Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,839 Year: 4,096/9,624 Month: 967/974 Week: 294/286 Day: 15/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 199 of 301 (288262)
02-18-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
02-18-2006 10:38 PM


Your posts show you really are incapable of reading
You may not have noticed the title of the page that you linked to.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

from Your link
And you wonder why no one takes any of your posts seriously.
You might get some respect if perhaps one time some assertion you made was supported by one of your very own references.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 10:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2006 10:58 PM jar has not replied
 Message 202 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 11:04 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 301 (297054)
03-21-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Admin
03-21-2006 10:18 AM


While it will not support randman's claims
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Admin, posted 03-21-2006 10:18 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:54 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 279 of 301 (300148)
04-01-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by randman
04-01-2006 5:54 PM


Re: While it will not support randman's claims
randman, in my post Message 268, I included the portions from the links you provided so that the readers can see things in context. I also made sure to include the links to the complete articles. The record is there for all to read and they will decide who has supported their position, and who has not.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:16 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 301 (300158)
04-01-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
04-01-2006 8:16 PM


Re: let's look at what they say....
Those who are interested can go and read the full article. I believe they will notice that it contains quotations from many sources as well as statements from TO itself.
Those who do so will decide whether or not you have supported your position.
I have done so and IMHO you have failed completely to support your assertions.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:16 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024