Re: [asa] A Message from the RTB Scholar Team (fwd)

From: Bethany Sollereder <>
Date: Sat Apr 19 2008 - 18:02:08 EDT


Perhaps we should just make a categorical statement that "unless otherwise
stated, 'evolution' means 'biological evolution of
humans/plants/animals/life in general". Would it be OK with you if we made
that our default definition from now on, and if we are talking about other
types of 'evolution' we can specify? Can the conversation go on?


On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Gregory Arago <>

> You've got to be kidding me!! -) You seriously think it is 'unnecessary
> verbiage' to distinguish between 'human evolution' and 'biological evolution
> of humans'??? That's two words difference (or nearly twice the amount of
> letters, for you statisticians), but a major difference in
> 'category'. Cat-e-gory! It would take such little effort and go such a long
> way. It is a shock to me that no will is present to adjust what could be so
> easily done for the cause of communicative clarity.
> *Dave Wallace <>* wrote:
> Gregory Arago wrote:
> > Yes Don, nail on the head! Why couldn't George have said this in
> the first place, to avoid misunderstanding? Thanks for your clarity! - G.
> Because it was unnecessary verbiage ie overabundance or superfluity of
> words, as in writing or speech; wordiness; verbosity.
> Dave W
> ------------------------------
> Looking for the perfect gift?* Give the gift of Flickr!*<>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 19 18:03:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 19 2008 - 18:03:17 EDT