions can somehow be used to argue over what the Theory of Evolution actually states. It cannot. You're equivocating over specific usage of language and actively attempting to obfuscate any real discussion over the Theory of Evolution. Stop it. Continuing in this vein identifies you as either compeltely incapable of comprehending the most basic of logical and scientific principles, or you are deliberately attempting to spread misinformation and frustrate anyone with an IQ above freezing. This site is specifically targetted at the Creation vs Evolution debate - that meaning biological evolution. Unless you specifically state that you'd like to talk about "stellar evolution" or are otherwise using the word in the broader sense as opposed to the specific Theory of Evolution, we will automatically assume you are referring to biological evolution. You can refer to any process of gradual change by using the broader definition of the word "evolution," but that does not, in any way mean that what you discuss has anything remotely to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. As Admin so aptly mentioned, the former would be like referring to Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and David Koreshians as Christians - it's accurate in the broad sense, but discussion of Mormonism has no bearing on mainstream Christianity. Abiogenesis fits perfectly with evolution, but even if abiogenesis were compeltely false, the Theory of Evolution would remain accurate. Evolution only deals with life after it exists, and does not care how life first came to exist. It can be god, space aliens, abiogenesis, or magic fairies - the Theory of Evolution still accurately describes the observed process of allele frequency changes over generations guided by natural selection.They are seperate. One can be true, and the other can be false. You're treating them as if both need to be true, and that's not the case. There is a difference betweenIF a AND b THEN candIF a OR b THEN cYou're approaching this in the former sense, where abiogenesis are mutually dependant. They are not. The relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is more like the latter logical expression, where either one or both can be true and each has no bearing on the other. In the broadest sense of the word, ICANT, this is true. It is not true when dealing specifically with the Theory of Evolution, which makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.Your word games are irrelevant, ICANT. Nobody with intelligence or even basic education on the subject here or elsewhere claims that the Theory of Evolution speaks to cosmology, physics, or anything else unrelated to biology.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

So, you like to play word games and whine that the word "evolution" can be used to describe things other than the Theory of Evolution?As long as you understand that when you say "the stars have evolved" as if it has anythign at all to do with the Theory of Evolution, you look like an idiot, I have no problem with that. ICANT, if you don't understand that basic fact that "evolution" in this context means the Theory of Evolution, which is excusively related to biology, then you are a fool. There is only one Theory of Evolution. It refers to biology. There is no Theory of Evolution regarding stars, or cars. There is only one, and it makes statements relating only to the change in allele frequency in populations of living organisms.The Theory of Evolution is biological evolution. It has nothing to do with stellar evolution, or automotive evolution. If you think otherwise, then you either do not understand, or you are being deliberately obtuse. That's the statement of a person who argues about dictionary definitions rather than the concepts themselves. Dictionaries list seperate definitions for single words for a reason, ICANT - they mean different things depending on context. When one speaks about the Theory of Evolution, they are referring to biological evolution, unless they specifically state that they are using it in the broader definition of the term.When we say that "ICANT doesn't understand what evolution is" we do not mean that you are incapable of picking up a dictionary and copying text to us. We mean that you consistently insist upon assigning claims to the Theory of Evolution that are outside of its scope, and then attack that strawman. YES.Specifically it refers to "life from non-life." This is typically understood to be the process by which nonliving organic chemicals spontaneously self-assemble into the earliest form of what we call "life," and before which life did not exist. This typically is understood to preclude direct divine intervention, but does not necessarily do so - it's simply a process. It shows very good promise as a hypothesis, and has had outstanding success thus far, but researchers have not yet succeeded in completely creating life from nonlife in an environment duplicating conditions of the early Earth (which does not include cloning, designer bacteria, or other forms that could be called abiogenesis but require a pre-existing "donor cell's" DNA). It is not, in any way, dependant on abiogenesis. Even if life has "always existed" in this Universe in some form or another, the Theory of Evolution is still an accurate model of the change in allele frequency of living populations. If life arrived on Earth via an alien spacecraft, or a comet impact, or god (depending on whether we are allowing divine creation of life from nonliving materials to be referred to as abiogenesis, as the deity could be thought of as alive), the Theory of Evolution still accurately describes the change in allele frequency in living population. Indeed. No, the word has seperate meanings, one of which is broad, and the other is not. When one speaks regarding the Theory of Evolution, they are referring specifically to biological evolution as described by Darwin and others. Again, ICANT, this is why dictionaries have multiple definitions for individual words - they can have very different meanings depending on context, like Percy's "running" example earlier.If someone says "I went running last night" do you assume they meant they operated machinery, or did complex mathematics, or any of the other borader definitions of the word "running?" Or do you assume they went outside and ran, the specific, narrow definition that refers to a form of exercise? Really? You're the one equivocating over the definition of a word, ICANT. everyone else understands it. Becasue that is what is most often referred to when the word "evolution" is used. When someone says "evolution is false!" what is the most reasonable conclusion? That they are saying that Darwinian biological evolution is false?Or are they talking about the evolution of automobiles?Come on, ICANT. Surely you aren't that stupid. I would guess because of people like you. Note that there is no forum here named "nonbiological evolution," or "the evolution of cars," or "the evolution of stars."

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.