What is creationism?

[Sapiens]

No problem. Stuff happens.


Though that quote is entirely consistent with Raup's position- it's something he reiterates several times


So I guess you think this supports Rusra's assertion that there is some limitation or barrier that prevents macroevolution from occurring? Raup doesn't seem to be saying that.
Instead, he seems to be discussing the gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium debate.


And of course all of this assumes that all we have is the fossil record and hasn't even taken into account everything we now know about genetics that supports the theory of evolution.

That is really the point. Genetics shows it all, the fossil record is, in modern times, a delightful Victorian artifact whose charming inadequacies can hardly be cited as definitive of anything at all. Genetics provides a clear picture, the fossils themselves can then be fit into the gig-saw puzzle as little more than a hobby.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is really the point. Genetics shows it all, the fossil record is, in modern times, a delightful Victorian artifact whose charming inadequacies can hardly be cited as definitive of anything at all. Genetics provides a clear picture, the fossils themselves can then be fit into the gig-saw puzzle as little more than a hobby.

Right. The fossil record was like a jumping off point for the theory. From there, data obtained from genetics and practically every other field of science just continues to corroborate the theory of evolution. The fossil record is certainly not all there is.

 

[outhouse]

The fossil record is certainly not all there is.

Its the weakest link we have.

Yet so strong by itself it makes many aspects of evolution a fact.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I think evolutionist's claims of quote mining is often nothing more than an impudent attempt to prevent people from learning what evolutionists themselves describe as weaknesses in their theory and evidence hey publish against it. Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO.

Except that its not and we can prove that.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that people who are religious and hate evolution because it pokes holes in their specific interpretation of their own religion take quotes out of context? I mean even if we can only prove ONE of those quotes to be out of context, and we have done so within the context of this very thread, shouldn't that mean that its more likely that all of them are quote mined?

Show us a "quote mine" that is legitimate. Show it to us in total context not just half context.

 

[vombatus]

I understand that. What the evidence uncovered supports is direct creation, neither gradualism nor PU, IMO.

Can you please elucidate for us the exact nature of "the evidence uncovered", and explain precisely how it "supports ... direct creation"? Thank you in anticipation.

 

[rusra02]

Except that its not and we can prove that.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that people who are religious and hate evolution because it pokes holes in their specific interpretation of their own religion take quotes out of context? I mean even if we can only prove ONE of those quotes to be out of context, and we have done so within the context of this very thread, shouldn't that mean that its more likely that all of them are quote mined?

Show us a "quote mine" that is legitimate. Show it to us in total context not just half context.

It seems that evolutionists set themselves as censors of any quote that gives evidence against the ToE. How to prevent pesky people who reject evolution from publishing these facts embarrassing to the theory? Call it "quote mining" to put them on the defensive and discourage them from using damaging information evolutionists themselves publish by claiming these quotes were "out of context". Clever ploy, what?

 

[rusra02]

Can you please elucidate for us the exact nature of "the evidence uncovered", and explain precisely how it "supports ... direct creation"? Thank you in anticipation.

I will quote my post that caused accusations of quote mining: "Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached. Since these variations are limited, they are like stop signs to evolution. Here is a comment from Donald E. Chiddick; "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It seems that evolutionists set themselves as censors of any quote that gives evidence against the ToE.

You never presented a quote that gave evidence against ToE. You presented an out-of-context quote from a man who was not contesting the theory of evolution and says so explicitly in the full article but was merely addressing the disconnect between the contemporary theory of evolution and Darwin's original hypothesis of steady and gradual change.

This has been explained to you in multiple posts. Here is the article from which you pulled the quote:

https://archive.org/stream/fieldmuseumofnat50chic#page/n21/mode/2up

And here are some of the other things Raup explained in this very article (emphasis mine):

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works." (p. 25)

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare." (p. 25)

"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." (p. 22)

Every single post you make parroting this claim from now on can only be naked dishonesty.

How to prevent pesky people who reject evolution from publishing these facts embarrassing to the theory? Call it "quote mining" to put them on the defensive and discourage them from using damaging information evolutionists themselves publish by claiming these quotes were "out of context". Clever ploy, what?

It's hardly a ploy. Your quote was out-of-context. We have provided the context, and it proves that what Raup said was categorically NOT the statement you are asserting it is. You are a liar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will quote my post that caused accusations of quote mining: "Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached. Since these variations are limited, they are like stop signs to evolution. Here is a comment from Donald E. Chiddick; "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

You've not answered their question. What is the evidence and how does it support direct creation? Parroting a creationist, without showing any actual evidence (or source) of their claims, is not an argument.

 

[rusra02]

You never presented a quote that gave evidence against ToE. You presented an out-of-context quote from a man who was not contesting the theory of evolution and says so explicitly in the full article but was merely addressing the disconnect between the contemporary theory of evolution and Darwin's original hypothesis of steady and gradual change.

This has been explained to you in multiple posts. Here is the article from which you pulled the quote:

https://archive.org/stream/fieldmuseumofnat50chic#page/n21/mode/2up

And here are some of the other things Raup explained in this very article (emphasis mine):

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works." (p. 25)

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare." (p. 25)

"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." (p. 22)

Every single post you make parroting this claim from now on can only be naked dishonesty.



It's hardly a ploy. Your quote was out-of-context. We have provided the context, and it proves that what Raup said was categorically NOT the statement you are asserting it is. You are a liar.

Calling people who disagree with evolution liars seems to be standard procedure wth many in this forum. I believe I acknowledged Raup believes in evolution. At the risk of again being accused of quote mining; "So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although / examples are surprisingly rare." (p. 25). So evolutionists are "pretty sure" natural selection is a mechanism for macro evolution, even though "examples are ...rare?" The quotes from Raup are not out of context.

 

[rusra02]

You've not answered their question. What is the evidence and how does it support direct creation? Parroting a creationist, without showing any actual evidence (or source) of their claims, is not an argument.

I will leave it to each interested person as to whether what I quoted constitutes evidence against evolution theory. For your benefit Chiddick mentions the evidence supporting direct creation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Calling people who disagree with evolution liars seems to be standard procedure wth many in this forum.

I am not calling you a liar because you disagree with evolution. I am calling you a liar because you are lying about the opinion and statements of David M. Raup, as I and many other posters have demonstrated.

I believe I acknowledged Raup believes in evolution.

But you are lying about him "presenting evidence AGAINST evolution". He was not, and did not.

At the risk of again being accused of quote mining; "So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although / examples are surprisingly rare." (p. 25). So evolutionists are "pretty sure" natural selection is a mechanism for macro evolution, even though "examples are ...rare?" The quotes from Raup are not out of context.

When presented with facts that contradict your statement, all you can do is hang on to any uncertainties admitted by the honest scientists. If that's all you can do, then you are barely worth debating with. It is absolutely stunning to me that, even when presented with a selection of quotes (and a full article) that refutes you, instead of acknowledging the refutation, you cherry-pick the quotes you think support your argument and outright IGNORE all of the others.

Here's an important one again:

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works." (p. 25)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will leave it to each interested person as to whether what I quoted constitutes evidence against evolution theory.

Any reasonable human would not take a single quote as evidence, especially a quote which is presented without any source or evidence of any of its claims.

For your benefit Chiddick mentions the evidence supporting direct creation.

Then present it now.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It seems that evolutionists set themselves as censors of any quote that gives evidence against the ToE. How to prevent pesky people who reject evolution from publishing these facts embarrassing to the theory? Call it "quote mining" to put them on the defensive and discourage them from using damaging information evolutionists themselves publish by claiming these quotes were "out of context". Clever ploy, what?

Let me perhaps explain this better. There are tons of quotes that are not quote mining. Such as when a creationist quotes Ken Ham or some other such creationist. That isn't a quote mine. When its quote mining is only when people specifically find quotes out of context and attempt to use them.

The most famous is the one used against Richard Dawkins. There is a point in one of his books where he seemingly gives credence to creationism. However he only does this as a literary mechanism to hook the readers attention before going further to explain why. But on every creationist website they will have quoted Dawkins out of context and attempt to say "even the great Atheist Pope Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution!" or some such nonsense.

So not every quote is a quote mine. Just the quotes taken out of context is a quote mine. I've gotten pretty good at spotting them as they normally have a few common qualities. First its from someone who is an accredited biologist that accepts evolution usually. That is your first problem. Why would they accept evolution if they have pointed out a perfect flaw that invalidates the theory? It wouldn't make sense. Unless you were quoting them out of context. The second common characteristic is that it seems as if they were going to continue on with the point in the paragraph or page. Though this one isn't always as common.

But again bring me a quote that has been called quote mining that you don't believe to be so. We can discuss why or why not.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Calling people who disagree with evolution liars seems to be standard procedure wth many in this forum. I believe I acknowledged Raup believes in evolution. At the risk of again being accused of quote mining; "So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although / examples are surprisingly rare." (p. 25). So evolutionists are "pretty sure" natural selection is a mechanism for macro evolution, even though "examples are ...rare?" The quotes from Raup are not out of context.

With context it obviously means that there is sufficient evidence within the fossil record to show speciation. Though I wonder what the context of "examples are surprisingly rare" is referring to specifically. I will give you that this isn't quote mining with the rest of it but I am curious as to what it was talking about in that point.

found it.
"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature, although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solutions to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping predators or generally functioning in its environment . . The presence of these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through natural selection, but does provide strong circumstantial argument."

The surprisingly rare cases are referring to optimized biological structures and what I assume are the prefaces to it. Which also lends us to think that optimization perhaps is also rare.

 

[metis]

Just one quick point: there simply is not one shred of scientific evidence that indicates that "micro-evolution" stops short at "macro-evolution", but there's overwhelming evidence that "micro" leads to "macro." The refutation of that comes from a misunderstanding as to what the Biblical creation accounts are really about, and it ain't for objective history or science.

 

[vombatus]

I will quote my post that caused accusations of quote mining: "Evolution is false because the evidence shows... etc etc

Yes, but you ignored my question. What IS this evidence that shows all the things you claim?

(Belatedly, I note that the poster ImmortalFlame has already picked you up on this in #269; and that you have evaded his/her requests too.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

It seems that evolutionists set themselves as censors of any quote that gives evidence against the ToE. How to prevent pesky people who reject evolution from publishing these facts embarrassing to the theory? Call it "quote mining" to put them on the defensive and discourage them from using damaging information evolutionists themselves publish by claiming these quotes were "out of context". Clever ploy, what?

Inaccurate quotations are not embarrassing to the theory. Rather, they're embarrassing to the person posting them.

You can go on about "evolutionists" or whatever, but I'm a person who is concerned with truth and factual information. And I would be regardless of whatever religious or non-religious view I may hold. If someone has to distort the views of scientists, or the available evidence, then they are not presenting truthful or factual information and should be called on it. It's a wonder why creationists can't seem to honestly dispute the theory of evolution or support their own hypotheses with actual facts and instead end up resorting to dishonest tactics such as quote mining and distortion of the theory itself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will leave it to each interested person as to whether what I quoted constitutes evidence against evolution theory. For your benefit Chiddick mentions the evidence supporting direct creation.

His name is Donald Chittick, by the way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me perhaps explain this better. There are tons of quotes that are not quote mining. Such as when a creationist quotes Ken Ham or some other such creationist. That isn't a quote mine. When its quote mining is only when people specifically find quotes out of context and attempt to use them.

The most famous is the one used against Richard Dawkins. There is a point in one of his books where he seemingly gives credence to creationism. However he only does this as a literary mechanism to hook the readers attention before going further to explain why. But on every creationist website they will have quoted Dawkins out of context and attempt to say "even the great Atheist Pope Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution!" or some such nonsense.

So not every quote is a quote mine. Just the quotes taken out of context is a quote mine. I've gotten pretty good at spotting them as they normally have a few common qualities. First its from someone who is an accredited biologist that accepts evolution usually. That is your first problem. Why would they accept evolution if they have pointed out a perfect flaw that invalidates the theory? It wouldn't make sense. Unless you were quoting them out of context. The second common characteristic is that it seems as if they were going to continue on with the point in the paragraph or page. Though this one isn't always as common.

But again bring me a quote that has been called quote mining that you don't believe to be so. We can discuss why or why not.

This ^^^