Evolution wins Part 2

In evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins xevolutionist makes the claim in messages 298 & 304: My goal was to sneak this into the discussion before closing, but missed it. So I am going to attempt to turn it into a topic following AdminJar's suggestion to continue.In earlier threads I have stated my belief that creationist misquotes and bad citations are wrong on many, many levels. This one is wrong on a much deeper level. I will onion-skin some of the layers...1) Xevolutionist, did you read Jenning's papers or books yourself or did you trust a creo source for what they were about?2) Before claiming to have read about experiments that 'prove' some limit of diversity please cite the source, whether it be Jenning's own works or some summary of such (even if it's Creationist source, at least then you are just admitting naitivity rather than academic dishonesty).3) Herbert Jennings was one of the great contributors to modern Darwinian thought. His research on protists was instrumental in forming our ideas of how selection and mutation operate. He demonstrated that pure clonal strains of protists will change in genotype over time and thus disproved the fixity of pure Mendelian genetics. In essence he showed that other factors (mutation, recombination) affected the products of genetically pure strains. So he showed the opposite of your assertion. Genes are not fixed in a population because mutation is constantly tweaking them. He was never trying to "grow paramecium as large as baseballs" as one creationist website claimed (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/11spec02.htm).It is a wretched injustice to make claims about a truly great man to back up lies and assertions. Did the Creationist who made up that claim laugh to themselves when they twisted it to conclude the opposite meaning? Rolling on the floor thinking of all of the people who would blindly copy it and run wild?I want to address xevolutionist's point about quotes vs quote mining. If I want to quote (to discredit or support) Behe's book I can write "In Darwin's Black Box Behe claims...". I can quote directly, paraphrase, etc. IF I have the book at my side. If, however, I read a talkorigin's review of the book and quote it from there, that is a quote mine. Maybe talkorigin's is taking him out of context, maybe not. I don't know if I cannot look it up myself. If I really want to discuss the point, I might resort to something like "TalkOrigin cites
behe as saying ..." But it is never right for me to just say or present as an argument some claim or quote of Behe's as factual unless I consult the source myself.In light of this, Xevolutionis, would you please back up your assertions as repeatedly asked? Like those from AdminNosy in post 303 (I will grant that the topic closed before you could answer them, hence the need for part 2)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't agree that a quotation copied from a secondary source is the same as a "quote mine". True, if a quote is taken from a secondary source this should be mentioned - and creationists often fail to do so. And often it is cases of quote mining where they do fail to mention that they copied their "quote" from another source. But that is a seperate issue related to honesty and openness.I agree with the definition in the talkorigins Quote Mine Project Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

I agree, Paul.I think it is fine to quote secondary sources, as long as the citation s given.Of course, it is up to all parties to use high quality, reputable, fully and properly referenced sources.Too often, Creationists do not have a good grasp of what that means, and so tend to use low quality sources or sources which promote outright falsehoods....like this site:http://wasdarwinright.org/conclusions-f.htm

I can see several examples of obvious Quote Mining on that site.Yuck!

Yep, I got banned from that site for pointing that out too persistently. (shines fingernails on shirt)I was persistent, so they changed their guestbook to allow only approved posts.

While not incorrect, this doesn't accurately describe a significant percentage of the quotes provided by Creationists, those that are blatant misrepresentations of the views of the people they're quoting. A little further on the author says about a particular set of quotes: A bit further on he quotes a John Wilkins saying: Just as there are lies and damn lies, there is quote mining and there is scurrilously outrageous quote mining. It doesn't seem fair to apply the term quote mining both to quotes that are mildly misleading and to quotes that are, in effect, bald-faced lies. But I have no other terminology to suggest.I like the author's noting of the "cherry picking" process of scanning the literature for portions amenable to quote mining.I wonder if perhaps the real answer to quote mining is to produce an equivalent list of our own that takes out-of-context quotes from Creationists that make them seem to be supporting evolution. Perhaps once Creationists see the technique at work on some of their own they'll better understand why the approach is invalid.--Percy

quote:

---

I wonder if perhaps the real answer to quote mining is to produce an equivalent list of our own that takes out-of-context quotes from Creationists that make them seem to be supporting evolution. Perhaps once Creationists see the technique at work on some of their own they'll better understand why the approach is invalid.

---

Ooooh, goody, that sounds like fun!

Are you referring to cases where the quote is accurate - but omits relevant material form the same source which would damage the argument being put forward ? I would say that is covered under "contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" even if the omitted material does not affect the meaning of the quoted text.

PaulK,I see what you mean, I used the wrong term here completely. What is the correct term for taking a quote mine or incorrect cited information and presenting it as if you yourself read the primary literature (or reasonanbly accurate summary of such)? I see plagirism at work but this is somewhat more it seems. Example:I am planning on writing a scathing anti-Christian post to a Christian Forum, one that will convert them all to my belief. When I look at the Bible it seems way to large and far to complex for me to research for my comments. Luckily the web is full of anti-Christian essays. I find one I like but know that my position looks better if I imply that I found the citation myself and if I distance myself from the real source. So I write my post saying, "I was reading the Bible and found where it said that if Pi doesn't exactly equal 3 then Jesus and God aren't real."Now any biblical scholar (or even most people vaguely familar with the Bible) recognize this is a gross twisting of 1 Kings. Furthermore, I am mixing the original statement with another author's interpretation. Had I cited correctly I could be politly informed that my source was wrong. Because, however, I claim that I myself read the Bible and found this, I am a plagirist and a liar.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

You underestimate the mendacity of creationists. They'll simply claim that we invented quote mining, and that any further quote mining they do is simply tit for tat.

quote:

---

I see what you mean, I used the wrong term here completely. What is the correct term for taking a quote mine or incorrect cited information and presenting it as if you yourself read the primary literature (or reasonanbly accurate summary of such)?

---

Unknowingly passing on misinformation and boasting about it.

I beleive that "using an unacknowledged secondary source" is the correct term. And it is plagiarism of a sort in that the real source is not being acknowledged. After all even if it is only presentign quotes the original author did the work of actually gathering the quotes.