proof evolutionists are propogandizers

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation. A famous example is the evolution of mammals from reptiles."

That's his exact words. The transition is nowhere near "continuous."

OK, so how are you using the word "continuous"? It isn't a scientific term, so you are free to use it the way you wish, but if you are going to accuse the author of lying about it, you should also give good reasons why he should be using your definition too...

He also goes on to state in the next paragraph.

"Anothe example of continuous evolution found in the fossil record is that of the horse."

Ok, what is your beef with the fossil record of horse evolution? I guess that would go back to your definition of continuous? Or are you complaining that horse evolution is not Lamarkian, but rather Darwinian in its patterns?

It's obvious what he is doing. It's the way evolution is taught. It's indoctrination not education.

You get your education from a single page entry in an Encyclopedia? No wonder...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
What's unclear about "continuous evolutionary change and speciation"? He obviously claims the fossils prove species to species evolutionary change from reptiles to mammals.

Uh whether the continuity is over time, relative to morphological traits, or relative to the known sequence of ancestor to descendant relationships... that's what is unclear.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Randman, the words "species to species" don't appear there at all. Your "transitional must equal species to species" argument didn't work with Archy. It's not going to work with mammals either.

 

[randman]

Once again, the spin machine is in full force, and thus stengthening my case. "Continuous evolutionary change", well, tell me, what "is" is.

Get real guys. You know full well the impression he is leaving. He lays out several paragraphs on the fossil record and wants it clear that the impression is left that there are fossil documenting a continuous speciation process.

My beef with the horse evolution is that the fossils that were once called continuous, linear evolution are no longer considered to be that.

Hey, if ya'll want to spin, I don't want to waste my time. You can see what is going on in the article, and it is indicative of the way evolution is taught in general. You choose to cling to and defend indoctrination rather than education, and that tells me a lot about where some of you stand.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Once again, the spin machine is in full force, and thus stengthening my case. "Continuous evolutionary change", well, tell me, what "is" is.

Get real guys. You know full well the impression he is leaving. He lays out several paragraphs on the fossil record and wants it clear that the impression is left that there are fossil documenting a continuous speciation process.

You have what problem with accuracy?

My beef with the horse evolution is that the fossils that were once called continuous, linear evolution are no longer considered to be that.

You forgot to mention that it is now considered to be continuous, but not linear, evolution.

Hey, if ya'll want to spin, I don't want to waste my time. You can see what is going on in the article, and it is indicative of the way evolution is taught in general. You choose to cling to and defend indoctrination rather than education, and that tells me a lot about where some of you stand.

RANDMAN, AN ENCYLOPEDIA ENTRY IS **NOT** EDUCATION.

A class in biology is basic education.

A concentration in biology is a more complete education.

A major in biology is a good education.

Post graduate work is education and an opportunity to begin research....

What is your problem? Did you have even a basic education?

Sure, kids get the streamlined version. I remember doing a science project on space exploration out of World Book. Yes it was streamlined. Yes it oversimplified and overgeneralized. So what???!!!?????!!!!????!!!!????

 

[randman]

Rufus, the word continuous and speciation appear together denoting the same thing. "Continuous evolutionary change and speciation" means continuous speciation, which is clear he is stating that there are fossils documenting the entire continuous speciation process from reptiles to mammals.

 

[randman]

It's not the stream-lined version. It is the false version. The idea is to indoctrinate people so that by the time they take a more advanced course they already believe in evolution so much that they don't look at it critically, and the way this is done is by overstatement and propoganda, and ridicule of their critics.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation

I wouldn't question the integrity of a person who wrote this for an encyclopedia entry, but I am still suspicious... Is this the correct and complete quote from the article? What edition are you quoting from (what year)?

I am going to check you out here.

 

[randman]

It's the complete quote. The context are several paragraphs on the fossil record, this being the start of one, and one of the primary points. It is in the 1994 edition, which I have sitting here in my lap.

But why bother Jerry, unless you are prepared to disavow the statement as wrong instead of glossing over it?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
It's not the stream-lined version. It is the false version.

[creationist bluster mode]But randman,,,, "you knew what the evolutionist was trying to saaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy"[/creationsist bluster mode]

The idea is to indoctrinate people so that by the time they take a more advanced course they already believe in evolution so much that they don't look at it critically, and the way this is done is by overstatement and propoganda, and ridicule of their critics.

Have you looked at the encyclopedia entry for gravity? When something has already been looked at critically by the best in the field, over and over again, why would we be wanting people to waste time re-inventing the wheel?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
It's the complete quote. The context are several paragraphs on the fossil record, this being the start of one, and one of the primary points. It is in the 1994 edition, which I have sitting here in my lap.

But why bother Jerry, unless you are prepared to disavow the statement as wrong instead of glossing over it?

The statement should have been made more carefully. Not to prevent misunderstanding on the part of those trying to find out an outline version of evolution from it, but to keep it from being pounced upon by an anti-evolutionist with an axe to grind.

I will probably take your word for it that the quote is word for word. You haven't given me reason to believe that you lie on purpose yet.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Once again, the spin machine is in full force, and thus stengthening my case. "Continuous evolutionary change", well, tell me, what "is" is.

Well, the gradual evolution of a three-toed animal to a one-toed animal would be continuous evolutionary change. That's exactly what the fossil record shows us with the horse series. I would say some of the series onthis page fall into the category of "continuous evolutionary change."

Get real guys. You know full well the impression he is leaving. He lays out several paragraphs on the fossil record and wants it clear that the impression is left that there are fossil documenting a continuous speciation process.

I don't know if he's actually implying that, but if so he is not wrong as you would like us to believe. What do you make of this quote from the above link?

Species-species transitions:

• Horses: Gingerich (1980) documented speciation from Hyracotherium grangeri to H. aemulor. Prothero & Schoch (1989) mention some intermediate fossils that link late Orohippus to Mesohippus celer. MacFadden (1985) has documented numerous smooth transitions among the three-toed horses, particularly among Merychippus and the various hipparions. Hulbert (in Prothero & Schoch, 1989) showed that Dinohippus smoothly grades into Equus through successive Pliocene strata. Simpson (1961) describes gradual loss of the side toes in Pliohippus through 3 successive strata of the early Pliocene.
• Rhinos: Wood (1954) said of the rhino fossils "whenever we do have positive paleontological evidence, the picture is of the most extreme gradualism" (quoted in Gingerich, 1977), and Kurten (1968) describes a smooth transition between Dicerorhinus species.

My beef with the horse evolution is that the fossils that were once called continuous, linear evolution are no longer considered to be that.

Have you ever wondered why that is? It might just be that they now have so many fossils of ancient equids that they can't fit them into a single continuous line. The same thing is happening with fossil hominins.

Hey, if ya'll want to spin, I don't want to waste my time. You can see what is going on in the article, and it is indicative of the way evolution is taught in general. You choose to cling to and defend indoctrination rather than education, and that tells me a lot about where some of you stand.

I think you missed your calling as street preacher.

 

[randman]

"creationist bluster mode]But randman,,,, "you knew what the evolutionist was trying to saaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy"[/creationsist bluster mode]"

What he is trying to say is that they have documented the complete process between reptiles and mammals in the fossil record. That's the point. What he is trying to say is false.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"creationist bluster mode]But randman,,,, "you knew what the evolutionist was trying to saaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy"[/creationsist bluster mode]"

What he is trying to say is that they have documented the complete process between reptiles and mammals in the fossil record. That's the point. What he is trying to say is false.

Then what the creationists are trying to say is that the eye is perfect... That's the point. What you are trying to say is false.. MALARKEY. He is saying that the change from one form to another is documented by a continous fossil progression. Nothing more, nothing less. Not archaeopteryx, but the horses. Not Archaeopteryx but synapsids to mammals.. Who are you accusing of "spin"?

 

[randman]

Street preaching is an admirable thing, and I have been a very active street preacher at times, though not doing much lately.

"Have you ever wondered why that is? It might just be that they now have so many fossils of ancient equids that they can't fit them into a single continuous line."

Maybe they can't fit them into a neat line because they didn't evolve the way evolutionists theorize. By the way, I don't see the 3-toed to regular horse, if it occurred, as being that problematic for creationism, nor as strong evidence for evolution. Of course, it's been awhile since I studied the topic. My memory was of basically little horses getting bigger, and even at that time, I kind of questioned, well, what's the big deal?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Rufus, the word continuous and speciation appear together denoting the same thing. "Continuous evolutionary change and speciation" means continuous speciation

Really? And here I was thinking that three words appear between "continuous" and "speciation." Thank you for setting me strait. Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that "continous" only refers to the first part of the conjunction?

which is clear he is stating that there are fossils documenting the entire continuous speciation process from reptiles to mammals.

I don't see the word "entire" in there either. Are you sure you are not just interpreting it however you want so that you can claim Dr. Coyne is using the WorldBook encyclopedia to indoctrinate children? Have you thought about writing to the WorldBook with your complaint?

 

[randman]

"Continuous evolutionary change and speciation" is just not accurate, and it is indicative of the way evolution is taught. Overstatement, inaccuracies, outright hoaxes, use of stylized pictures to create impressions in highly suggestible and impressionable young children, I mean come on, Jerry, if you can't see this as propaganda techniques, then something is wrong with your thinking.

You ever see the ape to human chart?

Fact is evolutionists are deliberately overstating their case. I would think you would want them to reform this junk out of the way it is taught.

 

[Jerry Smith]

For argument's sake, I'm going to grant you that Coyne (and the editors of the WB) did a bad job on the article you are looking at...

For argument's sake, I'm going to grant you that they are overstating the case for evolution (despite not including evidence from many fields apart from paleontology).

You reject evolution because of this poor attempt to simultaneously combat creationist tactics and present the material to people without regard to their level of education.

Do you, or do you not (this is a yes or no question) reject creationism because of people like Nick... or people like Duane Gish, or Kent Hovind?

{edited to add:

Goodnight. I will be back in the a.m.}

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Street preaching is an admirable thing, and I have been a very active street preacher at times, though not doing much lately.

Wow! That's interesting. Thanx. Although, please don't tell me your one of thouse people who stands in the middle of a college campus shouting at women who wear pants.

Maybe they can't fit them into a neat line because they didn't evolve the way evolutionists theorize.

No one thinks that evolution is a "neat line." It's more like a bush. Equids would be rather remarkable if cladogenesis hadn't happened.

By the way, I don't see the 3-toed to regular horse, if it occurred, as being that problematic for creationism, nor as strong evidence for evolution.

It depends upon what type of creationist you are. It's no problem for you if you think that Satan planted fossils so that they just look like evolution occured. Or if you believe in multiple, continuous creations that mimic what one would expect from evolution. However, neither of those could be considered "biblically-based," except in the broadest sense. And I doubt you are such a creationist.

The three-toed to one-toed equid series is a good example of gradual morphological change. Is evolution the only possible explaination? No, but then again static electricity is not the only possible explaination for lightening.

 

[randman]

"Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that "continous" only refers to the first part of the conjunction? "

The "and" there clearly ties the phrase continuous to speciation, as does the meaning of continuous evolutionary change. In fact, the meaning is the same if the word speciation is not used, but it seems the author is making it clear that change includes speciation.