Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

Which it is. Its not a false argument, it is a definition. It does not claim that the last x billion years of evolution have been observed. If you can find where they say "Evolution has been observed, therefore natural history is accurate", then you'd have a point. You might want to look for that argument being put forward in the 29+ Evidences for macroevolution.

I think that this post makes it clear that Randman has no case.From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html This is in the first paragraph and sets the context for the definitions offered. The definition offered is a definition of the actual process.The second quote is not even contradictory since it is dealing with the theory - or HOW evolution happens. And this indeed involves many theories and hypotheses (the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution to anem one example). Randman doesn't even attempt to show that there is any real conflict between the definitions.So Randman has made three attempts to support his case. All are complete failures.

percy, any objective and reasonable person can see what I posted is true. To use the word "evolution" to mean 2 different things in the same context is wrong. First, they say "evolution is observed" and is a fact, but the definition of "evolution" is not the grander concept they use later. It's a subtle form of lying, pure propaganda.They say it is important to have clear definition, and then proceed elsewhere on their site to use a different definition than they use here.

hey, randman. this is really simple. look:evolution: fact
The Theory of Evolution: scientific theory.i wonder what we could look for to determine which one is which? the problem is that people (especially creationists) use "evolution" colloquially to mean a lot of different things. i mean, look at hovind's definition of evolution:

quote:

---

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

---

and that's not propaganda?

---

quote:

---

percy, any objective and reasonable person can see what I posted is true. To use the word "evolution" to mean 2 different things in the same context is wrong. First, they say "evolution is observed" and is a fact, but the definition of "evolution" is not the grander concept they use later. It's a subtle form of lying, pure propaganda.

---

Any objective and reasonable person can see that you aren't taking any care to get your facts correct.Firstly I'm not Percy.Secondly my post pointed out that you had failed to make a case that the definitions were significantly different. Any objective and reasonable person can see that you did not address my points on this issue.Thirdly as other posts pointed out you failed to show that the argument you denounce as dishonest is actually used on the talkorigins site. It certainly isn't used in either of the essays you cited.

You're replying to PaulK, not me. We're all aware that within your own mind you see yourself as objective and reasonable, and that you see anyone who disagrees with you as biased or unreasonable or lying. But the premise that you're objective and reasonable has yet to be demonstrated by you. We've seen demonstrations from you of many other qualities, but objectivity and reasonability are not discernable among them. This is confusing. The site makes clear there are two definitions. Naturally both definitions will be used as appropriate throughout the site, so it's hard to understand your objection. Why don't you provide an example of this "bait and switch" technique?Focused at the informed layperson level, TalkOrigins represents evolution no differently than you'll find anywhere else, be it at other websites, in public libraries or in scientific journals. Your criticism boils down to simple semantics. You could as pointlessly make the same argument against the evidence for gravity and the theory of gravity.--Percy

I think you are giving Randman too much credit. Read in context the second "definition" (which is not a definition at all) appears to be referring to essentially the same thing - as I pointed out in my earlier post.I also note that in all three examples Randman's "analysis" has been superficial to the point of absurdity, relying on taking isolated quotes out of context (at best).

Hello Randman,maybe I didn't formulate clear enough. I'll try again. I claim that there is no substantial difference between Richardson's and Myer's position on the phylolotypic stage: that is, leaving aside terminology, they talk about the same concept. Specifically they agree on the following points:

• At the phylotypic stage vertebrates share common features like
  somites, neural tube, optic anlagen, notochord and pharyngeal pouches.
• Variation has been demonstrated within this stage between species
• Genes can be modified to act at virtually any point in development

(For support of this statements have a look at the quotes provide in [1] and in the following post of Modulous [2] )
This would invalidate your claim that talkorigin uses the concept of a highly conserved stage in vertebrate development. Therefore at least this point doesn't seem to help your idea that talkorigin is a propaganda site.
In the probable case you don't agree, please explain in some detail where Myer differs from Richardson with respect to the phylotypic stage. (I would propose to continue this part of the discussion in the following thread I opened responding to a request of AdminNosy [3] ).-BerndP.S.
Please note this thread [4] which is intended to focus on the revision of Richardson's ideas about Haeckel's theory (and drawings) he formulated 1997.

---

References[1]Message 23
[2]Message 30
[3]Message 1
[4]Message 1

First, the term phylotypic stage and highly conserved stage are synonymous. So if Talkorigins is doing as you say, and using the term in a manner less defined, then that is misleading propoganda, but typical for evos who used recapitulation to mean:the Biogenetic law
the phylotypic stage
vestigal organsThe simple fact is the historical claim of a highly conserved stage, also called the phylotypic stage, has been refuted, in large part because creatures' developmental pathway does not match up neatly as evos falsely claimed.So if TalkOrigins is using the same term to refer to what Richardson calls the phylotypic period, still weaseling I might add, then imo that is strong evidence TalkOrigins is a propaganda site.They use the same technique in their false use of the word, evolution. They claim evolution is observed when in fact evolution is not observed, but by using 2 different meanings, they pass off one claim, evolution is observed since change is observed, to equate with evolution (ToE which encompasses a broader range of meaning) is observed as well, when it is not.It is subtle deception, but very typical of how evos have used semantics to advance their ideas. It's really indicative of brainwashing more than education.

get a new argument.

I think he shoudl get an argument he at least understands.

your posting pribileges are suspended.

---

To keep this simple and objective.You say:

quote:

---

They claim evolution is observed when in fact evolution is not observed, but by using 2 different meanings, they pass off one claim, evolution is observed since change is observed, to equate with evolution (ToE which encompasses a broader range of meaning) is observed as well, when it is not.

---

Where does t.o do this ?And if you cannot find an actual example will you show the honesty and integrity to admit that you cannot support your accusation ?a

Not necessarily. They defined it in the article you put forward as your evidence. They go on to explicitly state that it is not highly conserved as Haeckel proposed. Doing that is propaganda? Its funny, Darwin used the worrd as the title of the chapter he used to sum up his arguments. Oh wait, recapitulation means 'to repeat or sum up'. The word has lots of different potential uses, why is using it propaganda? It hasn't been refuted, it is being disputed. The basic formulation has been refuted, but there have been papers that I have shown you that demonstrate a highly conserved stage in new ways. Richardson uses a term for a period because this period exists. Are you suggesting that Richardson is not a reliable source for embryological claims? The entire scientific community does not have to bow down to Richardsons nomenclature and isn't likely to. After all, scientific nomenclature has a habit of getting out of date but staying in use. Your claim has been refuted. They state there are two definitions of evolution. Evolution that has been observed and evolution which hasn't but which has lots of evidence.You're going to have to deal with all the posts that explicitly state why you are mistaken on this if the debate is going to move forward.