NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2016,15:23) | | Quote (NoName @ April 23 2016,13:35) | | Evolution is both a process and a theory. The term can, arguably, also cover an event. |
Using the word "evolution" interchangeably with "evolutionary theory" is a "layman's" way of defining scientific terms. Experienced scientist will often correct you, or at least should. |
Yes. I did. The two terms are not interchangeable and my assertion is correct. There is the process and there is the theory, or set of theories, that explain the process.
| Quote | | I am able to avoid the whole mess by being specific as to which level of "development" is being discussed, |
Actually, no you aren't. You are constantly confused about the difference, and about whether "natural selection" is identical to "evolution" [it isn't]. You are deeply confused about the theory as well as the process. It appears to be irremediable.
| Quote | | which includes molecular LEVEL intelligence that is responsible for developing the phenotype of a species. |
Why no, no it does not. There is no intelligence involved at the level of molecular interactions driving the phenotype of an organism. You keep asserting otherwise, but you have zero evidence, zero explanation for what the claim even means, and zero tests to demonstrate the presence or absence of such a 'feature'.
Quite simply, the notion is absurd and fantastical. Not merely completely lacking in explanatory power, it is flat out confusing and unhelpful, due to its lack of evidentiary support and logical coherence. To say nothing of flat-out incorrect. It is batshit insane, totally unsupportable. It is also reductive materialism taken to a length that would have embarrassed Thomas Hobbes or W.V.Quine or B.F.Skinner.
| Quote | | Technically I also have a theory to help explain how living things "evolved", but with all the confusion over terms it's best that I do not waste time with a generalization that does not help explain the origin of biological life/intelligence, species, etc.. |
Technically, no you don't.
No one on earth thinks that your effluent counts as a 'theory' in any technical sense of the term.
You have nothing but generalizations. Bad generalizations. Unfounded generalizations.
But as we keep trying to clarify for you, generalizations as such are not inherently pernicious. They are the splendor and glory of science. How could we possibly even communicate if we were reduced to using only concretes?
You cannot begin to provide explanations or insights into the origin, development, life and eventual death of biological organisms until and unless you get clear, very clear, on your terms, use them consistently, and provide specific and concrete evidential support. Generalizations are derived from well-constrained, properly constructed, assemblages of facts and observations. They build on prior work.
You have neither the ground work nor the understanding of the prior work to accomplish anything other than the spectacularly banal failure you've smeared across the internet.
|
