@oristarA,
Quote:
Yeah. You've seen how A2K has been degenerating since Trump era began
Im not going to give you a pass for improper usage. If you wish to begin totally new word usage, do it back home and not try to affect any language changes in English. As I said,unlike Chinese, words in ENglish usually have precise meanings.
By demanding , via word conflation, that you should be given consideration I , as a routine user of the terms in my own work, must correct you.
If you dont wish to rspond by accepting the fact, then so be it. Just dont go about claiming that you were right just because you got something from Wikipedia.
THE AGI Glossary of Geology(6th edition) contains the formally accepted terms used in the geological sciences . The word "evolution" comes away defined with three tiers. These definitions are,
1. The change of a group of
related organisms
toward adaptation to the environmental conditions to which they have been exposed through the passage of time.
2. The accepted
THEORY that all life on Earth has descended from a common ancestor .syn:
organic evolution
3. The permanent change in the form and function of
organisms of successive ancestor-descendant generations or populations, over geologic time, so that the latest members of this succession differ significantly from the earliest.
When speaking of the theory of evolution by natural selection, these definitions mostly provide us with limitations of what the theory is about. NOWHERE does the Theory of natural selection or the "modern synthesis" define abiogenesis as arriving by evolution. This is primarily because there are several chemical structural groups involvd that "dont evolve" but combine or adhere to( or with) one another to produce the living state. Purines and perimydines, as "barcode"structures of RNA and along with the incorporation of phosphates and sugars are more the result of POLYMERIZATION (a word I would ask you to consider using if you are really interested in sounding like you know your way around the block.
You see we havent really "settled the science " about life's origins. Of course there was a kind of chemical evolution within a degree , but that terminates at the creation of these more cpomplex pre-living molecules made up of fatty acids, etc etc.
There is evidence that life started more than 3 times just aftre the 'Time of Super Collisions in Hadean years. More and more, we are discussing the possibilities of nucleii of pre life chemicals arrives encapsulated in the extraterrestrial bombardment with all the space rocks containing vital chemical. Aome of these were wiped out after leaving life centered carbon tracks). Some, it is now theorized provided extraterrestrial input to the clay and Sulfitic "soup" (yes that hypothesis has life).
However, to declare (defiantly) that evolution , not other means , is responsible for life on earth is wrong in its definitional limitations as well as its operational meaning.
I deal with this every day so youre sorta in my court . I have to smile when you give me some "free tutoring", But what you are saying is sorta like saying that {INTERNAL COMBUSTION CREATED THE AUTOMOBILE}, While there is some truth in the statement , Id argue with the use of "created" in both your case and th one about cars.
About 2decades ago a similar overarching term called "neutral theory" was forwarded by a mixed group of scientists and some Theologians. What stopped the continual misuse of that term as an intended "doom for Darwinism" was based on some evidence from large populations.
Neutral theory exists but not in its original "pile on" mentality. It too has been clipped and limited to have an EXACT meaning .
PS, Ive got problems with "barcode" also, but it's a decent word when used solely as a metaphor and not a technical term. SO I have less concern with it rather than "Evolution creates life"
