A Covenant That Can't Be Broken.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Who, head and shoulders above all others, typifies and personifies the field of evolutionary thought?

Darwin?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you saying you are sexually attracted to me, Ivanhoe?

Would you like me to be ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Darwin?

I take it the question mark was intentional. Can you (or any others) think of anyone more influential to the field of evolutionary thought?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I take it the question mark was intentional. Can you (or any others) think of anyone more influential to the field of evolutionary thought?

George Gaylord Simpson? Steven Gould?

Edit: Perhaps for Neo-Darwinian thought...

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Would you like me to be ?

Wow.

No, no, no, no, and no.

You must really be sexually inhibited.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I take it the question mark was intentional. Can you (or any others) think of anyone more influential to the field of evolutionary thought?

You appear to have changed the question. The question I answered was: Who...typifies and
personifies the field of evolutionary thought?

I was guessing that you wanted the figurehead of evolution. But there have been others,
as I stated in my answer to your first question, who have been more influential than
Darwin.

I mean, he did do decades of innovative study into a field previously uninvestigated, presented
papers, and wrote a book which had controversial conclusions. That was huge, no doubt.
But a lot of his studies were primative and have since been significantly modified or corrected.

If you are trying to insinuate that Darwin and Abraham have parallels, please recognize they
don't. Darwin did more than cross a river. Darwin has more in common with Moses -- he
wrote the first, exhaustive treatise on his branch of faith. I would suggest that perhaps Mendel
might be a better analogue to Abraham, since he was doing studies in evolution without realizing
it.

Is this where you are going with this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Wow.

No, no, no, no, and no.

You must really be sexually inhibited.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "No, no, no, no, and no."


Keep it that way.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You appear to have changed the question. The question I answered was: Who...typifies and
personifies the field of evolutionary thought?

I was guessing that you wanted the figurehead of evolution. But there have been others,
as I stated in my answer to your first question, who have been more influential than
Darwin.

I mean, he did do decades of ...[text shortened]... tudies in evolution without realizing
it.

Is this where you are going with this?

Nemesio

Yes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yes.

The analogy is poor, I'm afraid.

I'm sure you can find some example where the progenitor of a movement was also
that movement's most influential person (Joseph Smith?). This doesn't mean anything
in and of itself, of course (and I think you know that).

The question is: is Abraham the single most influential person in Western history
(after Jesus)? Unless you can show that he was by defining the criteria for judging that
claim, it is an empty claim.

(I am paraphrasing your initial claim, which was: ...what sprang from Abraham has had more
blessing, has shaped more of human history than ANY other race on the face of the planet.)

Your use of the domino effect -- that without Abraham we wouldn't have XYZ -- is what
I find objectionable (and I showed you above why that line of thinking is flawed). Abraham
was a small piece in the large puzzle that is Western Civilization. Charlemagne is a much
larger piece as far as I can see.

But I'm only guessing since you haven't defined what makes a person influential (or, rather
you have rescinded your previous list since it proved flawed for your purpose).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The analogy is poor, I'm afraid.

This doesn't mean anything in and of itself, of course (and I think you know that).
Using your example of J. Smith and the Mormons, I fail to see the logic in your post. Without Smith's subterfuge with the previously-unpublished fictional romance, there would be no LDS church. Most thinking adults would say that (Smith's act) is meaningful, not meaningless.
Adjacently, the fact that there would be no Western civilization without the step taken by Abraham, makes Abraham very meaningful to the same. Your argument that Charlie's contributions outweigh Abraham's achievements was never contested. At best, you can weakly posit that WC would have halted, were it not for Charlie's estimable contributions, but even that stance would be entirely speculative.

you haven't defined what makes a person influential (or, rather
you have rescinded your previous list since it proved flawed for your purpose).
Actually, that definition has already been wrought. The list I provided merely outlined a few key areas that affect every society, and each of the areas have been profoundly impacted by WC and in WC, by the actions of one man (what, with starting the whole thing, and whatnot).
All the more significant in the matter is the consideration that the first of the Jews/Christians/Muslims achieved very little in his lifetime. Similarily, the Centerpiece of WC, and of human history, achieved even less, dying a under a criminal's curse.
Stature-wise, neither Jesus or Abraham would amount to much in the world of achievement-based reward/recognition. Yet, here they are, looming higher and larger than any other historical figure in human history.

In speaking of the one person most thinking adults would say looms larger than all others in the field of evolutionary ideas, you said:
But a lot of his studies were primative and have since been significantly modified or corrected.
Ironically, much of what Chuck started in terms of 'lab work' has been abandoned, yet his germ of faith remains. So, apparently, the analogy isn't as poor as you protest.