Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

It would be helpful to see this "elsewhere" that says common descent *is* a theory. You need to find these places where TalkOrigins contradicts itself in order to make your case. But what you're labeling as propaganda and distortion are only forthright characterizations of evolution. I agree with you. To me, common descent (your excerpt said "common descent", not "universal common descent") is a conclusion from evidence, not a fact. It is a rather obvious and perhaps even trivial conclusion, but that doesn't make it a fact.--Percy

nwr, they define universal common descent as an observed fact, and that's wrong. That's what I showed.

It's right there in the same quote actually. longer quote 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentBtw, it's clear that they are referring to universal common descent when they refer to common descent, and that this is what they refer to as the fact of evolution.They provide a link to further discuss the fact of evolution that has this to say: Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryWhat I really object to here, as you caught on, is that they are saying universal common descent is a fact, and not a theory, and that it is observed, but that only the mechanism is a theory. This is incorrect on many fronts.1. Universal common descent is a theory, and not a fact.
2. Universal common descent is not observed.
3. Evolution refers as much to the mode and mechanism as to common descent. If, for example, an Intelligent Force aided or aided common descent, that would be ID, not evolution.As far as contradicting itself, consider this: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and HistoryI think that is an honest statement, but it doesn't fully mesh with: Macroevolution cannot be demonstrated today. It is not directly observed.

Actually, they specifically show that is what the theory is, and give the facts assocaited from the theory.If you wish to deny what is said, that is your religous view.As a matter of fact, I can specifically show on the web site when discussing the evidence, they call it a THEORY. From
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent It does refer to another link (in quotes) of the "fact of evolution"
which can be found. It is a link to how evolution can be both a FACT
and a Theory. This added explanation can be found at Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryA quote from it is as follows Now, can you describe, in scientific terms,what an evolutionary biologist will define the term 'evolution' as. (Specificallly bological evolution, if I am not clear enough).Can you give the precise definition?

The fundamental problem is that the quotes you use to "prove" your case contradict your claim. THe quote does not claim that past evolution is established by direct observation. It explcityl states that that point is establsihed by "overwhelming" "historical evidence".Thus the article does not claim that universal common descent has been established as a fact by direct observation.As for the first article the subject IS the evidence for common descent. . Thus to say that it is relying on a false claim that universal common descent was directly observed is absurd. The case is laid out in the main body of the (long) article - not the introductory paragraphs.

What can I say? I agree with you. It has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time that the mountain of evidence reaching the sky doesn't turn theory into fact. It might add another decimal place to our level of assurance, but it doesn't make it a fact.Usually offered in defense of the "evolution as fact" perspective is a different definition of fact. The one usually offered is one originally provided by Gould, where he says in one of his popular books that a fact is something that is so well established that to withhold at least provisional assent would be perverse. But I see that word "provisional" and it sets off alarm bells.But whether the term fact or theory is applied to evolution's occurrence makes little difference to our assurance of its validity. The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is immense. As I've said before, your view that evolution doesn't explain much of life's history is not shared by many IDists, Behe most prominent among them. Your view of evolution has much more in common with YECs, who go way beyond ID by denying much of science, which is why you were often mistaken for one.--Percy

You will have to show us exactly where they say this.I suspect that you have misunderstood something.

I wonder if the misunderstanding is based on the difference between scientific and non-scientific understanding of the word "theory"?To the non-scientist the word is taken to mean what scientists would term hypothesis, meaning it is untested, uninvestigated and has no supporting evidence as yet. To the scientist a hypothesis only gets promoted to theory once there is supporting evidence for it.If this doesn't help, I'm sorry, it's late, I'm tired and I'm clutching at straws.

Well, I am glad we agree on the point concerning what should be labelled fact...even if we still disagree on what the data supports and does not support.

It says it (defined as common descent in the article linking to this one) is observed today, but common descent, the idea we all descended from a common ancestor, is not observed.

quote:

---

It says it (defined as common descent in the article linking to this one) is observed today, but common descent, the idea we all descended from a common ancestor, is not observed.

---

In other words you are admitting that your assertion, that the text did claim that universal common descent was observed is false. So there goes your argument.This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-08-2006 08:54 AM

Actually that article mentions two different kinds of evolution. Evolution that biologists say has been observed and the kind of evolution where Chimps share a common ancestor. They contrast the two on two occasions, in that very article. I've posted it once before, but since you haven't acknowledged this basic fact, I'll do it again. I think its quite clear that they seperate observed evolution from the level of evolution under debate. Where's the problem?

quote:

---

Usually offered in defense of the "evolution as fact" perspective is a different definition of fact. The one usually offered is one originally provided by Gould, where he says in one of his popular books that a fact is something that is so well established that to withhold at least provisional assent would be perverse. But I see that word "provisional" and it sets off alarm bells.

---

I think Gould is using the scientific fefinition of "fact" percy. In that, in science, even a "fact" doesn't mean "perfect knowledge".Here is the quote from the essay: link to the SJG website

I don't think this is particularly subtle, or confusing. From the definition article: It seems pretty explicit and clear. I don't go away from that paragraph thinking 'so Chimp/Human divergence and evolution has been observed! How silly of me to think that we hadn't observed an event millions of years before we are claimed to have existed. The scientists are telling us they have observed it, so we must have'.No, I go away understanding what it means when someone says 'evolution has been observed' and what it means to talk about common ancestors. Its actually amusing that in one they claim that some evolution has been observed in contrast with common ancestry with is theorized to have occurred through the same processes that we have observed. And in the other article they say that there are two types of evolution -micro and macro. Its very confusing. I agree, everyone here agrees, the definition article agrees, and the 29+ evidences agrees. We all agree. Hurray. I'm not sure what T.O is wrong on here. Actually I've picked a few errors up in TO in my time, it is just a bulletin board where certain of the posts get made into html. It's written by lots of different people. There is the theory of evolution (How did evolution happen) and the phenomena of evolution (changing populations). I certainly hope you haeve better examples of propaganda on TO than this, since it is SO subtle, it seems nobody can see it behind all the explicit words which say the opposite.How about we try something else?

I'm not sure that quoting Gould himself can support the contention that he's using the scientific definition of fact. That seems kind of circular. I think you need an outside reference.The evidence of evolution, facts if you like, is what we dig from the ground, find in the wild and observe in our laboratories. Everything else is interpretation. That's just my view, and as I've said, I'm aware I have a minority viewpoint concerning whether it is a fact that evolution has occurred.--Percy