Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

Daewin's finches are all closely related. Unless you can confirm otherwise this would appear to be a small-scale speciation event.As for Gould's views: Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
(attributed to Life in a Punctuation," Natural History 101 (October 1992): 12-14.)o

The reference to the biogenetic law is a red herring because - as I explicitly stated I am not challenging the point that cretionist views have changed.It is ONLY YECs that support rapid evolution (to get around the fact that Noah's Ark is - according to the Bible - too small for their liking). And their views have not been confirmed - neither on the rapidity they need nor the limits they insist on.

THe point is that the rapid evolution proposed by creationists is typically within the family level - notrestricted to within a genus, and if their timescales often allow a whole 1200 years I would be surprised. The Flood is typically dated at around 2500 BC, so 1200 years takes us to 1300 BC - far too recent.You are right that the creationists try to minimise the differences between the various "Darwin's Finches" - but what you miss is that such a view is directly at odds with using them as an example of the hyper-evolution their views requires.

My point has consistenly been that creationism in itself does not require any degree of evolution.Some creationists have accepted a degree of evolution as a result of the evidence for evolution. Others propose unrealistic hyper evolution to fit in with their views of the Flood myth but fail to explain why, if this were so, the limits to evolution they demand are even plausible.If anyone claimed otherwise then they were not doing much worse than you, since your posts also failed to give credit to the range of views within creationism.

The relevance of pointing out that creationism can accept a wide range of positions on evolution is that it shows that the "prediction" is not a prediction of creationism. If creationists accept a degree of evolution simply because evolutionists have provided strong enough evidence to convince even then then that is no credit to creationism. It's still evolution.And I see no good reason to accuse evolutionists of misusing the term "evolution" and indulging in equivocation. If a creationist claims that evolution has not been observed then surely it is reasonable to assume that he refers to the processes of evolution - because if he does not mean that he is creating a strawman.There is of course a bad reason - and that is that such accusatiosn are a staple of creationist propaganda.e

No, the evolution referred to is not a prediction of creationism as such. It is a "prediction" of their reading of the Noah's Ark story.And I will not agree that the fossil record is in disagreement with the predictions of evolutionary theory. And I beleive you have already been referred to the fact that PE was invented by applying evolutionary theory to the fossil record - so we might more justly call the pattern predcted by PE a prediction of evolutionary theory than the "phyletic gradualism" Eldredge and Gould opposed.I don't know what non-PE theories of evolution you refer to, but even if you are correct you still fail to make a valid point.Further you are wrong to say that I cloud the issue - after all you are the one trying to label examples of evolution examples of creation simply because some creationists accept a degree of evolution. Perhaps if you could show examples where evolutionists invoke special creation and call it evolution you wuld have a point.

quote:

---

YECers are also more detailed in your claims than you are admitting to. They have highly specific claims about mechanisms within organisms being able to produce a remarkable range of variation quickly, and they have been proven right.

---

This has not been born out by the actual examples produced. For isntance showing that one species within a genus could tehoretically evolve to another within 1200 years does not support the idea that a signifciantly greater amount of evolution could happen in a singificantly shorter time. Nor have the Creationist claims of limits been substantiated as shown by the failure of creatinists to provided an adeqaute biological basis for the identification of "kinds".Your invocation of "adaptive mutations" is also unfortunate because there is considerable doubt that they occur. It is more likely that the effect is due to a greatly increased mutation rate in bacteria under stress conditions (see "SOS Response").n

It is a fact that Eldredge and Gould based PE on applying Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation through geographical isolation to the fossil record. They say as much in the paper where they proposed the idea. They then produced evidence from the fossil record to support their view. Since Mayr's views were ALREADY accepted by evolutionary scientists, before Eldredge and Gould published any claim that PE was introduced bexause the fossil record contradicted evolutionary theory has to deal with that fact before it can be accepted.As for your specific example, what is it ? An insect becoming reproductively isolated in about 100 years ? A theoretical cange of small-scale morphological change - within a genues - within 1200 years ? Neither verifies the creationist claims. We have no examples of major morphological changes in large vertebrates in a few hundred years - or less - which is what these creationists predicted. The fact that these views were not based on creationism itself further defeats your claim. They were not based on creationism as such and they have not been confirmed.

quote:

---

mo, you are trying to cloud the simple issue here that creationist do embrace and include speciation in their models so if speciation is evidence for ToE models, it is also evidence for creationist models.

---

On the contrary I am making the issue clearer. What you object to is the fact that a clearer understanding of the issue undercuts your claims.The important issue is that speciation is evolution - and if it did not occur evolution would be refuted. It is not creation, nor is it even necessary for creation. Thus if it did not occur creationism would not be refuted (indeed it would be strengthened indirectly since evolution would no longer be a live option).Thus speciation is definitely evidence for evolution and not evidence for creation. It may be evidence for some creation models over others - just as evidence for an old earth is evidence for OEC models over YEC models without offering any supprt for creation as such. And in so far as creation does not require speciation that it occurs at all is (weak) evidence for evolution over creation - even those models that include a degree of evolutinary change.

quote:

---

Moreover, the fact that under normal isolated circumstances, the predicted rates for the finches speciating is 1200 years does not negate the YEC of even more rapid speciation under less than normal circumstances.

---

Remember you were claiming that this evidence SUPPORTED the creationist ideas - not that it "did not negate them". And it is not the observation itself that refutes the creationist claims - it is the fact that this is the best they have to offer in support of it.

quote:

---

On the other hand, it does really take the wind out of the sails for using the finches as examples of ToE, particularly since we should see far more species than we do see, assuming an old earth.

---

This on the other hand is completely false. The number of species is not controlled by the maximum speed of evolution. Any estimate would have to be based on the average rate at which new species appeared and also take extinction into account. Arguments against the maximum rate simply do not address the issue.Stasis has been part of evolutionary theory even in Darwin's day. Natural selection as a stabilising force was proposed even before Darwin. If you wish to claim that evolution predicts that the finches should be more diverse then you need to produce an actual argument to that effect. Simple assertion is inadequate.s

quote:

---

Funny how you guys have "considerable doubt" over any fact troubling you, but many evos had little doubt over "facts" such as the phylotypic stage without any substantiation for

---

I was reporting a fact. If you wish to dismiss facts that undercut your argument because they are "convenient" to your opponents then we do not have a basis for a constructive discussion.

We already know from Randman's failed examples that he did not have any sound basis for his claim that to.org was a "propaganda site", nor has he been able to find one.So much was obvious from his second examples Message 3 when instead of finding "propaganda" on the to.org website he relied on quoting a creationist site. That was not talking about the to.org website - instead referring to messages on the talk.origins newsgroup. And did nothing to substantiate the accusations he raised even if it had been referring to the website. That he should need to use another site is bad enough, that he should fail not only to fact check it, but even to read it properly indicates a reckless disregard for the truth.And given his recent comments in the trilobite dicussion it seems that randman deploys the "propaganda site" label simply to dismiss information he does not want to know - or others to know.

Let us be clear.1) You are talking about two different articles, written by differnet people, who do not necessarily agree on everything2) Read in context there are only minor differences in the definitions of "evolution" used.3) Randman would have you believe that the second article uses the first article's definition to claim that evolution is observed, and then expands the definition to claim that universal common descent is observed. This imprssion is completely false. The second article - and it is a very long article by web standards - is all about the evidence for common descent.These points have already mbeen made and Randman is not refuting htem. Randman is ismply repeating his propaganda in an attempt to smear talkorigins.org.

quote:

---

I am sorry, but read in context, there are massive and huge differences in the definitions of "evolution" used. One definition is any heritable change, period, and another is universal common descent.

---

This is obviously false. Here is what the second article says: The article clearly states that "microevolution" has been observed - and that is all.As the linked article on macroevolution makes clear, macroevolution refers to the same sorts of changes but only when it results in a new species (or a new grouping at a higher taxonomic level).The following material is not in itself part of the definition, inteadit deals with related issues. Naturally speciation is nevessary for macroevolution, and thus macroevolution also requires a degree of common descent. These are implications of the definition.The article then goes on to discuss the so-called "fact of evolution" - based on Gould's usage. Again there is no attempt at equivocation: This is not referring not to the word "evolution", but the phrase "fact of evolution". The meaning is clearly stated. There is no attempt to claim that universal common descent has been observed. Instead the supporting evidence IS presented in the main body of the article.

quote:

---

The site weaves a more complicated level of propaganda than that. For example, they not only claim the little form "evolution is observed" and a fact, but they also claim universal common descent is a fact and is "observed today" so what they have going is to repeatedly repeat a slogan that evolution is a fact and observed when it is not.

---

And this just illustrates your approach. There is a huge article about the evidence for common descent. It is one of the articles that you linked to in this thread. Yet you do not even acknowledge its existence - instead preferring to accuse talkorigins.org of simply dealing in slogans.As for your assertion that they claim that universal common descent is observed I will have to ask you to support that or withdraw it. I can see no such claim - nor have you produced a real example. And I mean a place where they actually say it. That is what an example means - just in case you still have difficulty with the concept.

quote:

---

I have shown it. It is irrefutable so I am not going to waste time repeating myself on all of the same points, except for the following

---

You did not show it. You were refuted.

quote:

---

This is not referring not to the word "evolution", but the phrase "fact of evolution". The meaning is clearly stated. There is no attempt to claim that universal common descent has been observed.

​

Wrong. They def ine "the fact of evolution" as universal common descent as I showed in the specific linked quotes.

---

You can't prove me wrong by agreeing with me. You see you agree that the meaning of the "fact of evolution" is clearly stated (and yes, the quotes are in the original).

quote:

---

So by saying the fact of evolution is observed, they are stating universal common descent is observed, or as I suggest they are switching meanings in the same article and between articles.

---

If they said that. But where do they say it ?They don't say it in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent That only says that microevolution is observed. It doesn't say so in the article that explains "the fact of evolution" Evolution is a Fact and a Theory which states that past evolution is supported by historical evidence, not direct observation. The article on the def inition of evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html does not claim it either. It only claims that the process of evolution can be observed in the modern day - it does not even state that the common ancestry of humans and chimps which it refers to as an example is directly observed.

quote:

---

You guys don't want to see it, I suspect, for partisan reasons, but it's clearly there.

---

It's clearly absent. That's why you won't produce a real example. If you had actually quoted them as saying that the "fact of evolution" had been observed you would have had an argument here. But they don't say that - which is why you don't produce a quote.Does it make sense to anyone - even you - to argue that an article that clearly states what it means to say that evolution is observed is trying to fool people into thinking that it means something else ?
Because that's what you've been arguing. Come on, be honest - you're the partisan here. That's why you labelled talkorigins.org a propaganda site without knowing the contents and why you can't admit that you were wrong when you can't back up your claims
.This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-20-2006 03:10 AM

quote:

---

They define "fact of evolution" as I showed in the specific quote I linked to as universal common descent. if you don't want to admit it, that's your business. It doesn't change reality one iota.

---

I suggest that you deal with the points I did raise, rather than attempting to put words into my mouth. I have not argued about what the phrase "fact of evolution" refers to. Instead I have shown that it does not support your claims.You can grossly misrepresent what I say all I like, but it doesn't change reality one iota. All it does is further undermine your assertion that what you "see" in the text (but never show) is there.

quote:

---

They define "the fact of evolution" as universal common descent,and then say "it is observed" and hence do say the fact of evolution (universal common descent is observed).

---

No, they do NOT claim that universal common descwnt is observed.

quote:

---

You choose to ignore that? Fine, but it's there for all to see.

---

I don't "choose to ignore that". I reject it because it is not true.
If it were true then you could actually quote the place where they say it You don't because it isn't there..

That post didn't support your assertion that they cliamed that universal common descent was observed the first time and it doesn't now.

quote:

---

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

​

The article explicitly states that universal common descent (evolution) is a fact, and that the only debate or theoritical aspect is the mechanisms theorized for evolution.

---

I guess that you didn't read it: That article explictly states that (in the opinion of the author) universal common descent should not be considered a fact.

quote:

---

At this point, I don't know how much clearer we can get. They are saying "evolution" which entails universal common descent is a fact, and the only theory part of it deals with the mechanism of evolution.

​

Why can you not admit this?

---

I havent been ASKED to admit it, because it is irrelevant. It is clearly stated that it is macroevolution that entails common descent - and the article does NOT claim that macroevolution is observed - although it DOES say that microevolution has been observed.

quote:

---

They explicitly state that the fact of evolution is the theory of universal common descent.

---

They explictly state that the phrase "fact of evolution" is used to refer to common descent. They do not claim that universal common descent has been observed. Why can't you admit that ?e