Is Evolution a fact? Do we know it's true?

[Goose]

In fact, you're sounding like religions people here when they claim that evolution is "just a theory". That's totally false. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply the name given to the explanation that we now know is true.

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 188 by Enoch2021]
In post 187 H. Sapiens demonstrated your errors and false or misleading claims succinctly and point by point. This was the evidence you are asking for. The irony is that your posts demonstrate EXACTLY the same things you are complaining about.

[Enoch2021]

B. "blogs that are intellectually dishonest". Is this a blog that's "intellectually dishonest".....Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253??

That is one of the 4 Quotes I posted in SUPPORT of my detailed Step By Step Refutation of "Mutations" via Meta Information....that received ZERO Rebuttal on the tenets of the "Actual Argument", btw.

Let's just take one of your false assertions. It is representative of the lot.
I responded in detail, citing to the same work you cited in your 'quote mined' passage. I referred you to the entire book

Sorry this dog doesn't hunt....."I referred you to the entire book".

I say again (and the last time)....

In order to SUPPORT a "Claim" of "Quote Mining".... "YOU" have to show "SPECIFICALLY" from inside the CITED Reference where he basically contradicts what he just said concerning the fate, and MECHANISM of that fate, with Drosophila.

Here it is....

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles."
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

Show where he contradicts himself???

Do you respond to that specific refutation of your claim? No.

The Specific Claim of... "the entire book? Obviously not because it's not "Specific".

You simply repeat your reference to your quote mining. I also showed that you got it from one of those intellectually dishonest creation blogs, where they did the same thing.

Baseless Unsupported Assertion.

Did Professor Mayr write the EXACT passage I Quoted and CITED? If Yes, You have nothing.

"Dishonest creationist blogs"--- another Baseless Ad Hominem and a Stereotype (Fallacy)

We're done here until you Provide "SPECIFICALLY" where it is "out of context".

Savvy?

[Danmark]

In order to SUPPORT a "Claim" of "Quote Mining".... "YOU" have to show "SPECIFICALLY" from inside the CITED Reference where he basically contradicts what he just said concerning the fate, and MECHANISM of that fate, with Drosophila.

You continue to make the same claim. I referred you to the entire book and specifically to the first chapter. If you read that chapter, or even the entire chapter from which you quote one small passage, you would realize Myar is not contradicting himself at all. He is explaining that there are many different modalities at work in evolution and it is wrong to concentrate on just one, such as mutations. In the passage you quote he explains some of the problems with mutations as the sole instrument of biological evolution; that as every biologist has known for decades, that most mutations either do not provide survival advantages, or they actually provide disadvantage.
Mayr explains this in detail in the same book you refer to in chapter 1 which you can read at http://books.google.com/books?id=STEXku ... &q&f=false
I regret I cannot quote from this source because it is restricted, but you and everyone else can read it for themselves. In that initial chapter he explains exactly the error you are making, that pre Darwinian theories made the mistake of focusing on a single mechanism or even a false mechanism.

On page 2 of the very book you cite, he sets out on table 1.1 four major categories of evolutionary change, of which 2.(c) is "Mutational Limitations." The blog I've demonstrated you lifted this from focuses on the fact Mayr is honest enough to follow the scientific protocol and lists limitations of some of these various mechanisms. Unlike the blog you're using, Mayr is not out to 'prove or disprove' evolution. He is simply describing objectively.

It should also be noted that you and this blog keep trotting out a book published 44 years ago. So not only are you quote mining from it, you are not using the latest texts. This is typical of many creationist blogs.

If you really want to dispute any of this, than rather than repeat a blurb from what you've already written, how about reading that first chapter, quote from that, or at least reference table 1.1?

If you actually have access to the entire book, rather than just the small passage you quote, this should be easy for you to do. If you do not have such access, here again is the URL:
http://books.google.com/books?id=STEXku ... &q&f=false

[H.sapiens]

Enoch2021:

I am not going to be drawn into your Gish Gallop (look it up, that's not hard).

I am going to expose your complaint with respect to a single item and then infer that everything you post is fraudulent. I know that it is a reach, but I am confident that it is a reasonable one, and that, if I wanted to waste the time, I could do the same to everything that you have posted here and on other forums (you do have an amazing propensity for cutting and pasting material from one site to another).

Let us, therefor, deal with your quote mining of Ernst Mayr. I pick this issue because he a man whom I have met several times, heard speak many times, and whom I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for.

You quote Dr. Mayr having written, in an article in Scientific American, dated 24 November 2009 titled: "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought":

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Let's be clear what you stand accused of, that is: "Quote Mining" which you deny and is defined as: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize."

Now let's look at what Dr. Mayr wrote in context:

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotles concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent"by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.

BTW: the entire article is here, free of charge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/ you need not use my home library.

So, what Dr. Mayr is showing, in the popular press, is how evidence based science ("The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.") was used to differentiate between the three proposed hypotheses that were, "proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous".

I would note that the same quote mining is done on these (and likely more) sites:

http://creationrevolution.com/naturalis ... %99t-work/

http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot ... chive.html

http://creation.com/evolution-is-histor ... istry-mayr

I suggest that, despite your protestations, you "lifted" the quote mine and analysis from these (or other) sites, rather than they having lifted it from you, if only because their sites are dated a ways back.

So the accusation was been made: Enoch2021 stands accused of: "Intellectual Dishonesty, on the basis of quote mining and lifting the ideas and quotes wholesale from blogs that are, in and of themselves intellectually dishonest.

Enoch2021 denied the accusation.

I have proven the charge, here, beyond any reasonable doubt.

What does this fact and Enoch2021's denial of guilt say with respect to his truthfulness and knowledge base?

You tell me.

And ... it you bothered to read you know that I'm a retired oceanographer, not a pre-law student, just as I know that you're retired military living in a fly-over state.

[Danmark]

What is a "Gish Gallop"?

It's named after a notorious creationist debater.

Gish Gallop
Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much... [baloney*]... in such a short span on that your opponent cant address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation.
....
The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure ...[deceptive rubbish]*...and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.
....

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... h%20Gallop
It's use to describe your posts is spot on.
It is hardly coincidental that it is named after a creationist.

The executive director of the National Center for Science Education put it well:
'Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate." She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents. The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.'
_ Wikipedia
__________________
*expletive deleted to comply with DCR rules

[Enoch2021]

In order to SUPPORT a "Claim" of "Quote Mining".... "YOU" have to show "SPECIFICALLY" from inside the CITED Reference where he basically contradicts what he just said concerning the fate, and MECHANISM of that fate, with Drosophila.

You continue to make the same claim. I referred you to the entire book and specifically to the first chapter. If you read that chapter, or even the entire chapter from which you quote one small passage, you would realize Myar is not contradicting himself at all.

This is a Strawman (Fallacy). I never said he was or did contradict himself. I said, in order for your "CLAIM" to have even possibility of being True.... that "YOU" would have to show "Specifically"---- DEALING WITH DROSOPHILA and Mutations, where HE Contradicts himself from the Plain and Simple Language of the Quote in Question to show Explicitly that it is "Out of Context".

He is explaining that there are many different modalities at work in evolution and it is wrong to concentrate on just one, such as mutations.

Sir, this is another Strawman (Fallacy). I never approached the subject of "alleged" Different Modalities work in evolution or whether to concentrate on One or 100 "Modalities". My rebuttal and explanation was to your wholesale "Wiki" Cut and Paste......"it is possible to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work.

In the passage you quote he explains some of the problems with mutations as the sole instrument of biological evolution; that as every biologist has known for decades, that most mutations either do not provide survival advantages, or they actually provide disadvantage.

There is no reference to a "SOLE INSTRUMENT" addressed in the Quote sir! Moreover, I never even Implied that there was or was not One or 100. I was specifically supporting my explanation concerning MUTATIONS.

In that initial chapter he explains exactly the error you are making, that pre Darwinian theories made the mistake of focusing on a single mechanism or even a false mechanism.

Strawman (Fallacy). "YOUR" errors sir. See above responses IN TOTO.

On page 2 of the very book you cite, he sets out on table 1.1 four major categories of evolutionary change, of which 2.(c) is "Mutational Limitations." The blog I've demonstrated you lifted this from focuses on the fact Mayr is honest enough to follow the scientific protocol and lists limitations of some of these various mechanisms. Unlike the blog you're using, Mayr is not out to 'prove or disprove' evolution. He is simply describing objectively.

I didn't "lift it" from there SIR! Please Prove I Did.....? Even if I did, it's Painfully Irrelevant "Where" it came from, the Question is... DID HE WRITE IT and is it an Accurate Description!

It should also be noted that you and this blog keep trotting out a book published 44 years ago.

You're seriously Grasping straws now. Has anything regarding Mutations changed? NOPE, In Fact....they've gotten much worse for your position. Ernst Mayr is arguably the Top evolutionist of the 20th Century is another reason I use and READ his material. Moreover, this has Absolutely Nothing Whatsoever To Do with your Claim of "Quote Mining"...so, it's just another Strawman (Fallacy).
Furthermore, The Laws of Thermodynamics were Codified in the Late 1800's....does the fact that not too much is written about them lately make them Old Hat?

So not only are you quote mining from it, you are not using the latest texts. This is typical of many creationist blogs.

You know what, don't bother writing another post to me regarding this nonsense unless you can "Specifically" SUPPORT your Baseless Claim....that still (as Illustrated and Supported), and will forever be just that: ....BASELESS.

Thanks

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 196 by Enoch2021]

I notice that your overall thrust has changed from arguing against evolution, and trying to use Ernst Mayr to do so; to discussing quote mining and whether Mayer contradicted himself. I agree with your most recent claim that Mayr did not contradict himself, as I have explained in detail.

Are you now agreeing Mayr does an excellent job in explaining evolution and its validity?
Or are you just agreeing unequivocally that evolution is what Mayr claims it to be, valid and unifying?

"The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology."

[Enoch2021]

I am going to expose your complaint with respect to a single item and then infer that everything you post is fraudulent.

Is that so? It's about time. Lets scrutinize....

I know that it is a reach, but I am confident that it is a reasonable one, and that, if I wanted to waste the time I could do the same to everything that you have posted here and on other forums

You said it! (A REACH). I would characterize it quite differently. Did you know that if you Extrapolate from a Fairytale that everything downstream from that is ....a Fairytale.

(you do have an amazing propensity for cutting and pasting material from one site to another).

Yes, I have a file that I have compiled over the years dealing with these topics that I constantly update. It saves "TIME" and it would be quite nonsensical to recreate the wheel every time the same nonsense was trotted out and I had to RETYPE everything...wouldn't you say?

Let us, therefor, deal with your quote mining of Ernst Mayr. I pick this issue because he a man whom I have met several times, heard speak many times, and whom I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for.

"Alleged" Baseless Assertion of "Quote Mining" to be Precise.

You quote Dr. Mayr having written, in an article in Scientific American, dated 24 November 2009 titled: "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought":

Yes, I have the Article and; In Fact...this has to be a reprint because I remember reading this quite a few years ago.

Yes, this is the quote...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

And your charge of Quote Mining is What Sir?? What in "This Context" Refutes what He Just Plainly Said.....

Now let's look at what Dr. Mayr wrote in context:

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotles concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent"by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.

So, what Dr. Mayr is showing, in the popular press, is how evidence based science ("The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.") was used to differentiate between the three proposed hypotheses that were, "proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous".

What in the World is this? How on Earth does this Impact the Quote I posted SIR?

By the Way, this is my favorite and I use it quite often..."These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology.

Oh My. This should Speak VOLUMES to you!!

Ernst Mayr from your "alleged" Claim above...

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.

FIRST: This is Talking about DINOSAURS not "evolution". Which completely dismisses your Baseless Claim all by itself.

Second: "The first 2 Narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence"...What Evidence? Scientific Evidence?? Because that's the POINT of what we're talking about. If Yes, You have a big problem....

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

The Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Now unless you provide the Make/Model and Serial number of the Time Machine then this supposed "evidence" isn't Scientific Evidence, eh?

Moreover, "the first 2 Narratives were ultimately refuted"-----Narratives?? That should have sent alarm bells off for ya..... Historical Narratives to be more Precise. (And Ironically, The Whole POINT of the Quote I Posted---- And...refutes your Entire Quote Mining Claim and Post....Thanks!) How does somebody go about refuting Historical Narratives Sir?? Is it the One who Talks the Loudest? Most Eloquent? Or who has the best favorite color? Other? I want to see the Independent Variable of the TEST that VALIDATED the HYPOTHESIS.......Show??

Ernst Mayr...

"All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted."

Can you tell me the difference between "Accepted" and "Validated" via Experiment?

This is your "evidence", eh?

Then this....

I have proven the charge, here, beyond any reasonable doubt.

You've proven something alright and it sure has nothing to do with this.

I suggest that, despite your protestations, you "lifted" the quote mine and analysis from these (or other) sites, rather than they having lifted it from you, if only because their sites are dated a ways back.

You "Suggest", eh? Yea, a demonstrable Baseless Suggestion

So the accusation was been made: Enoch2021 stands accused of: "Intellectual Dishonesty, on the basis of quote mining and lifting the ideas and quotes wholesale from blogs that are, in and of themselves intellectually dishonest.

Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) x 5. I accuse you of the Obvious Willful and Deliberate Diversion away from the content of the message on the basis of frivolous claims (That I Have Step by Step Illustrated, Supported, then Summarily Refuted) because you have No Rebuttal and is a "Tell" for a "Last Port in the Storm" scenario. Unfortunately, your ship came in...but your pier collapsed.

And ... it you bothered to read you know that I'm a retired oceanographer, not a pre-law student, just as I know that you're retired military living in a fly-over state.

I was being Ironical. Well I'm not up to speed on everyone's profile and never will be....why, because it's Irrelevant.

Thanks

ps. No pun intended with the ship/port/pier analogy.

[Enoch2021]

I notice that your overall thrust has changed from arguing against evolution, and trying to use Ernst Mayr to do so; to discussing quote mining and whether Mayer contradicted himself.

Sir, are you joking? I've been defending myself against YOUR BASELESS CLAIMS.
As I said, I use Professor Mayr (and many other prominent evolutionists) as "Hostile Witnesses" to support My Postulates concerning matters of evolution...Shouldn't they know the evolution side the BEST?

Please go back to my first post...if you have a rebuttal to anything there, don't hesitate to challenge it.

I agree with your most recent claim that Mayr did not contradict himself, as I have explained in detail.

He would have had to for your Quote Mining Claim to stick.

Are you now agreeing Mayr does an excellent job in explaining evolution and its validity?

I believe that He "believes" in evolution and he does an excellent Job of explaining it; However, He only reinforces what I already knew years ago, that it's a Historical Narrative....which is Unfalsifiable; Ergo....it's Just a Story.

Or are you just agreeing unequivocally that evolution is what Mayr claims it to be, valid and unifying?

Nope, you can't VALIDATE Historical Narratives and they don't avail themselves to the Scientific Method by the simple fact that it "allegedly" happened in the Unobservable Past. It's as simple as that.

Ernst Mayr...
"The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology."

Sorry, I'm not one of the "Headline" Profound Prognostication Guys. I'm one of those Scientific Method---"Validating Hypothesis" Guys.

[H.sapiens]

I am going to expose your complaint with respect to a single item and then infer that everything you post is fraudulent.

Is that so? It's about time. Lets scrutinize....

I know that it is a reach, but I am confident that it is a reasonable one, and that, if I wanted to waste the time I could do the same to everything that you have posted here and on other forums

You said it! (A REACH). I would characterize it quite differently. Did you know that if you Extrapolate from a Fairytale that everything downstream from that is ....a Fairytale.

Nobody except you cares how you'd characterize it, especially since, as a YEC, you make fairy-tales in to your own private reality on a full time basis.

The point here is that Danmark accused you of several offenses against reason and logic, you denied having done so and I demonstrated how you had. Now, in keeping the hacknyed YEC approach we are into the Black Knight phase of denial, right on schedule. Keep repeating to yourself, it's only a flesh wound, it's only a flesh wound, it's only a flesh wound. That might help.

(you do have an amazing propensity for cutting and pasting material from one site to another).

Yes, I have a file that I have compiled over the years dealing with these topics that I constantly update. It saves "TIME" and it would be quite nonsensical to recreate the wheel every time the same nonsense was trotted out and I had to RETYPE everything...wouldn't you say?

So, let me be sure to understand you, you are maintaining that the other sites I cited lifted the Ernst Mayr Scientific American quote and analysis from you? Or are you admitting to lifting it from them?

Let us, therefor, deal with your quote mining of Ernst Mayr. I pick this issue because he a man whom I have met several times, heard speak many times, and whom I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for.

You quote Dr. Mayr having written, in an article in Scientific American, dated 24 November 2009 titled: "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought":

Yes, I have the Article and; In Fact...this has to be a reprint because I remember reading this quite a few years ago.

Yes, this is the quote...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

And your charge of Quote Mining is What Sir?? What in "This Context" Refutes what He Just Plainly Said.....

Your deletion of the preceding and trailing paragraphs altered the meaning of what Dr. Mayr was saying and after doing so you criticized him for concepts that he was not presenting nor advocating. That's what quote mining is.

Now let's look at what Dr. Mayr wrote in context:

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotles concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent"by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.

Here is where I explained to you what Dr, Mayr was saying, and what you were denying in your bizarre and willfully wrongheaded analysis.

So, what Dr. Mayr is showing, in the popular press, is how evidence based science ("The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.") was used to differentiate between the three proposed hypotheses that were, "proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous".

What in the World is this? How on Earth does this Impact the Quote I posted SIR?

It demonstrates that Dr. Mayr was not, in fact suggesting (as you maintained):

What in the World!!! So now you have NO Hypothesis (SEE: Above) and Obviously (and Documented) NO EXPERIMENTS!!!

Please show us, How On Earth evolution is "science" and not a Demonstrable "Just So" Story and Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO??----(aka: Pseudo-Science)

Item one, hypotheses: one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. In the example that Dr. Mayr is using he notes three hypotheses: three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory.

Item two, experiments: Dr. Mayr was writing for popular consumption so he did not reference all the experiments that went into the testing of the three hypotheses (that you said did not exist) and ultimately resulted in the now widely accepted Alvarez theory.

In the off chance that a list of publications that describe some of the experiments that vindicated the winning hypotheses, here they are:

Alvarez, LW, Alvarez, W, Asaro, F, and Michel, HV (1980). "Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous"Tertiary extinction". Science 208 (4448): 1095"1108. Bibcode:1980Sci...208.1095A. doi:10.1126/science.208.4448.1095. PMID 17783054.

Kelly, Allan O. and Dachille, Frank (1953). TARGET: EARTH The Role of Large Meteors In Earth Science. Carlsbad, California. http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=72

De Laubenfels, MW (1956). "Dinosaur Extinctions: One More Hypothesis" (subscription required). Journal of Paleontology 30 (1): 207"218. Retrieved 2007-05-22.

David Perlman, "Dinosaur extinction battle flares," http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/D ... 261978.php, accessed 2013-02-08

Ocampo, A, Vajda, V & Buffetaut, E (2006). Unravelling the Cretaceous"Paleogene (KT) Turnover, Evidence from Flora, Fauna and Geology in Biological Processes Associated with Impact Events (Cockell, C, Gilmour, I & Koeberl, C, editors) SpringerLink. pp. 197"219. ISBN 978-3-540-25735-6. Retrieved 2007-06-17.

Kring, DA (2003). "Environmental consequences of impact cratering events as a function of ambient conditions on Earth". Astrobiology 3 (1): 133"152. Bibcode:2003AsBio...3..133K. doi:10.1089/153110703321632471. PMID 12809133.

Schulte, P. et al. (5 March 2010). "The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary". Science 327 (5970): 1214"1218. Bibcode:2010Sci...327.1214S. doi:10.1126/science.1177265. PMID 20203042. edit

By the Way, this is my favorite and I use it quite often..."These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology.

Oh My. This should Speak VOLUMES to you!!

It's a good quote, when you don't mine it. Once again, place it in context with the conclusion and message that Dr. Mayr was advocating: The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent"by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge. That is his message.

Ernst Mayr from your "alleged" Claim above...

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.

FIRST: This is Talking about DINOSAURS not "evolution". Which completely dismisses your Baseless Claim all by itself.

Extinction is as much a part of Evolutionary Biology (which was the topic) as Natural Selection is.

Second: "The first 2 Narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence"...What Evidence? Scientific Evidence?? Because that's the POINT of what we're talking about. If Yes, You have a big problem....

Anyone with even just a high school knowledge of Evolutionary Biology would not be asking that question. Might I recommend to you the Perlman article listed above, it's far less technical than the others.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

The Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Now unless you provide the Make/Model and Serial number of the Time Machine then this supposed "evidence" isn't Scientific Evidence, eh?

Science does not require a time machine, that is at the heart of the point. You do not need a time machine because you can observe the results of things that happened millions of years ago. And then, by using basic scientific knowledge, extrapolate back. And by observing trends within the period you can derive general rules which may then be used for predictions into the future, and tested. An example of this is the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae.

Moreover, "the first 2 Narratives were ultimately refuted"-----Narratives?? That should have sent alarm bells off for ya..... Historical Narratives to be more Precise. (And Ironically, The Whole POINT of the Quote I Posted---- And...refutes your Entire Quote Mining Claim and Post....Thanks!) How does somebody go about refuting Historical Narratives Sir?? Is it the One who Talks the Loudest? Most Eloquent? Or who has the best favorite color? Other? I want to see the Independent Variable of the TEST that VALIDATED the HYPOTHESIS.......Show??

Now your playing stupid semantic games over Dr. Mayr's use of a polite word in a non-technical publication. If you really want to see the tests that validated the hypothesis, all you have to do is read the literature like everyone else does.

Ernst Mayr...

"All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted."

Can you tell me the difference between "Accepted" and "Validated" via Experiment?

This is your "evidence", eh?

My evidence is that you quote mined, that is absolute. My evidence is that you denied the offense when confronted concerning it. That is what this is about, that is all this is about. I Validated that, and I expect that it will be Accepted by the vast majority of the readers of this forum ... because it is true.

Then this....

I have proven the charge, here, beyond any reasonable doubt.

You've proven something alright and it sure has nothing to do with this.

I'm so glad we can find some common ground to agree on, indeed your quote mining is separate and distinct from you lack of understanding of basic Evolutionary Biology and what Dr. Mayr was saying.

I stand by my statement: I have proven the charge, here, beyond any reasonable doubt.

I suggest, nay ... I insist, that, despite your protestations, you "lifted" the quote mine and analysis from these (or other) sites, rather than they having lifted it from you, if only because their sites are dated a ways back.

You "Suggest", eh? Yea, a demonstrable Baseless Suggestion

I keep forgetting, we scientists tend to couch our discussion in polite and temperate terms, so I fixed it. I would have been very poor form, and against the forum rules (as you should know by now) to have directly said something nasty concerning your honesty, perspicacity or intelligence.

So the accusation was been made: Enoch2021 stands accused of: "Intellectual Dishonesty, on the basis of quote mining and lifting the ideas and quotes wholesale from blogs that are, in and of themselves intellectually dishonest.

Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) x 5. I accuse you of the Obvious Willful and Deliberate Diversion away from the content of the message on the basis of frivolous claims (That I Have Step by Step Illustrated, Supported, then Summarily Refuted) because you have No Rebuttal and is a "Tell" for a "Last Port in the Storm" scenario. Unfortunately, your ship came in...but your pier collapsed.

I see no Step by Step Illustration, nothing Supported, and nothing Summarily Refuted, only had waving and whining.

And ... it you bothered to read you know that I'm a retired oceanographer, not a pre-law student, just as I know that you're retired military living in a fly-over state.

I was being Ironical. Well I'm not up to speed on everyone's profile and never will be....why, because it's Irrelevant.

Thanks

ps. No pun intended with the ship/port/pier analogy.

One can not be ironical. One can have an ironical smile however, as I do at this moment.

I notice that your overall thrust has changed from arguing against evolution, and trying to use Ernst Mayr to do so; to discussing quote mining and whether Mayer contradicted himself.

Sir, are you joking? I've been defending myself against YOUR BASELESS CLAIMS.
As I said, I use Professor Mayr (and many other prominent evolutionists) as "Hostile Witnesses" to support My Postulates concerning matters of evolution...Shouldn't they know the evolution side the BEST?

If that is truly your intent you need to draw from his technical writing not the popular press, where wide latitude is traditionally given, even between bitter scientific opponents. If you lack mastery of the field or you are too distracted to put in the time and energy required to get you to such a place, then you lack standing to be taken seriously in the discussions.

Please go back to my first post...if you have a rebuttal to anything there, don't hesitate to challenge it.

I agree with your most recent claim that Mayr did not contradict himself, as I have explained in detail.

He would have had to for your Quote Mining Claim to stick.

Are you now agreeing Mayr does an excellent job in explaining evolution and its validity?

I believe that He "believes" in evolution and he does an excellent Job of explaining it; However, He only reinforces what I already knew years ago, that it's a Historical Narrative....which is Unfalsifiable; Ergo....it's Just a Story.

Yet he notes that two hypotheses (that you describe as Historical Narrative) were, in fact, falsified.

Or are you just agreeing unequivocally that evolution is what Mayr claims it to be, valid and unifying?

Nope, you can't VALIDATE Historical Narratives and they don't avail themselves to the Scientific Method by the simple fact that it "allegedly" happened in the Unobservable Past. It's as simple as that.

Is it truly your intent to posit that it is impossible to use the scientific method to study things that occurred in the past?

Back in the point here, I think that you will find that the Perlman piece listed above validates the Alvarez (so called) Historical Narrative.