Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Convergent evolution

2011-02-11T00:05:00Z

Limulus: /* Convergence vs Homology */

== A start ==

This used to redirect to [[homology]] which is about the opposite of convergent evolution which seemed strange to me. Anyway, its only a start {{unsigned|Igor nz}} May 2007

==Confusing==

:the process by which two organisms or taxonomic groups share a character

How do organisms share a character via a process? I don't get it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:37, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Is it clearer now? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:44, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Convergence vs Homology==

It currently says "In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process by which two organisms or taxonomic groups have a character in common due to independently adapting to a similar environment or niche, not by homology." but then mentions "morphology between bats and birds" Now, while flight is a convergent characteristic between the two (as they did not share a flying common ancestor), their flight limbs are homologous (both forelimbs in the vertebrate body plan)... insect wings are analogous to birds and bats; while they both do the same thing (enable flight by flapping) they are an entirely different structure. So... this should probably be cleaned up. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:59, 9 February 2011 (EST)

: There is a very nice quote on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29#Homology_of_structures] that explains what I'm getting at: "The wings of pterosaurs (1), bats (2) and birds (3) are analogous as wings, but homologous as forearms." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 22:04, 9 February 2011 (EST)

::BTW, the graphic at that link (skeletal structures of pterosaurs, bats and birds with emphasis on their wings) can be seen as a bit of a refutation of the text "Convergent evolution [...] presents the following conceptual problems. First, it requires that random chance produce the same outcome in at least two independently occurring instances, which is substantially less likely even than doing so once. Such evolutionary coincidence is a less plausble explanation than one that evolutionists assume away, namely, a common Designer." The designs of the arm/hand bones to make the wing are completely different in all three. Also, insect wings are boneless. This does not imply a common designer. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 19:05, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Talk:Convergent evolution

2011-02-10T03:04:54Z

Limulus: /* Convergence vs Homology */

2007-03-12T02:40:28Z

Limulus: aka contextomy

User:Limulus

2007-03-11T12:49:14Z

Limulus:

I don't really belong on Conservapedia; I'm much much more of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Limulus Wikipedia-type person]. Unlike some others though, I'm not here to vandalize the place (I really dislike that when people do it on Wikipedia). I'm here more to help keep things honest; e.g. see [[quote mining]]. I will likely be focusing my effort on the science articles soon enough (I have a B. Sc., majoring in Biology and so have at least a little idea of what I'm talking about ;) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 02:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

<blockquote>''Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'' -- [[St. Augustine]] [http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm]</blockquote>

St. Augustine

2007-03-11T12:48:31Z

Limulus: full quote

(354-430 A.D.) Great father of the Christian church, wrote autobiographical "Confessions."
Augustine was born at Tagaste in North Africa in 354. His father was a pagan who wanted his son to be a man of learning, and cared little about his character.

== Notable quotes ==

<blockquote>''Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'' -- De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") [http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm]</blockquote>

Propaganda

2007-03-09T20:20:48Z

Limulus: link to quote mining appeared in two sections; also cleaned up description of it

[[Propaganda]] ([[Latin]] ''propaganda'' feminine ablative gerundive of ''propago'' I am spreading) is:

# Any idea, fact, rumor, or lie, or a wider body of same, which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance or hinder any given cause. This includes activity by a government to instill fear of that government's enemies, either in time of [[war]] or as a prelude to war, especially if the information that the government is promulgating is false.
# The act of circulating, publishing, or otherwise spreading any of the above with the manifest intent to advance or hinder a cause, or help or injure a person.

== History of the term ==

The first recorded use of the term, according to Merriam-Webster, was as a shortened name of the ''Congregatio de Propaganda Fide'', literally, "The congregation for spreading the faith." This group, part of the Vatican staff, is in essence the missions board of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. The founder of this board was Pope Gregory XV.

Thus, originally, the term ''propaganda'' was a neutral term. It meant simply the act of ''propagating'' a viewpoint, the process for doing the same, or a group specifically charged with such activity.

Today, propaganda is anything under the above headings employed to advance any religious or political cause, or to damage an opposing cause. But the word ''propaganda'' now has a decidedly negative connotation. Whatever is spread must not merely be in aid of one cause and/or opposed to another, but must also be ''false, misleading, and/or out of its proper context.'' Or, if what is spread is true, then it is spread in a ''manner unbecoming a truthful witness.'' As such, it includes [[Logical fallacy|logical fallacies]], ''unsubstantiated'' rumors, and other sayings that the teller/spreader knows, or ought to know, are lies. It also includes modes of presentation that, through negligence, recklessness, knowledge, or intent, give offense, especially to the holders of contrary views.

== Types of propaganda ==
The specific sayings or modes of presentation that constitute propaganda are legion. The common element in them is an appeal to ''emotion'' rather than to [[logic]]. Truth or fact, logically presented, might stir the emotions--but a presentation ''manifestly intended'' to stir the emotions demeans the information being presented. Of course, if the information is false to begin with, then propagandistic methods might be the only methods that would serve.

<blockquote>Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell. Though all things foul would wear the look of grace, Yet grace must still look so.</blockquote>
: ''[[MacBeth]]'' IV.iii.

Propaganda typically takes any of these forms, or a combination of them:

# Name calling. This is the crudest and least savory form of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]]. It consists of labeling the other cause, or a generic or particular adherent of that cause, with a noun or adjective having a decidedly negative "buzz" or "charge." Name-calling is also a part of the [[Logical fallacy#Genetic fallacy|genetic fallacy]] of endorsing, or casting doubt upon, a proposition merely by calling attention to its source, when the nature of the source does not bear on the quality of the propositions that come from that source.
# Half-truths. The hallmark of this is that half the things being said are true and the other half false.
# Testimonials. This is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|argumentum ab auctoritate]]. A "celebrity endorsement" is a prime example. So, too, is any speech or essay by one publicly celebrated as an athlete, actor in any form of [[theater]], or other such person, on a subject in which the author has no legitimate expertise.
# [[Loaded question|Loaded questions]].
# Distortions of fact.
# Extreme pronouncements, which are a form of [[Logical fallacy#Overgeneralization|over-generalizations]].
# Intimidation. This may include [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|arguing from the numbers]] or reminding an opponent of the power of the particular individual or group engaging in the intimidation--or of an individual or group for which one claims to speak.
# Using abridged or out of context quotes to give a false impression, aka [[Quote mining]].
# Sayings that, however factual, fall outside the scope or even off the topic at hand. A [[Law|lawyer]] would say that such facts are "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial"--because they do not serve to advance a [[logic|logical]] argument, are not properly related to the case at hand, and do not matter.
# Outright lies. Dr. [[Josef Goebbels]], Minister of Propaganda for [[Adolf Hitler]], famously observed that if one tells a lie loudly enough and often enough, people will believe it rather than believe that anyone could lie so outrageously.

== Uses of propaganda in society today ==
Propaganda has now become the favorite method of [[politics]]. Both politicians and the commentators that support them routinely engage in it. This has contributed, especially in the [[United States]] but also in other democratic republics throughout the world, to a coarsening of civil discourse and, some say, a severe weakening of civility.

In addition to civility, the idea of truth suffers from the habitual use of propaganda. Current-events organs that willfully publish propagandistic content not only contribute to the problem, but also demean themselves. In one famous example, a [[television]] broadcast network circulated for weeks certain memoranda, the contents of which were damaging to the incumbent President of the [[United States]] ([[George W. Bush]]), though those who obtained those memoranda knew, or ought to have known, that they were forgeries.

[[Theater]] has been an instrument of propaganda since before such things as current-events organs existed. Significantly, however, whenever theater has lent itself to propaganda, it has always demeaned itself. Even [[William Shakespeare]] was not immune to this. His play ''[[The Merchant of Venice]]'' is, as any objective observer must attest, a piece of [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semitic]] propaganda of a very crude sort. Critics have historically decried it as one of the least becoming of Shakespeare's works.

Modern theater in its various forms (including stage, [[motion picture]]s, and [[television]]) is now so habituated to propaganda that it has degenerated virtually to self-parody as a result.

== Counter-propaganda ==
The best contrary testimony against propaganda is the truth. This typically means revealing the full, previously undisclosed context and exposing [[Logical fallacy|logical fallacies]].

Beyond this, it includes discernment of news organs that allow themselves to be utilized for propaganda purposes, discernment of propagandistic theater projects and refusal to patronize the same, and discernment of the content of political commentary, and its judgment, not merely on matters of fact, but also on the ''presentation'' of that fact. As has been said above, presentation even of perfectly relevant fact in a manner intended to manipulate the emotions, demeans the facts thus presented and also demeans the presenter. Above all, therefore, those who decry propaganda ought not engage in it themselves, nor give even the appearance of the same.

== Related References ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Propaganda Propaganda] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Propaganda Propaganda] in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
* [http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#propaganda Propaganda Tactics] at "The Baloney Detector" at Creation-Evolution Headlines

== See Also ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]

[[Category:Sociology]]

User:Limulus

2007-03-09T09:45:37Z

Limulus:

Talk:Moon

2007-03-09T09:32:59Z

Limulus: lots of links; please remove all five points from the article

==Schlafly's Opinion Again?==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]
2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.
3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]
4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]
5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

2007-03-08T07:42:09Z

Limulus:

Quote mining

2007-03-08T07:41:02Z

Limulus:

Quote mining is an intellectually dishonest practice where a quote is either taken out of context or abridged in such a way as to give an impression the 'miner' desires, but is not that of the original person quoted. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html]

An example of a mined quote:

''"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." -- On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859.'' [http://www.saintsalive.com/general/wonderfully.htm]

The full quote, showing the author's intended impression:

''"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." -- On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859.'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228]

Quote mining

2007-03-08T07:39:39Z

Limulus:

Quote mining is an intellectually dishonest practice where a quote is either taken out of context or abridged in such a way as to give an impression the 'miner' desires, but is not that of the original person quoted. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html]

An example of a mined quote:

''"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." -- On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859.''

The full quote, showing the author's intended impression:

''"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." -- On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859.'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228]