|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
randman writes: PaulK, the site devotes a whole article to defining evolution and doing so in such a way as to show it is observed. The site then refers to "evolution" elsewhere in articles clearly referring to much more than heritable changes. Moreover, it does so in a further deceptive manner claiming, more or less, evolution (common descent) is a fact, and that just the proposed methods are theory. Excerpts and links, please. It's beginning to appear that you're just using every reply as an opportunity to repeat you're unsupported assertions. If you expect to convince anyone you're going to have to provide evidence for your claims. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The first is commenting on "evolution" the term, while the second is commenting on evolution, the theory. So you admit they are using the word "evolution" in 2 different ways? Seeing as that is the case, what is the point to devote an entire article defining "evolution" exclusively as heritable changes, and even bashing definining the term in the broader sense? Let's suppose I start out saying, look, we are going to define X this way and this way only, and further state other definitions are incorrect, and that creationists get confused because they think X means something other than this definition. Then, I turn around and use evolution almost exclusively in the exact manner I bashed totally contrary to the way I defined it. Imo, the intent is to subtly suggest "evolution is observed" when clearly it is not. The truth is there is no "fact of evolution" as you say, in the sense of universal common descent. It is a theory. The site further clouds the issue with it's propaganda with:
it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. So which is "the fact of evolution"? common descent? micro-evolution? or what? This is standard fare for evos. Use semantics to cloud an issue, and avoid the substance of the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What's left unclear to you?
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition: "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html So it's wrong to use the broader term, evolution, to refer to common descent? But they use it elsewhere in this exact same manner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
That there is a fact that evolution happens and there is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain how it happens. Exlain what you mean by "evolution happens"? Do you mean to exclude the concept of common descent from the term "evolution" for example, or does "evolution" include common descent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if you guys are even reading the links and quotes. Here it is again.
When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor? One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html Try to catch what the writer is suggesting here. Note:
When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. What TO is doing is trying to affirm in the reader's mind that evolution is a fact, something observed. The problem with that is evolution is used to include universal common descent and other concepts in other places. So in reality, the existence of evolution, not just theories on how evolution occurs, is very much in debate since "evolution" in the context of the debate refers to common descent. Note that they go as far as to bash the use of evolution in the broader sense.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition: "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 05:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
randman writes: What's left unclear to you? Sorry, Randman, I can't see the problem, and obviously no one else can, either. I think we're all trying to work real hard with you here, but you're giving us nothing.
So it's wrong to use the broader term, evolution, to refer to common descent? The last paragraph of your excerpt makes some specific criticisms of the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary's definition, but common descent wasn't one of them. One significant criticism is that the definition is more a historical conclusion about life's development than a description of the evolutionary process. More importantly, failing to mention change in allele frequency over time is a fatal lack, which is why the paragraph critisizing it concludes "the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
When reading the 29 Evidences of Macroevolution, we see:
Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent TO says common descent is considered "the fact of evolution." When you read the article, you can click on the "fact of evolution" to take you to the following article which says.
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory So TO is saying that universal common descent is not a theory (although elsewhere they admit it is), but suggest that the only theoritical area of debate is the mechanism of evolution. This is blatant propaganda and distortion. They gradually widen and suggest that evolution is observed and is a fact, not just for heritable changes, but also that common descent is the "fact of evolution." In reality, common descent and the theorized modes for common descent are theories, not facts. The only factual thing is that species and creatures do change. To assert that universal common descent is a fact and not a theory is just plain wrong. This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 06:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
So you admit they are using the word "evolution" in 2 different ways?
That's the way language is. Words acquire multiple meanings, depending on context. Physicists use "gravity" for a tendency for things to fall, they use it as a force, and they use it to refer to the theory of gravity. Does it follow that physicists are propagandists, deliberately misleading people about the meaning of gravity? You have been using the English language for long enough that you ought to have some inkling as to how it is used.
he site further clouds the issue with it's propaganda with:
Come to think of it, physicists have been known to talk of "the fact of gravity". And when physicists say this, they are usually not being specific as to whether they are talking about Newton's theory of gravity, or General Relativity, or some not fully developed theory of quantum gravity. I take the physicists to be talking about the general phenomena that are observed, and that each of these theories attempts to account for. it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. Could it be that, likewise, evolutionists are talking about the observed phenomena that the theory of evolution attempts to account for? And if that is propaganda when used by evolutionists, then are physicists propagandists when discussing gravity? You are ascribing motives (propaganda) when evolutionary scientists are just using natural language in much the same way that other people use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
nwr, so when we link from "the fact of evolution" to an article stating that evolution (defined as common descent) is a fact and not a theory, but that the theory only refers to the mechanism, you think that's correct?
That's propaganda, bait and switch. Evolution is observed, but that is just heritable changes, and then hey, evolution is common descent but is a fact, and then link to an article stating "evolution is observed." That's propaganda buddy, not real science nor education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
And, that is actually correct. When discussing evolution, there is a differnece between discussing the historicla data, and the reasons WHY it happens.
Just like gravity,and the theory of Gravity. Gravity happens. We can describe what it does with some mathamatical forumlas Why does it happen. That is what the theory of gravity does. Or, do you want to bring in 'Intelligent Falling' into the discussion. Evolution has been, in fact, observed. Speciation has been, in fact, has been observed. That is both 'micro' and 'macro' evolution in action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
randman in reply to nwr writes: The first is commenting on "evolution" the term, while the second is commenting on evolution, the theory. So you admit they are using the word "evolution" in 2 different ways? Uh, where have you been? This has been stated over and over and over again by at least four people that I can think of. Yes, evolution, like most words in all languages, has more than one definition. Which definition is in use is usually clear from context. We're all sort of waiting for that "Aha!" announcement from you where you finally find some ambiguous place at TalkOrigins where some statement about evolution is open to misinterpretation as to which definition is in play. At a site as large as TalkOrigins it would seem impossible to achieve perfection and never be occasionally ambiguous, but you haven't yet provided a single example of the confusion you claim is not only prevalent but purposeful.
So which is "the fact of evolution"? common descent? micro-evolution? or what? The fact of evolution is what has been observed. For example, fossils in their geological layers are a record of change over time. Laboratory experiments on bacteria observe evolution taking place in mere hours. Genetic analyses reveal the relatedness of organisms. Geographic species distributions are evidence of adaptation. All these observations of change over time are facts, and that is what people mean by the fact of evolution. I don't think you'll find this helpful, but I'll add anyway that I disagree with labeling it a fact that evolution has occurred, but I'm running against the wind on this issue. To me it seems an obvious implication of the evidence, but it is not itself a fact. Others feel like I'm making a silly distinction, as if my position is equivalent to seeing a pair of red sneakers and claiming that the observation is only evidence that the sneakers are red, but that it is not a fact that they are red. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
That's Larry Moran's definition. I have great admiration for Larry. Nevertheless, I take that as his own statement about how he would like to see the word "evolution" used. I don't assume that biologists all agree. So it's wrong to use the broader term, evolution, to refer to common descent? If you were to ask 10 biologists to define "evolution", you would probably get at least 10 different definitions. That's the way language is. There are reasons why we say that meaning is subjective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Firstly this is just assertion, not an example. Secondly. as I have already pointed out different definitions in different articles are not necessarily equivocation. You need to show a link. If the articles using other definitions do not claim that evolution has been observed, or do so on other grounds then they do not support your claim. Thirdly you have not even bothered to show an example of an article using a signifcantly different definition.
quote: What is so deceptive about calling a fact a fact ?
quote: Well lets recap this subthread. You accused the t.o website of using equivocation to claim that evolution had been observed - while referring to a definition for which that was not the case (Message 39and I asked for an example (Message 44). So the only thing to discuss is actual examples. If there is nothing more to discuss then you are implicitly admitting that you don't have any and can't find any. You falsely claimed that there was an example in an earlier post. When it was opinted out that that was untrue you repeated an earlier post blaming others for failing to grasp your point. Even though all it contained was unsupported assertions and a fallacious inference(Message 50). And even now you are still refusing to produce an example, relying instead on unsupported assertions that they must be guilty. I'll just repewat the question I asked back in Message 44 "And if you cannot find an actual example will you show the honesty and integrity to admit that you cannot support your accusation ?" Since your post indicates that you would rather refuse to discuss the matter than actually produce a real example the answer would appear to be "no". You can prove otherwise by either producing a genuine example or admittign that your claim was untrue. The ball is in your court.r
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
nwr, so when we link from "the fact of evolution" to an article stating that evolution (defined as common descent) is a fact and not a theory, but that the theory only refers to the mechanism, you think that's correct?
I think I was quite clear, that meaning depends on context. So here you are, asserting some context-independent way of determining the meaning of "evolution", and wrongly attributing that to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Percy, my problem is they in one place define the fact of evolution as the observation as essentially heritable change, and then another as common descent. What they are doing is subtly confusing what is observed with what is not, and thus suggesting universal common descent is an observed fact. Judging by your post, I think you see what I mean.
Imo, this really is a form of propaganda because universal common descent really is not observed. It is not "a fact" per se, and moreover, if TO wants to maintain that position, they should really stick to defining evolution as common descent. The way they link articles together, all using different definitions is deceptive. In one they claim, "evolution is observed" and is "any change" in alleles per population or heritable changes, and then in another say "evolution is common descent and the theories of mechanisms" essentially, and then in the third I linked to, they say "evolution" presumably common descent since it is linked in the other article, is "observed" when really it is not observed. This is semantics, and is wrong. The simple fact is observing heritable changes is not observing universal common descent. The theory is that heritable changes are part of universal common descent. There are other theories that also embrace heritable changes but not universal common descent, and to be honest, there are even theories that are not "evolution" that embrace universal common descent. The truth is "evolution" equates specific theories of random mutation and selection and so TO is wrong there as well. It's a wellspring of subtle disinformation, if you ask me. And yes, I can provide more examples other than these first 2.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024