The Case for Theism

[ManMachine]

Adopting a semantic approach is somewhat disingenuous as the word does not determine the process. You could call it 'colin" for all it matters, the process would still carry on the way it has for millions of years.

Now that is something that would be disingenuous. Words are what we use to label and identify concepts. A semantic approach is necessary to ensure correct identification - otherwise we'd have no idea whether we are discussing the same topic or not.

My point is it doesn't matter what we call the process, it will still be the same thing that it is. Our choice of label serves only us not the thing itself.

While you are quite right in saying 'selection' can occur only from a 'pre-existing set', you have used a narrow semantic definition to obfuscate the fact that what this brings into existence a change in conditions. It is this change in conditions that becomes the new initiation point for the next change in the system, and so on, each individual occurance having a microscopic but essential impact on the overall process.

There are more accurate words that could be employed to describe the process you are discussing, 'filtering', 'sieveing', 'sifting' all describe the process better than the word 'selection', but even these are not exact in isolation.

Then let him employ those and I'd respond in kind.

That is one approach but then you are argueing the person and not the point.

I'd agree that 'natural selection' is probably not the best use of phrase to describe the continually changing conditions that ultimately gave rise to the fundamental chemical compositions of what we call 'life', and you could have pointed out that 'natural selection' is a phrase used frequently for the evolutionary process of life forms and not the emergence of life from inorganic chemistry, but it's not nonsensical.

MM