|
Author
|
Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 250 of 301 (296871)
03-20-2006 5:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
03-20-2006 5:03 PM
|
|
Re: here ya go again
PaulK, did I or did I not cite this specific definition and quote of common descent? The article I linked to make it real easy clearly states only the mechanism is theoritical, and so that has to mean that the idea of universal common descent is a fact. Why can you not grasp these things?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 246 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:03 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 253 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:21 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 251 of 301 (296872)
03-20-2006 5:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 248 by Modulous
03-20-2006 5:07 PM
|
|
Re: you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
did indeed openly state it. I did it twice actually, in my final paragraph I said you had referenced the wrong page and you should have referenced the one that actually supported your position:
I have referenced the same pages numerous times on this thread. You have denied completely that I have quoted anything that backs up my claims. I consider that both a lie and a deliberate smear on your part. Sure, in an attempt to get you guys to focus on at least something factual, I drew your attention to the article where they explicitly state "evolution is a fact" and that the only theoritical aspect of the mechanism. Undeniably then, the idea we all descended from a common ancestor and are all genetically related is a major proposal of evolutionary theory. Since that is part of the "fact" area, not the mechanism, they are then asserting universal common descent is a fact. Why can you not admit this?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:07 PM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 263 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:50 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 252 of 301 (296874)
03-20-2006 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 248 by Modulous
03-20-2006 5:07 PM
|
|
Re: you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
You said in Message 222 that the 'evolution is fact and theory' article states that universal common descent is a fact. It doesn't, it says the opposite. It does because it divides evolutionary theory into 2 parts, one dealing with the mechanism, which they say is theory, and another dealing with the events, which they say is fact. Since evolutionary theory includes universal common descent, as they explicitly state in the article linked together with this one, they are clearly stating that universal common descent is a fact. It's not even debatable. I question your integrity because you claimed on another thread that my points had been refuted and that I had not offerred anything to show what I was saying was true. Imo, that was a lie. You also questioned my characterization of what the TO site has stated, claiming they do not claim universal common descent is a fact, when they obviously do, as I have repeatedly shown. Why not read through my statements on this thread, and come clean? This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:22 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:07 PM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 264 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 6:03 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 254 of 301 (296876)
03-20-2006 5:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 253 by PaulK
03-20-2006 5:21 PM
|
|
Re: here ya go again
It appears in the chain of argument on this thread. I showed clearly where the site defines "common descent" not as the mechanism, as some suggested, but as "universal common descent" and that universal common descent is defined as part of evolutionary theory, and is listed as a fact. That's the background. To make it "real easy" for you, I linked again to only one article that divided "evolution" into fact and theory, with the mechanism being the only theoritical part. Since universal common descent is not the mechanism, but the event of evolution, they are clearly and unequivocally stating "common descent" meaning genetical relatedness to all biota, as they state elsewhere, (universal common descent) is a fact. The bottom line is you guys just don't want to admit to what the TO is claiming. I have showed clearly where they do exactly what I claimed, and that they claim the story of evolution is a fact, and the only theoritical part is the mechanism. I have showed where they contradict themselves and use different definitions of evolution, and that they link articles together, thus joining them as one argument, that use such different definitions. I think it's clear why you guys refuse to admit these things. This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:26 PM This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:28 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 253 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:21 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 259 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:37 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 258 of 301 (296882)
03-20-2006 5:36 PM
|
|
|
let's review.....
TO states, as I have repeatedly quoted:
Introduction volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent MOdulous and PaulK, do you or do you not accept that right here they are claiming universal common descent is a fact? Read the article, and click on "the fact of evolution" and it takes you to another article, clearly indicating that the other article is going to discuss this idea of "the fact of evolution" and that article states that the only theoritical part of evolution is the mechanism. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory How much more obvious that this can it get for you guys? You say the second article only refers to "common descent" as heritable change or something, and not universal common descent. That would just make my case all the more stronger. They leave off, but only imply universal common descent in the 2nd article, but still include it obviously, and yet link to the article from one stating explicitly that universal common descent is a fact. This is exactly what one would expect from propagandist.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 262 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:46 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 260 of 301 (296887)
03-20-2006 5:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 256 by Modulous
03-20-2006 5:32 PM
|
|
Re: Moderator decision required!!!
How does this acerbic drivel pass as civil debate. You could have simply said 'you are wrong, mod' but instead you had to call me a liar? What the fuck is wrong with you? If you can't debate dispassionately might I suggest you go away from the computer? Because it is outrageous to have posted the exact same quotes, and you deny I have. Your derogatory comments are no less offensive, and yet untruthful. How else should I view them after page after page of showing where TO does state universal common descent is a fact, and yet you refuse to accept the statements as real. What gives? I see where adminjar threatens permanent suspension due to a lack of civility, but I see nowhere anyone censures you or PaulK for refusing to honestly deal with the facts of what I quoted. I mean they are TO quotes, for heaven's sake, and yet page after page, you just stonewall and deny and then falsely claim I have provided no substantiation for my points. Well, I do consider that lying after awhile. You are misrepresenting me. So I am calling you on it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 256 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:32 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 269 of 301 (299903)
03-31-2006 5:58 PM
|
|
|
reasons for acerbic tone
On another thread, Modulous characterized my posts on this thread as follows:
but if you don't like indoctrination technigues such as using the term "evolution" in different ways, insisting because one definition is true that the other is as well, a logical fallacy You attempted, and failed, to support this accusation of equivocation at Message 29. Every page you linked to was quite clear in differentiating between common ancestry and allele frequency change. I post this here because the thread is still open if either you or anglagard wish to discuss it further (since it is not about humans/dinosaurs it is heading off topic). This did bother me a lot as I believe I amply and fully documented my claims thoroughly on this thread contrary to what he wrote, and eventually Modulous came around to admitting some of that, it seems. Since there was a mischaracterization, imo, being used on other threads, I came back to this thread and detailed again what I felt was undeniable in plain English what TO is claiming. Imo, this was not debatable since we weren't dealing with claims of science or some debatable issue, but just what TO site has stated. I believe the quotes I have provided from TO fully substantiate my claims about what the TO claims, and the faulty and contradictory nature of those claims. I do apologize for the use of the term "liar" and such. Note: This is the post modulous referenced, but in making such a broad statement, he suggests nowhere in the thread was the point made. Regardless, I think the post he references does the opposite anyway and is a good argument illustrating the overall point of the thread.
One of the favorite propaganda technigues of evos is used at Talkorigins. Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html So they can safely argue that "evolution" is observed based on this definition of evolution. The reason this is a false argument is that the definition of "evolution" under debate is not the idea that change occurs. Creationism is thus equally as much "evolution" under the observed evolution definition as the Theory of Evolution, and evos know this. Let's see if they really are consistent and state "evolution" is mere change over time.
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent So here we see TalkOrigins state evolution is actually the grander concept they call "the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses." Hmmm....what should we make of this? Clearly, they deliberately use propaganda stating "evolution" is observed to argue for an entirely different definition of "evolution" the grand concept embracing a plurality of hypothesis and theories. In other words, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say evolution is observed, and then use the same word to describe the Theory of Evolution, which is not observed. This is like saying, hey, we can read of someone stating in the past, for example, that they had a gay time, and trying to argue they referred to homosexuality. Evos are trying to use semantics to make a scientific argument, and imo, do so because they cannot make a sound argument based on people understanding the facts. This message has been edited by randman, 03-31-2006 06:00 PM This message has been edited by randman, 03-31-2006 06:04 PM This message has been edited by randman, 03-31-2006 06:10 PM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 270 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:17 AM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 272 of 301 (300113)
04-01-2006 4:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 271 by AdminNWR
04-01-2006 10:12 AM
|
|
Re: reasons for acerbic tone
oops...thought something was directed towards me...sorry This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 04:03 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 271 by AdminNWR, posted 04-01-2006 10:12 AM | | AdminNWR has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 273 of 301 (300117)
04-01-2006 4:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 270 by PaulK
04-01-2006 5:17 AM
|
|
Re: reasons for acerbic tone
First, you and others simply stating I never made a case without ever engaging any of my points means nothing. You have to actually engage the points raised in the debate. Secondly, I never totally limited the conversation to one article. hen faced with repeated instances of your ignoring the points raised without any mods intervening I might add, I focussed your attention on one article, which does contrary to what you and modulous claim, make the same point because it says the only theoritical aspect of evolutionary theory is the mechanism. Since genetic relatedness and universal common descent are parts of evolutionary theory, and not the mechanism part they raised, then they are clearly, as they say elsewhere and as I posted statements proving, part of what they call the "fact" part. The thread has been frustrating because there has been a refusal to acknowledge much less answer substantive points, on you and some other's part. This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 04:10 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 270 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:17 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 274 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 4:35 PM | | randman has replied | | | Message 275 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 4:36 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 276 of 301 (300134)
04-01-2006 5:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 274 by Admin
04-01-2006 4:35 PM
|
|
key part of post as follows....
make the same point because it says the only theoritical aspect of evolutionary theory is the mechanism. Since genetic relatedness and universal common descent are parts of evolutionary theory, and not the mechanism part they raised, then they are clearly, as they say elsewhere and as I posted statements proving, part of what they call the "fact" part. I have raised this issue several times. It is a substantive point, and not merely charging malfeasance. It is well-defined, pointed, and I don't see why expecting an actual response other than "you are wrong" and then stating that elsewhere, is correct. Shouldn't others have to actually state why they think this is wrong? you know, substantiate their points according to the rules? Maybe you can illuminate me here. How is this not a substantive point? The article in question specifically states that the only theoritical part of evolutionary theory is the mechanism; and thus the event aspects of evolutionary theory are what they call "the fact" part. Is that not calling universal common descent a fact, just as they do elsewhere? Isn't universal common descent part of the event aspect, not the mechanism in this context, of evolutionary claims in this discussion? Where is this point wrong?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 274 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 4:35 PM | | Admin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 277 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 5:32 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 278 of 301 (300146)
04-01-2006 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
03-21-2006 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: While it will not support randman's claims
jar, you need to reread the quotes. Sure, they say it is a hypothesis and yet they also call it a fact. That's the whole point. They contradict themselves. The only consistent aspect of their claims in this area is to try to create an impression that evolution is undeniably true. It's propaganda. They also claim it is grossly incorrect to claim evolution is defined as including common descent, and then elsewhere define "evolution" as including common descent. Once again, on logic and facts, they are inconsistent, but in terms of repeating slogans/soundbite type things, creating false impressions, and denigrating their critics, they are consistent. That's the whole point. So contrary to your links disproving my claims, they actually verify 100% of what I am talking about. For example:
Introduction
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. Here evolution is defined broadly, but elsewhere on the site, we see:
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. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html They denigrate defining evolution broadly, and quite clearly want to define evolution as just "heritable change." Imo, this represents deception on their part as no one argues that heritable change is real. The truth is, as they admit elsewhere, that the term "evolution" under debate is indeed "Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". Everyone knows that's what is under debate, but the site wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to define evolution as heritable change and as an observed fact, and on another then want to extent the concept of evolution to embrace universal common descent. Basically, they are attempting through propaganda and deceptive use of terminoloty and logic to make the claim that the larger concept of evolution is a fact because the smaller concept of evolution is observed. This is a typical evo argument, and it's wrong. The term "evolution" is defined differently so arguing one is observed does not mean the other is observed or is factual. This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 06:12 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 268 by jar, posted 03-21-2006 11:02 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 279 by jar, posted 04-01-2006 7:32 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 280 of 301 (300156)
04-01-2006 8:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 279 by jar
04-01-2006 7:32 PM
|
|
let's look at what they say....
You guys claim TalkOrigins does not assert that common descent or genetic relatedness of all species is a fact. Let's look at what TO has published to see if they claim that or not. These comments are from the article you guys claim denies universal common descent is a fact.
In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, ... Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Note the phrase "it is a fact." Let me repeat that; "it is fact." Is that not clear enough? Let's look at more statements from the same article, which you guys claim denies that they are claiming the microbe to man evolutionary story is a fact.
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit. This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find: Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution. - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434 Also: Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Obviously, they are claiming macroevolution is a fact, right? That the species of living things are actually all related (universal common descent)? Is there really any vagueness here to their claims?
In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 279 by jar, posted 04-01-2006 7:32 PM | | jar has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 282 of 301 (300159)
04-01-2006 8:30 PM
|
|
|
let's look at more articles from TO....
Here is a classic case of what I am talking about.
What is Evolution? Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. ... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html Leaving aside the fact that, imo, there is credible evidence that sooty tree trunks did not cause the change in populations from lighter to darker colored moths since those changes also occurred in areas of the world without sooty tree trunks, the simple fact is that TO here is arguing that "evolution" is true because change is real. Is that a reasonable argument? I don't think it is because if we are talking about evolution in the sense of mere change, no one, not Young Earth Creationists, nor IDers, nor anyone in this debate at all, denies changes occur. The issue does the fact populations of species can change mean that the microbe to man story that evos tell is true. So when TO tries to argue "evolution is true", it's really a bogus argument because they are not sticking with one definition of evolution in making that argument. Even by using the term as heritable change and then saying we have examples of evolution being true, that it is observed, etc,....is a fallacious argument because they are leaving the impression that the broader concept of evolution is true, that the theory of evolution is true, just because one can define "evolution" as meaning any heritable change. Proving one term with the same name "evolution" does not prove or verify the other term "evolution" meaning the theory of evolution. To their credit, the article does at least mention the difference between macro and micro-evolution, but still contains the following:
Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 287 of 301 (300316)
04-02-2006 3:49 PM
|
|
|
let's review some things that have been posted....
Because there are more than one post and person making comments, I am posting this as a general comment. I wrote the following in Message 188.
comments from TO....a featured article defining evolution, sort of a an evo primer to start things off
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 TO is stating that the following is a wrong definition of evolution.
"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."
They go as far as to refer to this definition as "inexcusable." But do they practice what they preach? They use it elsewhere in this exact same manner as shown below.
Introduction
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent To their credit, this article at least intially distinquishes between micro and macro evolution. But they quickly slip into error by stating "common descent" which in context here is universal common descent is a fact.
The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. 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 If you read the article, the phrase "fact of evolution" is highlighted so that if you click on it, it takes you to different article. In that article, TO asserts:
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 Keep in mind that the fact of evolution is universal common descent so to say it is "observed today" is flat out false. It is not observed today, but once again, perhaps they are playing loose with terms in their effort to convince people because they seem to resort back to the definition of evolution as heritable change. So what they are doing is alternately using more than one definition of evolution in the same line of argument to create the appearance that universal common descent is an uncontested and observed fact, which is just flat out wrong. Sometime later, PaulK makes this statement:
2) Read in context there are only minor differences in the definitions of "evolution" used. Imo, this statement is false as I have amply shown. They use more than one definition of "evolution." There is a massive difference between heritable change on the one hand and universal common descent and macroevolution on the other. The latter is generally what is under discussion when we talk of evolution, but as the quotes I provided above show, TalkOrigins calls the latter a fact, or "the fact of evolution." "The fact of evolution" in the TO site is defined:
The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. They link to an article, which Modulous and PaulK try to rest their case on, which contains some ambigious statements, but the overall impression is very clear, that "evolution" is a fact, and only the mechanism is a theory. Modulous points out that they may be appealing to common descent from multiple origins, which is nothing but a slight nuanced change regardless. The same point I have made holds. They say universal common descent and macroevolution is a fact, and "the fact of evolution" can be clicked on to link directly to an article stating "evolution is a fact." Regardless of inconsistencies in some articles, the effort overall is very clear. They are using different definitions of evolution within the same logic in a manner indicative of propaganda.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 290 by nwr, posted 04-02-2006 4:11 PM | | randman has not replied | | | Message 291 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2006 4:43 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 288 of 301 (300321)
04-02-2006 3:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 286 by Modulous
04-02-2006 10:38 AM
|
|
Re: let's look at more articles from TO....
It defines "evolution" as heritable change, but then goes on to state macroevolution and even universal common descent are part of evolutionary theory, but not abiogenesis. Then we see this gem:
The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case. Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community. Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Note the use of "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" interchangeably. What are they saying? Are they saying scientists consider heritable change to be a fact? Are they saying scientists consider macro-evolution to be a fact? Are they saying they consider universal common descent to be a fact? I think it's quite clear they are using "evolution" to refer to the broad concept of the theory of evolution which does include universal common descent. Is that not true here?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 286 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2006 10:38 AM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 289 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2006 4:08 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2