I do think that I can point to the areas where his sources actually refute what he claimed.
In
Message 258 randman claims that
this source shows that TO claims Common Descent is a fact. In suport he includes this quote from that page.
randman writes:
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.
randman writes:
MOdulous and PaulK, do you or do you not accept that right here they are claiming universal common descent is a fact?
What he fails to include is this paragraph from the very same page.
TO Introduction writes:
What is Universal Common Descent?
Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related.
Here it clearly says that it is a hypothesis, not fact. In fact, even if you only read the part that randman quotemined from the article, you would find that it says that Common Descent is a theory.
randman's quote writes:
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life).
He then linked to a
second article, one discussion the differentiation between the Fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution. That article contains this telling statement.
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
The article also contains quotes from other authors. In some of those the
author states that common ancestry is so well supported as to be a fact, but those comments are clearly marked and attributed to the individual author. In addition, the statement from the contributors actually preceeded the statement from TO.
Far from supporting a charge of propaganda, the readings from the pages randman cited seem to show an attempt to be overly considerate and to point out the fact that disagreement exists.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion