![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Partly because sections have been moved around recently, the evolution article's pics are a bit out of sync. Specifically, there are no pictures for a huge section between "Misconceptions" and "Speciation and extinction". Can anyone think of pics we can put in the intervening part? Mikkerpikker ... 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a new reference format floating about that's much superior to what's being used on this page. By using <ref> tags, a list of references can be automatically created at the bottom by using <references />. You no longer have to make sure the count or order of everything line up. See here for an example of where it is used. -- Cyde Weys 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it "wikappropriate" to leave comments on article discussion pages? I simply had to - this has become one of the most comprehensive articles I have seen on wikipedia in a while. Objective, eloquent and emphatic - and respectable even from an Intelligent Design advocate like me!!!! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! =) Salva 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a dangling quote at the end of this section in the article. It's about horizontal gene transfer, but comes from nowhere. Has it been orphaned by text changes? -- Plumbago 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I simply can't take this! This article talks about evolution as if it's actually been proven! YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT THIS HAPPENED! You don't see new species evolving today! The name of this article should be changed to "theory of evolution", because that's what it is, a theory, and it should say that evolution is a THEORY proposed by many scientists as a possible explanation for the introduction of new species. This article isn't scientific! Scorpionman 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
Actually, I can prove that you are writing this, I read it, therefore, it is :D. Of course, that only proves it to me.....but anyway, to this article's credit, it does spend a generous amount of time with theory and fact distinctions, and even though I don't agree with the article in the slightest for my own reasons, it certainly does at least represent people's perspectives for sure heh. Besides, Scorpion, the consensus is pretty much to represent evolution as absolute fact here, I don't see how changing it would last for very long. and in the end, this article does still have that one sentence in there acknowladging that supposedly pseudoscientific views actually do exist...right? Homestarmy 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a physicist and therefore a scientist, one of the consensus who supports an approach to the physical world based upon the collation of observations and the synthesis of that collated data with math and physics, the foundations of all sciences. I would like to applaud Wikipedia for their staunch support of NPOV in its articles, and all of you writers and readers who present and review the information in WP articles in a manner that attempts to reflect the world the way it is, rather than the way "this" group or "that" group would like it to be. Keep up the hard work. Now that I've discovered WP I hope to contribute to the high standards and rich information in WP myself. C.Melton 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've already told you my objections, Guettarda! The article talks about evolution as if it is an absolute fact, and it is just a theory! And if what I think of evolution is "meaningless", then so is what you think of creation! And a fact is "something that has been objectively verified"(Webster's dictionary), KimvdLinde. Evolution has NOT been observed occuring, and people can only refer to it with postulations, so why does everyone refer to it as a fact? And you think that I can't insult your views, but you can insult creationism with impunity! Science precludes bias, and that is what you are showing in your comments! Evolution is also a BELIEF, it is NOT a fact, as I have said above. Creationism is not a fact either, but it has a heck of a lot more evidence than evolution! You doubtlessly think that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years. So, how do you explain the canyons formed by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens? And, like I've already asked and you haven't answered, have you ever observed a monkey turning into a man? "No, it takes billions of years." There you go! It's unobservable, and therefore unscientific! I haven't observed creation occuring, therefore I must believe in it. But you also have to BELIEVE in evolution! It's not a fact (I don't know how many times I have to repeat that)! Scorpionman 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Scorpionman, don't try and make this into a debate forum between evolution and ID or creationism. You won't win, regardless of how much you rant and rave. Listen to Guettarda - bring specific ideas to the table instead of making generalized assaults. You're wasting your time otherwise. Oh, and make sure that you can provide sufficient, credible sources for any and all information. (Kent Hovind is NOT a credible source. He's a fanatic, and has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility.) I was in your position once, long time ago, as I'm sure many of the wikipedians here remember =) I know the feeling that Hovind incites with his seminars, but it's empty. Salva 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am an MD Phd, and my dad as well + professor of physiology with >150 publications in PubMed, however we dont agree with mainstream science regarding the origin of life. The microevolution observable today is to our opinion wrongly extrapolated. The fact that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics is far from proof to us that a complete organ would develop out of nothing. Removing the antibiotic from the bacterial culture eventually supresses the resistance gene bacteria which has an impaired survival as compared to the "wild type" bacteria without that gene . Also, many resistance genes are there in the bacterial population from scratch, but with antibiotic pressure those with the resistance genes are favored. By the way, mutations, an important mechanism of evolution, almost always results in genetic reduction. I haven't seen one evidence of positive mutations occuring today where genetic material is added to the genome of a species resulting in a higher complexity structure. Further, the use of Occams razor and parsimony in choosing between two theories can argue both for and against (macro) evolution. Some feel that God is to big to cut away with the razor, while others, like me and dad, have no problems with a supreme being and creator but big problems with the credibility of evolution. Thulesius 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe you missed the notice at the top of the discussion page. It went something like this:
Cyde Weys 01:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
IPORTANT - I gave you my proposals! You're just ignoring them! I didn't intend to start a big debate on evolution here, but someone just has to put that here! For the third and last time: Change the article so that it says that evolution is a theory, not a fact! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpionman ( talk • contribs) .
You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Please see here, here, and here, and if you have any further questions, take it to Talk.Origins. Just post your message line with a subject line of something like "ATTN: Cyde Weys" and I promise I will respond. -- Cyde Weys 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As already noted, the article does call evolution a theory. Here is a quote to make this clear. Is it satisfactory for you?
If the article were modified to say that evolution is only a theory, then that would be a significant change which would need justification. Such a justification seems unlikely to me given the scientific consensus. If you have any words about Mt. St. Helens which could improve the article (perhaps in a criticism section), then it would be interesting to see them. As a final point, evolution is different from abiogenesis. Eiler7 16:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The folowing is the proposed insertion of user axa497 who I invited to come to this page to duiscuss the inclusion of this piece into the evolution page
Recently, many scientists have discovered undeniable flaws in modern evolutionary theories. The two most notable flaws are the biochemical impossibility of evolution and evolution's statistical improbability.
The main argument used by biochemists against the theory of evolution is that many biological systems are irreducibly complex at the molecular level. An irreducibly complex biological system is defined as:
"a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." [1]
In essence, the evolution or mutation of the individual components which comprise complex structures such as human cells is not possible because human cells would not able to perform their basic functions (or even exist) without the proper functioning of all of their components. Evolutionists often ignore this fact and try to argue that this does not prove Creationism to be a science. It is all too true that this fact, by itself, in no way proves Creationism to be a science, however, this fact does prove that the theory of evolution is inherently flawed. right|thumb|200px|A spoof of the theory of evolution based on a [http://xfiles.wearehere.net/believe.htm popular X-Files poster].
The main argument used by mathematicians against the theory of evolution is that evolution is simply a statistical improbability. The mathematicians who have refuted the theory of evolution state that there has not been enough time since, the random formation of the first organism to the evolution of modern man, for the correct number of recombinations to occur. Mathematicians have further stated that the random formation of even a single protein is statistically impossible when adhering to the most basic principles of the theory of evolution. One of the proponents of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the improbability the theory has fallen into in these terms:
"So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it." [2]
To display an example of the statistical improbability of evolution a creationist student organization of Mississippi State University has created a web page which calculates the probability of the random formation of the word "evolution" from the 26 letters in the alphabet. Members of the organization argue that "the word "evolution" is only 9 characters. However, to get a correct strand of DNA for the simple virus fX174, needs 390 characters (from which it can choose from either A-C-T-G [Adenine-Cytosine-Thymine-Guanine]). So the probability of getting the correct order of gene sequencing is one out of 4390 which is the following number:
63591141060637037983702199847424104663322051261099893192255571477547 04702203399726411277962562135973685197744935448875852478791860694279 74735580067856867794618144758178140121313388660994702723000427724469 7462656003657100713230572978176.
This is essentially 6.4x10238. However, probabilities less than 1 in 1050 are considered statistically impossible." [1]
I think this piece is not NPOV, and is deliberatly misleading. -- KimvdLinde 03:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I told KimvdLinde, my insertion is not a creationist viewpoint and consists only of facts and criticisms of the theory's weaknesses and flaws. Some of the sources may have come from creationists, however, the creationist viewpoint was not promoted and only undeniable facts were presented. Anyway, as I've alreay told KimvdLinde, I will stop trying to complete the Evolution article by including critisms and/or facts that were never presented in the first place or ommitted. It is really my own fault, I forget how "enlightened" and "open-minded" the "modern scientific" community really is. If not KimvdLinde, I'm sure someone else would have censored the facts I presented. Keep in mind that true scientists do not ommitt facts in their search for the truth and that the biased ommission of facts only serves to keep minds in the dark.-- Axa4975 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Cyde Weys 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And
FeloniousMonk
06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that this stuff should be in the article. I mean, evolution is a theory. Its not considered a fact, yet. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
24.174.25.130 (
talk •
contribs) .
There is still a substantial amount of criticism to evolution worldwide. It should be included with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.25.130 ( talk • contribs) .
There is scientific criticism to the creationism article, the same should go to the evolution article. Its only fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.25.130 ( talk • contribs) .
Just my feeling last night. There is a continuous stream of people that comes to the talk pages to convince the regular editors (I am not including myself yet in that category) that they have it all wrong, and spew the usual flawed creationist/ID arguments such as the statistical impossibility (while conviently ignoring the non-random natural selection part), many scientists believe evolutio is wrong (where are those?) etc. So, would it be handy to make a template ({{evoltalk}} that we can add to user talk pages (and at top of this page) that provides some standard answers, a like to talk.origins for discussion, and some guidlines what is needed to convince the regular editors of including a dissident fact. If than the regular editors would just go the the user talk page and provide that template there, avoiding extensive discussion over and over again on non-arguments, it would cut down considerable in the chatter at this page. -- KimvdLinde 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Made a rough first draft here Template:Evoltalk. It is just a first start, needs polising... -- KimvdLinde 16:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I just beefed it up a bit. It should be ready for use now. -- Cyde Weys 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And by the way usage would be something like this:
{{subst:Evoltalk}} --~~~~
-- Cyde Weys 18:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I've meant to do this for a while now, but only now got round to it. I'm changing all the instances of "theory of evolution" to (depending on context) "theory of natural selection" or "evolution" (or whatever seems correct for the sentence in question). Why? Because the term "theory of evolution" is highly misleading and widely misunderstood. Natural selection is the theory that explains the occurrence of evolution - evolution is not properly speaking a theory itself.
See:
See also:
Mikker ... 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I so wish you would've posted this message here and waited a bit before you committed those edits. I think some of them are adding inaccuracies. Evolution as a whole is a lot more than just natural selection. I don't know whether to revert or let someone else deal with it. -- Cyde Weys 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
1
Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of evolution. |
Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of natural selection.
|
2
Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by genetics. |
Today, the occurrence of evolution has been strongly confirmed by genetics.
|
3
Indeed, one of the great strengths of the theory of evolution is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design. |
Indeed, one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design.
|
4
Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general. |
Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern evolutionary thought involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general.
|
5
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines and subdisciplines document the fact of evolution, and contribute to the theory of evolution. |
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines and subdisciplines document the fact of evolution, and contribute to explaining its occurrence.
|
6
The belief in a telelogical evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific theory of evolution. |
The belief in a telelogical evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific understandings of evolution.
|
3 more changes: to an external link & two changes to avoid a redirect & correct the theory issue Social implications of the theory of evolution --> Social effect of evolutionary theory.
Please indicate which changes are deemed inaccurate or liable to cause confusion. Mikker ... 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Being too quick to replace "theory of evolution" or "evolutionary theory" with natural selection misses a number of important point - the role of drift and neutralism, and "evo-devo". "Theory of evolution" is, IMO, valid usage - not of a single theory, but of a family of theories. Of course, that is to be differentiated from the "fact" of evolution. There is a lot more to theoretical evolutionary biology than just natural selection. Guettarda 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at Talk.Origins. That's what it's there for. Scorpionman, how many times do I have to ask you? Are you actually going to do this or are you just blowing me off, at which point I should just stop? -- Cyde Weys 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, Scorpionman cites Ken Ham. The latimes of Feb 11 has an article about Ham with the subtitle "Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way." Coincidence? ... dave souza, talk 10:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Scorpionman has implied, (or alluded) that the two aforementioned statements be removed from the article. I concur with the first one. A misunderstanding of evolution does not constitute a misunderstanding of science. Science is obviously not defined by evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is an example of science. To say that misinterpreting it involves a "misunderstanding...of science in general" is nonsense. One can understand science and disagree with certain aspects of biological evolution. That's perfectly rational. On the other hand, the statement seems implicitive of giving the reader the idea that evolutionary theory is not understood by the vast majority of (people? scientists?). This is confusing, and either needs to be ellaborated upon or removed in my opinion.
"one of the great strengths of the evolutionary theory are that it has no need of a supernatural intelligence or intelligent design."
Actually, I take back what I said earlier about this statement. It's actually quite honest, if one is referring to the evolution of species that we have observed today. Although it is slightly ambiguous (since the process of evolution initially required intelligent intervention of some sort to begin with), it's nevertheless encyclopædic. Salva 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So what? You assume that there was no need for an intelligence to initialize the process, which is a belief. It's the same thing. Salva 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Salva 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Before we all got into the debate Scorpionman started we were discussing the 9 changes I made (see Talk:Evolution#Changes) and several people voiced objections/concerns. Since these alterations have not been undone (see this diff) can we please get back to discussing the relevant changes? The potentially problematic ones seem to be 3, 5 and 6. Mikker ... 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Friedgreenkillertomatoes 11:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think we've given this enough time for discussion... We seem to have consensus on (1), (4), (5) and (6). (2) and (3) may need some more discussion.
This is what I've extracted from the above debate, if I've misunderstood anything and you think this isn't a fair summary, please let me know. Mikker ... 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Since evolution is an "unproven theory" by any definition of the word, the article is better suited to be described as such, until this criteria is satisfied. Any argument purporting to have "proven" the theory of evolution had better start, "not by changing the wording in the article but by actually presenting the facts".
As such a thorough explanation of the replication of the very first dna molecule is required (by this reader) before moving on. Such is not given anywhere in modern science literature. Thus how can the remainder (anything purported to have taken place after the first replicated molecule) of the "theory" be spoken off as proven when the very basics are not even explained satisfactorily. So please, start with the basics, before classifing a theory as a fact. ( Spintronic 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Thank you for your agreement, there are many missing pieces, thus the article should be discussed as a "THEORY" until proven otherwise. Since evolutionists cant even explain the most basic or simplist of its "jigsaw pieces" (and i do jigsaws btw, its always best to start with the easiest pieces) the article "should" refer to the "Theory of evolution"!
And im not suggesting that the whole cant be inferred from the pieces! Im saying the article should refer to the "Theory of evolution" as that; a theory!
( Spintronic 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
No my friend its you who are misguided! e.g;
Newtons "Law" of gravitation!
Einsteins "Theory" of General relativity!
Newtons "law" is such because thats what it is! "At any given distance. The strength of a gravitational field is directly proportional to the mass creating that field". Einsteins "Theory" of gravitation is such, because although the geometry is more accurate and complete than newtons picture, and gives more accurate results, it is still "not" proven beyond doubt.(expandind universe, Black holes, dark matter to give a few examples)! Whereas the "simple" premise that gravity is proportional to mass is proven, and thus is not a "theory"!
There is no such "simple" premise in "evolution theory" that is an undeniable proven Fact!
( Spintronic 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Again you are misguided, (the limitless number of primes as just one example) [ [4]Proof]
On the subject of "Proof" there is a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum". Trying to define "evolution theory" as a fact is such a "reductio ad absurdum". You are trying to palm off as fact, that for which you have no explaination of how its most simplest process came about.
e.g the replication of the first dna molecule.( Spintronic 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Friedgreenkillertomatoes 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not conviced that "why" is an appropriate question for science; it depends on what you mean by "why", of course, but "why" is often seen as a metaphysical question. Guettarda 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph ("Why of science") doesnt make sense and doesnt discuss improving the article thus "should" be deleted! ( 172.214.43.37 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
"Why?" is one of the most important questions you can ask (and answer) in science. It's trivial to measure something like, say, the gravitational attraction that the Earth exerts on a falling object. It's quite a more interesting question to ask why gravity works ... now that is still an unsolved mystery. Here's another good question that we don't have the complete answer for yet ... Why did humans evolve such massive intelligence? -- Cyde Weys 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of solving problems is looking at them the right way. Asking the right questions. Calling things by their right names and distinguishing between things formerly thought to be the same. "Why did humans evolve such massive intelligence?" is improved by replacing "why" with "how". It is further improved by first considering "What is intelligence?" and discovering it is many diverse forms of data processing, done by individual cells, groups of cells that communicate (and even store data - see immune system) with blood borne chemicals, nerve cells specialized in data processing arranged in various structures that evolved at various times, and data processing and storage outside of organic bodies - most notably by humans. Continued investigation into what intelligence is produces increasing knowlege as to the processes and mechanisms that resulted in humanity's current data processing abilities. Getting away from "why" is useful. WAS 4.250 17:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, some people prefer to say that "Why" is only answered by religion, and "How" is supposedly answered only by science. Personally, I think that's extremely limited, and in my opinion, often used to support bias to ignore things, and im not talking about just evolution either. But hey, I don't know any Wikipedia policies or guildlines against answering "why" in articles, scientific or not, if whatever section someone is trying to add helps the article, I can't think of a good reason to leave whatever it is out. Of course, if the section wasn't helpful, then it's all irrelevant anyway I suppose. Homestarmy 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It has prominently been seen as opposing a literal interpretation of the account of the origins of humankind as described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, a religious text containing the corpus of Christian Mythology.
The article was doing so good up til that point. It was neutral, factual, overall pretty well-written, and then at the last second the author takes a swipe at Christianity.
It would be out of place for this article to say that many scientists regard Genesis as mythology, whether or not that is the case. But to go all the way and say that it IS, in fact, mythology... that is far worse and stands out as profoundly unprofessional. It's embarrassing.
Anyone else think this needs to be removed? - Alexwebb2
"In the beginning" (which, if you add up the beggets, was about 6000 years ago, before the first pyramid in Egypt was built) the world was a choas. Then God created all in 6 days. Does this not sound like mythology to you? How "historical" is the fairy tale of Adam and Eve? Does the "explanation" of where rainbows come from (after the alleged great flood) not sound like a simple myth? It's myth and untrue.
Moses (assuming he existed) wrote the Pentateuch quite a long time ago. Children in high school know more than he would have known when died, and yet our intelect is constantly insulted when we're expected to consider Judaic stories as possible fact. It's like asking one to be open minded about the possibility that the Sun is a flaming ball of coal. Tolerance is great, but don't expect everybody else to pretend to be dumb simply because religion is popular (so is the belief that Iraq/Afghanistan had "weapons of mass-distruction", that polygraphs actually work, that race is a real biological phenomenon...).
-
User:ZyXoas
08:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"In the beginning" was an undisclosed amount of time ago according to observations 13 billion years to be precise. The term "day" is very fluid, if you read the account it says there was a division between the "day" & night. Here depicting "day" as a twelve hour period. Later it says God rested on the seventh "day" according to Heb 4: this "day" is still in progress. after thousands of years. So the term "day" is not literal and only a fool would think it was. As for your faith in the dating of the pyramids, There was a program about a baby incased in concrete. The forensics had dated the brick at 8 years old or 1992. Later the facts didnt fit, it turned out the brick was 1960's. So dont hold too much faith in dating techniques.
Im not here to preach, and you're not here to tear down, so if you stop so will I. I could quite happily rip into "evolution theory". And you have just as much "faith" as the next man as you are defending a theory that doesnt have a foundation. You cant explain the utter impossibility of the first dna replication. This isnt the place to discuss technicalities, just the article.:)( 172.209.205.109 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
"Myth" may be a loaded word in some contexts, but Mythology is the best term to describe the Judeo-Christian scriptures in this article. android 79 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like the "mythelogical" missing link.
Amazing that one word can cause such an in-depth debate. Therein lies a prime example some of the true motivations behind Darwin's more adamant "intellectual thugs," who seek to rewrite our history and breed contempt for religion, especially Christianity. Dispicable, to say the least. Salva 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading through the complete page it seemed to me that two diametrically opposed POVs were being proposed about Darwin's contribution to our modern understanding of evolution. In one section his work seems to is presented as though he proceeded on thoroughly scientific lines, complete with statistical analysis of his results, so that Mendel's work on inheritable characteristics was merely icing on the cake. In another section, however, there is what seems to me to be the more realistic implication that Darwin got the ball rolling, in a fairly amateurish way, after which a great deal of further work was required in order to get us to where we are today. (As a matter of interest, I understand that Darwin was actually shown a copy of Mendel's 1866 paper but had too little scientific training to appreciate its importance. Fact or fiction?)
Anyway, if my perception is correct, may I respectfully suggest that someone who has a sufficiently neutral POV should standardise the depiction of Darwin's role.
Thank you for your attention.
Eric 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
We can tell people who question the modern synthesis to screw off now? Finally. -- Ignignot 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Im still not taking this page off my watch list. Homestarmy 14:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why won't the lib mods allow me to put links to sites that have scientifically disproven evolution? Are you wiki people afraid that you biased recount of world history will be seen for what it truly is?
The left wing, atheist viewpoint of all things on this site is laughable.
You people will never admit to it, and with your army of nazi-esque admins and mods, you will never allow anyone to post something that brings it to light.
Did you even look at the links that I included? Of course you didn't. You are lying. You saw something that would disprove your obtuse view of the world, and you deleted it.
The problem, quite frankly, is for every objection to evolution, somebody is probably going to invent a counter-objection through enough time and thought, it's happened for decades i'd think, it's a vicious cycle :/. But anyway, calling everyone nazi-esque and atheists really is not going to solve anything i'd assume, besides, if you want to help make things less "Left-wing" and "Atheist", come help us on the Jesus article, much different field of study, we need a few extra hands. Im afraid this place isn't where arguments against evolution are looked at with high esteem, not always because everyone is an evolutionist, but because the talk origin's archive link way up at the top is where you've gotta go around here to fight against evolution, this encyclopedia can only report on things, not make up new decisions :/. Homestarmy 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In nearly every other page on this site, one can find a link or 2 to an opposing view. Execpt here, the Holy Grail of the left.
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia strongly frowns on personal attacks. I don't consider "lib" to be a personal attack per se but "nazi-esque" is about as bad one can get. Aside from the wikirules, people are more likely to listen to you if you argue and discuss in a calm fashion. So it is in your best interest, not to engage in such behavior. JoshuaZ 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean, like calling one's contibutions "spam", "silliness" "nonesense"?
Read the links. I guess 160+ scientists at the infamous Chicago Conference is not enough to merit 2 links in the almight Wiki, eh?
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article.
Alienus, While a second glance shows that the link is interesting. It is a) a personal website and b) simply not relevant to this webpage. It might make sense on the evolution-creationism controversy page, and I would not object to it being moved there. In the meantime, I am removing it. JoshuaZ 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not going to remove the Perzold link again given that there seem to be many who disagree with me, but can someone please explain what it has to do with evolution and wouldn't make much more sense in the evolution-creationism article or the Maxwell article. What am I missing? JoshuaZ 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.
By not allowing me to add this opposing views, you are subverting the very nature of Wikipedia, and breaking the very rules you have agreed to protect.
You deleted them before you even read them. That is fact.-- 166.73.21.146 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not like people haven't tried to get even just a tiny recognition that there are non-evolutionist actually credible scientists out there, but i've given it all i've got already as have some other people, I dunno what to tell you :/. Someone added the petzold link back in I think, it does seem pretty educational, maybe we can defend it, I dunno, but the point is, don't count on overwhelming support. And trying to get into an edit war just makes everything doomed to failure on this article heh. Homestarmy 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. 1) The first link still doesn't work for me, and I've now tried about 5 different permuations of it. 2) 64, did you even read the Petzold link? Petzold isn't saying that at all. Please read it. 3) In any event, can someone please explain why the Petzold link should go here(I think it is an interesting essay but not relevant to this page)? JoshuaZ 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The very fact that these "mods" are afraid to have 2 links on this entire page that may present a different point of view speaks volumes about all of Wiki as a whole.
You can find links to different points of view on 99% of the controversial subjects, even an entire section on the "Creationism" page.
What if I added a section on "Critique of Evolution"? How fast would that be deleted by the mods?
How is this neutral and fair?
I challenge any of you mods to answer that.
Presumably, moderators.
I actually restored the Petzold link because it was interesting and not propaganda. However, if you think it fits better into the controversy page, I certainly wouldn't object to it being moved there. Alienus 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article.
Despite a link to the article on the endosymbiotic theory, there is no discussion of this theory here. I think that it has a place in a discussion about evolution as it tries to explain the significant transition from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life. There is also evidence that the mitochondrial genome, in plants at least, is still being exchanged with the nuclear genome, . Finally in their book "Accquiring genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species", Lynn Margullis and Dorion Sagan discuss how symbiosis may continue to play an important role in speciation. I think this would fall nicely under the heading of Mechanisms of Evolution. I wanted to get some feedback before writing a paragraph on this though. Does anybody have any objections to this being included here? Does anybody have suggestions about what should be included in it if I go ahead? Friedgreenkillertomatoes 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Partly because sections have been moved around recently, the evolution article's pics are a bit out of sync. Specifically, there are no pictures for a huge section between "Misconceptions" and "Speciation and extinction". Can anyone think of pics we can put in the intervening part? Mikkerpikker ... 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a new reference format floating about that's much superior to what's being used on this page. By using <ref> tags, a list of references can be automatically created at the bottom by using <references />. You no longer have to make sure the count or order of everything line up. See here for an example of where it is used. -- Cyde Weys 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it "wikappropriate" to leave comments on article discussion pages? I simply had to - this has become one of the most comprehensive articles I have seen on wikipedia in a while. Objective, eloquent and emphatic - and respectable even from an Intelligent Design advocate like me!!!! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! =) Salva 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a dangling quote at the end of this section in the article. It's about horizontal gene transfer, but comes from nowhere. Has it been orphaned by text changes? -- Plumbago 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I simply can't take this! This article talks about evolution as if it's actually been proven! YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT THIS HAPPENED! You don't see new species evolving today! The name of this article should be changed to "theory of evolution", because that's what it is, a theory, and it should say that evolution is a THEORY proposed by many scientists as a possible explanation for the introduction of new species. This article isn't scientific! Scorpionman 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
Actually, I can prove that you are writing this, I read it, therefore, it is :D. Of course, that only proves it to me.....but anyway, to this article's credit, it does spend a generous amount of time with theory and fact distinctions, and even though I don't agree with the article in the slightest for my own reasons, it certainly does at least represent people's perspectives for sure heh. Besides, Scorpion, the consensus is pretty much to represent evolution as absolute fact here, I don't see how changing it would last for very long. and in the end, this article does still have that one sentence in there acknowladging that supposedly pseudoscientific views actually do exist...right? Homestarmy 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a physicist and therefore a scientist, one of the consensus who supports an approach to the physical world based upon the collation of observations and the synthesis of that collated data with math and physics, the foundations of all sciences. I would like to applaud Wikipedia for their staunch support of NPOV in its articles, and all of you writers and readers who present and review the information in WP articles in a manner that attempts to reflect the world the way it is, rather than the way "this" group or "that" group would like it to be. Keep up the hard work. Now that I've discovered WP I hope to contribute to the high standards and rich information in WP myself. C.Melton 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've already told you my objections, Guettarda! The article talks about evolution as if it is an absolute fact, and it is just a theory! And if what I think of evolution is "meaningless", then so is what you think of creation! And a fact is "something that has been objectively verified"(Webster's dictionary), KimvdLinde. Evolution has NOT been observed occuring, and people can only refer to it with postulations, so why does everyone refer to it as a fact? And you think that I can't insult your views, but you can insult creationism with impunity! Science precludes bias, and that is what you are showing in your comments! Evolution is also a BELIEF, it is NOT a fact, as I have said above. Creationism is not a fact either, but it has a heck of a lot more evidence than evolution! You doubtlessly think that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years. So, how do you explain the canyons formed by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens? And, like I've already asked and you haven't answered, have you ever observed a monkey turning into a man? "No, it takes billions of years." There you go! It's unobservable, and therefore unscientific! I haven't observed creation occuring, therefore I must believe in it. But you also have to BELIEVE in evolution! It's not a fact (I don't know how many times I have to repeat that)! Scorpionman 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Scorpionman, don't try and make this into a debate forum between evolution and ID or creationism. You won't win, regardless of how much you rant and rave. Listen to Guettarda - bring specific ideas to the table instead of making generalized assaults. You're wasting your time otherwise. Oh, and make sure that you can provide sufficient, credible sources for any and all information. (Kent Hovind is NOT a credible source. He's a fanatic, and has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility.) I was in your position once, long time ago, as I'm sure many of the wikipedians here remember =) I know the feeling that Hovind incites with his seminars, but it's empty. Salva 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am an MD Phd, and my dad as well + professor of physiology with >150 publications in PubMed, however we dont agree with mainstream science regarding the origin of life. The microevolution observable today is to our opinion wrongly extrapolated. The fact that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics is far from proof to us that a complete organ would develop out of nothing. Removing the antibiotic from the bacterial culture eventually supresses the resistance gene bacteria which has an impaired survival as compared to the "wild type" bacteria without that gene . Also, many resistance genes are there in the bacterial population from scratch, but with antibiotic pressure those with the resistance genes are favored. By the way, mutations, an important mechanism of evolution, almost always results in genetic reduction. I haven't seen one evidence of positive mutations occuring today where genetic material is added to the genome of a species resulting in a higher complexity structure. Further, the use of Occams razor and parsimony in choosing between two theories can argue both for and against (macro) evolution. Some feel that God is to big to cut away with the razor, while others, like me and dad, have no problems with a supreme being and creator but big problems with the credibility of evolution. Thulesius 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe you missed the notice at the top of the discussion page. It went something like this:
Cyde Weys 01:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
IPORTANT - I gave you my proposals! You're just ignoring them! I didn't intend to start a big debate on evolution here, but someone just has to put that here! For the third and last time: Change the article so that it says that evolution is a theory, not a fact! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpionman ( talk • contribs) .
You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Please see here, here, and here, and if you have any further questions, take it to Talk.Origins. Just post your message line with a subject line of something like "ATTN: Cyde Weys" and I promise I will respond. -- Cyde Weys 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As already noted, the article does call evolution a theory. Here is a quote to make this clear. Is it satisfactory for you?
If the article were modified to say that evolution is only a theory, then that would be a significant change which would need justification. Such a justification seems unlikely to me given the scientific consensus. If you have any words about Mt. St. Helens which could improve the article (perhaps in a criticism section), then it would be interesting to see them. As a final point, evolution is different from abiogenesis. Eiler7 16:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The folowing is the proposed insertion of user axa497 who I invited to come to this page to duiscuss the inclusion of this piece into the evolution page
Recently, many scientists have discovered undeniable flaws in modern evolutionary theories. The two most notable flaws are the biochemical impossibility of evolution and evolution's statistical improbability.
The main argument used by biochemists against the theory of evolution is that many biological systems are irreducibly complex at the molecular level. An irreducibly complex biological system is defined as:
"a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." [1]
In essence, the evolution or mutation of the individual components which comprise complex structures such as human cells is not possible because human cells would not able to perform their basic functions (or even exist) without the proper functioning of all of their components. Evolutionists often ignore this fact and try to argue that this does not prove Creationism to be a science. It is all too true that this fact, by itself, in no way proves Creationism to be a science, however, this fact does prove that the theory of evolution is inherently flawed. right|thumb|200px|A spoof of the theory of evolution based on a [http://xfiles.wearehere.net/believe.htm popular X-Files poster].
The main argument used by mathematicians against the theory of evolution is that evolution is simply a statistical improbability. The mathematicians who have refuted the theory of evolution state that there has not been enough time since, the random formation of the first organism to the evolution of modern man, for the correct number of recombinations to occur. Mathematicians have further stated that the random formation of even a single protein is statistically impossible when adhering to the most basic principles of the theory of evolution. One of the proponents of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the improbability the theory has fallen into in these terms:
"So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it." [2]
To display an example of the statistical improbability of evolution a creationist student organization of Mississippi State University has created a web page which calculates the probability of the random formation of the word "evolution" from the 26 letters in the alphabet. Members of the organization argue that "the word "evolution" is only 9 characters. However, to get a correct strand of DNA for the simple virus fX174, needs 390 characters (from which it can choose from either A-C-T-G [Adenine-Cytosine-Thymine-Guanine]). So the probability of getting the correct order of gene sequencing is one out of 4390 which is the following number:
63591141060637037983702199847424104663322051261099893192255571477547 04702203399726411277962562135973685197744935448875852478791860694279 74735580067856867794618144758178140121313388660994702723000427724469 7462656003657100713230572978176.
This is essentially 6.4x10238. However, probabilities less than 1 in 1050 are considered statistically impossible." [1]
I think this piece is not NPOV, and is deliberatly misleading. -- KimvdLinde 03:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I told KimvdLinde, my insertion is not a creationist viewpoint and consists only of facts and criticisms of the theory's weaknesses and flaws. Some of the sources may have come from creationists, however, the creationist viewpoint was not promoted and only undeniable facts were presented. Anyway, as I've alreay told KimvdLinde, I will stop trying to complete the Evolution article by including critisms and/or facts that were never presented in the first place or ommitted. It is really my own fault, I forget how "enlightened" and "open-minded" the "modern scientific" community really is. If not KimvdLinde, I'm sure someone else would have censored the facts I presented. Keep in mind that true scientists do not ommitt facts in their search for the truth and that the biased ommission of facts only serves to keep minds in the dark.-- Axa4975 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Cyde Weys 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And
FeloniousMonk
06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that this stuff should be in the article. I mean, evolution is a theory. Its not considered a fact, yet. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
24.174.25.130 (
talk •
contribs) .
There is still a substantial amount of criticism to evolution worldwide. It should be included with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.25.130 ( talk • contribs) .
There is scientific criticism to the creationism article, the same should go to the evolution article. Its only fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.25.130 ( talk • contribs) .
Just my feeling last night. There is a continuous stream of people that comes to the talk pages to convince the regular editors (I am not including myself yet in that category) that they have it all wrong, and spew the usual flawed creationist/ID arguments such as the statistical impossibility (while conviently ignoring the non-random natural selection part), many scientists believe evolutio is wrong (where are those?) etc. So, would it be handy to make a template ({{evoltalk}} that we can add to user talk pages (and at top of this page) that provides some standard answers, a like to talk.origins for discussion, and some guidlines what is needed to convince the regular editors of including a dissident fact. If than the regular editors would just go the the user talk page and provide that template there, avoiding extensive discussion over and over again on non-arguments, it would cut down considerable in the chatter at this page. -- KimvdLinde 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Made a rough first draft here Template:Evoltalk. It is just a first start, needs polising... -- KimvdLinde 16:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I just beefed it up a bit. It should be ready for use now. -- Cyde Weys 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And by the way usage would be something like this:
{{subst:Evoltalk}} --~~~~
-- Cyde Weys 18:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I've meant to do this for a while now, but only now got round to it. I'm changing all the instances of "theory of evolution" to (depending on context) "theory of natural selection" or "evolution" (or whatever seems correct for the sentence in question). Why? Because the term "theory of evolution" is highly misleading and widely misunderstood. Natural selection is the theory that explains the occurrence of evolution - evolution is not properly speaking a theory itself.
See:
See also:
Mikker ... 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I so wish you would've posted this message here and waited a bit before you committed those edits. I think some of them are adding inaccuracies. Evolution as a whole is a lot more than just natural selection. I don't know whether to revert or let someone else deal with it. -- Cyde Weys 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
1
Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of evolution. |
Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of natural selection.
|
2
Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by genetics. |
Today, the occurrence of evolution has been strongly confirmed by genetics.
|
3
Indeed, one of the great strengths of the theory of evolution is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design. |
Indeed, one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design.
|
4
Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general. |
Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern evolutionary thought involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general.
|
5
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines and subdisciplines document the fact of evolution, and contribute to the theory of evolution. |
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines and subdisciplines document the fact of evolution, and contribute to explaining its occurrence.
|
6
The belief in a telelogical evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific theory of evolution. |
The belief in a telelogical evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific understandings of evolution.
|
3 more changes: to an external link & two changes to avoid a redirect & correct the theory issue Social implications of the theory of evolution --> Social effect of evolutionary theory.
Please indicate which changes are deemed inaccurate or liable to cause confusion. Mikker ... 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Being too quick to replace "theory of evolution" or "evolutionary theory" with natural selection misses a number of important point - the role of drift and neutralism, and "evo-devo". "Theory of evolution" is, IMO, valid usage - not of a single theory, but of a family of theories. Of course, that is to be differentiated from the "fact" of evolution. There is a lot more to theoretical evolutionary biology than just natural selection. Guettarda 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at Talk.Origins. That's what it's there for. Scorpionman, how many times do I have to ask you? Are you actually going to do this or are you just blowing me off, at which point I should just stop? -- Cyde Weys 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, Scorpionman cites Ken Ham. The latimes of Feb 11 has an article about Ham with the subtitle "Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way." Coincidence? ... dave souza, talk 10:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Scorpionman has implied, (or alluded) that the two aforementioned statements be removed from the article. I concur with the first one. A misunderstanding of evolution does not constitute a misunderstanding of science. Science is obviously not defined by evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is an example of science. To say that misinterpreting it involves a "misunderstanding...of science in general" is nonsense. One can understand science and disagree with certain aspects of biological evolution. That's perfectly rational. On the other hand, the statement seems implicitive of giving the reader the idea that evolutionary theory is not understood by the vast majority of (people? scientists?). This is confusing, and either needs to be ellaborated upon or removed in my opinion.
"one of the great strengths of the evolutionary theory are that it has no need of a supernatural intelligence or intelligent design."
Actually, I take back what I said earlier about this statement. It's actually quite honest, if one is referring to the evolution of species that we have observed today. Although it is slightly ambiguous (since the process of evolution initially required intelligent intervention of some sort to begin with), it's nevertheless encyclopædic. Salva 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So what? You assume that there was no need for an intelligence to initialize the process, which is a belief. It's the same thing. Salva 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Salva 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Before we all got into the debate Scorpionman started we were discussing the 9 changes I made (see Talk:Evolution#Changes) and several people voiced objections/concerns. Since these alterations have not been undone (see this diff) can we please get back to discussing the relevant changes? The potentially problematic ones seem to be 3, 5 and 6. Mikker ... 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Friedgreenkillertomatoes 11:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think we've given this enough time for discussion... We seem to have consensus on (1), (4), (5) and (6). (2) and (3) may need some more discussion.
This is what I've extracted from the above debate, if I've misunderstood anything and you think this isn't a fair summary, please let me know. Mikker ... 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Since evolution is an "unproven theory" by any definition of the word, the article is better suited to be described as such, until this criteria is satisfied. Any argument purporting to have "proven" the theory of evolution had better start, "not by changing the wording in the article but by actually presenting the facts".
As such a thorough explanation of the replication of the very first dna molecule is required (by this reader) before moving on. Such is not given anywhere in modern science literature. Thus how can the remainder (anything purported to have taken place after the first replicated molecule) of the "theory" be spoken off as proven when the very basics are not even explained satisfactorily. So please, start with the basics, before classifing a theory as a fact. ( Spintronic 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Thank you for your agreement, there are many missing pieces, thus the article should be discussed as a "THEORY" until proven otherwise. Since evolutionists cant even explain the most basic or simplist of its "jigsaw pieces" (and i do jigsaws btw, its always best to start with the easiest pieces) the article "should" refer to the "Theory of evolution"!
And im not suggesting that the whole cant be inferred from the pieces! Im saying the article should refer to the "Theory of evolution" as that; a theory!
( Spintronic 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
No my friend its you who are misguided! e.g;
Newtons "Law" of gravitation!
Einsteins "Theory" of General relativity!
Newtons "law" is such because thats what it is! "At any given distance. The strength of a gravitational field is directly proportional to the mass creating that field". Einsteins "Theory" of gravitation is such, because although the geometry is more accurate and complete than newtons picture, and gives more accurate results, it is still "not" proven beyond doubt.(expandind universe, Black holes, dark matter to give a few examples)! Whereas the "simple" premise that gravity is proportional to mass is proven, and thus is not a "theory"!
There is no such "simple" premise in "evolution theory" that is an undeniable proven Fact!
( Spintronic 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Again you are misguided, (the limitless number of primes as just one example) [ [4]Proof]
On the subject of "Proof" there is a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum". Trying to define "evolution theory" as a fact is such a "reductio ad absurdum". You are trying to palm off as fact, that for which you have no explaination of how its most simplest process came about.
e.g the replication of the first dna molecule.( Spintronic 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Friedgreenkillertomatoes 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not conviced that "why" is an appropriate question for science; it depends on what you mean by "why", of course, but "why" is often seen as a metaphysical question. Guettarda 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph ("Why of science") doesnt make sense and doesnt discuss improving the article thus "should" be deleted! ( 172.214.43.37 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
"Why?" is one of the most important questions you can ask (and answer) in science. It's trivial to measure something like, say, the gravitational attraction that the Earth exerts on a falling object. It's quite a more interesting question to ask why gravity works ... now that is still an unsolved mystery. Here's another good question that we don't have the complete answer for yet ... Why did humans evolve such massive intelligence? -- Cyde Weys 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of solving problems is looking at them the right way. Asking the right questions. Calling things by their right names and distinguishing between things formerly thought to be the same. "Why did humans evolve such massive intelligence?" is improved by replacing "why" with "how". It is further improved by first considering "What is intelligence?" and discovering it is many diverse forms of data processing, done by individual cells, groups of cells that communicate (and even store data - see immune system) with blood borne chemicals, nerve cells specialized in data processing arranged in various structures that evolved at various times, and data processing and storage outside of organic bodies - most notably by humans. Continued investigation into what intelligence is produces increasing knowlege as to the processes and mechanisms that resulted in humanity's current data processing abilities. Getting away from "why" is useful. WAS 4.250 17:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, some people prefer to say that "Why" is only answered by religion, and "How" is supposedly answered only by science. Personally, I think that's extremely limited, and in my opinion, often used to support bias to ignore things, and im not talking about just evolution either. But hey, I don't know any Wikipedia policies or guildlines against answering "why" in articles, scientific or not, if whatever section someone is trying to add helps the article, I can't think of a good reason to leave whatever it is out. Of course, if the section wasn't helpful, then it's all irrelevant anyway I suppose. Homestarmy 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It has prominently been seen as opposing a literal interpretation of the account of the origins of humankind as described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, a religious text containing the corpus of Christian Mythology.
The article was doing so good up til that point. It was neutral, factual, overall pretty well-written, and then at the last second the author takes a swipe at Christianity.
It would be out of place for this article to say that many scientists regard Genesis as mythology, whether or not that is the case. But to go all the way and say that it IS, in fact, mythology... that is far worse and stands out as profoundly unprofessional. It's embarrassing.
Anyone else think this needs to be removed? - Alexwebb2
"In the beginning" (which, if you add up the beggets, was about 6000 years ago, before the first pyramid in Egypt was built) the world was a choas. Then God created all in 6 days. Does this not sound like mythology to you? How "historical" is the fairy tale of Adam and Eve? Does the "explanation" of where rainbows come from (after the alleged great flood) not sound like a simple myth? It's myth and untrue.
Moses (assuming he existed) wrote the Pentateuch quite a long time ago. Children in high school know more than he would have known when died, and yet our intelect is constantly insulted when we're expected to consider Judaic stories as possible fact. It's like asking one to be open minded about the possibility that the Sun is a flaming ball of coal. Tolerance is great, but don't expect everybody else to pretend to be dumb simply because religion is popular (so is the belief that Iraq/Afghanistan had "weapons of mass-distruction", that polygraphs actually work, that race is a real biological phenomenon...).
-
User:ZyXoas
08:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"In the beginning" was an undisclosed amount of time ago according to observations 13 billion years to be precise. The term "day" is very fluid, if you read the account it says there was a division between the "day" & night. Here depicting "day" as a twelve hour period. Later it says God rested on the seventh "day" according to Heb 4: this "day" is still in progress. after thousands of years. So the term "day" is not literal and only a fool would think it was. As for your faith in the dating of the pyramids, There was a program about a baby incased in concrete. The forensics had dated the brick at 8 years old or 1992. Later the facts didnt fit, it turned out the brick was 1960's. So dont hold too much faith in dating techniques.
Im not here to preach, and you're not here to tear down, so if you stop so will I. I could quite happily rip into "evolution theory". And you have just as much "faith" as the next man as you are defending a theory that doesnt have a foundation. You cant explain the utter impossibility of the first dna replication. This isnt the place to discuss technicalities, just the article.:)( 172.209.205.109 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
"Myth" may be a loaded word in some contexts, but Mythology is the best term to describe the Judeo-Christian scriptures in this article. android 79 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like the "mythelogical" missing link.
Amazing that one word can cause such an in-depth debate. Therein lies a prime example some of the true motivations behind Darwin's more adamant "intellectual thugs," who seek to rewrite our history and breed contempt for religion, especially Christianity. Dispicable, to say the least. Salva 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading through the complete page it seemed to me that two diametrically opposed POVs were being proposed about Darwin's contribution to our modern understanding of evolution. In one section his work seems to is presented as though he proceeded on thoroughly scientific lines, complete with statistical analysis of his results, so that Mendel's work on inheritable characteristics was merely icing on the cake. In another section, however, there is what seems to me to be the more realistic implication that Darwin got the ball rolling, in a fairly amateurish way, after which a great deal of further work was required in order to get us to where we are today. (As a matter of interest, I understand that Darwin was actually shown a copy of Mendel's 1866 paper but had too little scientific training to appreciate its importance. Fact or fiction?)
Anyway, if my perception is correct, may I respectfully suggest that someone who has a sufficiently neutral POV should standardise the depiction of Darwin's role.
Thank you for your attention.
Eric 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
We can tell people who question the modern synthesis to screw off now? Finally. -- Ignignot 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Im still not taking this page off my watch list. Homestarmy 14:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why won't the lib mods allow me to put links to sites that have scientifically disproven evolution? Are you wiki people afraid that you biased recount of world history will be seen for what it truly is?
The left wing, atheist viewpoint of all things on this site is laughable.
You people will never admit to it, and with your army of nazi-esque admins and mods, you will never allow anyone to post something that brings it to light.
Did you even look at the links that I included? Of course you didn't. You are lying. You saw something that would disprove your obtuse view of the world, and you deleted it.
The problem, quite frankly, is for every objection to evolution, somebody is probably going to invent a counter-objection through enough time and thought, it's happened for decades i'd think, it's a vicious cycle :/. But anyway, calling everyone nazi-esque and atheists really is not going to solve anything i'd assume, besides, if you want to help make things less "Left-wing" and "Atheist", come help us on the Jesus article, much different field of study, we need a few extra hands. Im afraid this place isn't where arguments against evolution are looked at with high esteem, not always because everyone is an evolutionist, but because the talk origin's archive link way up at the top is where you've gotta go around here to fight against evolution, this encyclopedia can only report on things, not make up new decisions :/. Homestarmy 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In nearly every other page on this site, one can find a link or 2 to an opposing view. Execpt here, the Holy Grail of the left.
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia strongly frowns on personal attacks. I don't consider "lib" to be a personal attack per se but "nazi-esque" is about as bad one can get. Aside from the wikirules, people are more likely to listen to you if you argue and discuss in a calm fashion. So it is in your best interest, not to engage in such behavior. JoshuaZ 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean, like calling one's contibutions "spam", "silliness" "nonesense"?
Read the links. I guess 160+ scientists at the infamous Chicago Conference is not enough to merit 2 links in the almight Wiki, eh?
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article.
Alienus, While a second glance shows that the link is interesting. It is a) a personal website and b) simply not relevant to this webpage. It might make sense on the evolution-creationism controversy page, and I would not object to it being moved there. In the meantime, I am removing it. JoshuaZ 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not going to remove the Perzold link again given that there seem to be many who disagree with me, but can someone please explain what it has to do with evolution and wouldn't make much more sense in the evolution-creationism article or the Maxwell article. What am I missing? JoshuaZ 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.
By not allowing me to add this opposing views, you are subverting the very nature of Wikipedia, and breaking the very rules you have agreed to protect.
You deleted them before you even read them. That is fact.-- 166.73.21.146 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not like people haven't tried to get even just a tiny recognition that there are non-evolutionist actually credible scientists out there, but i've given it all i've got already as have some other people, I dunno what to tell you :/. Someone added the petzold link back in I think, it does seem pretty educational, maybe we can defend it, I dunno, but the point is, don't count on overwhelming support. And trying to get into an edit war just makes everything doomed to failure on this article heh. Homestarmy 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. 1) The first link still doesn't work for me, and I've now tried about 5 different permuations of it. 2) 64, did you even read the Petzold link? Petzold isn't saying that at all. Please read it. 3) In any event, can someone please explain why the Petzold link should go here(I think it is an interesting essay but not relevant to this page)? JoshuaZ 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The very fact that these "mods" are afraid to have 2 links on this entire page that may present a different point of view speaks volumes about all of Wiki as a whole.
You can find links to different points of view on 99% of the controversial subjects, even an entire section on the "Creationism" page.
What if I added a section on "Critique of Evolution"? How fast would that be deleted by the mods?
How is this neutral and fair?
I challenge any of you mods to answer that.
Presumably, moderators.
I actually restored the Petzold link because it was interesting and not propaganda. However, if you think it fits better into the controversy page, I certainly wouldn't object to it being moved there. Alienus 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article.
Despite a link to the article on the endosymbiotic theory, there is no discussion of this theory here. I think that it has a place in a discussion about evolution as it tries to explain the significant transition from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life. There is also evidence that the mitochondrial genome, in plants at least, is still being exchanged with the nuclear genome, . Finally in their book "Accquiring genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species", Lynn Margullis and Dorion Sagan discuss how symbiosis may continue to play an important role in speciation. I think this would fall nicely under the heading of Mechanisms of Evolution. I wanted to get some feedback before writing a paragraph on this though. Does anybody have any objections to this being included here? Does anybody have suggestions about what should be included in it if I go ahead? Friedgreenkillertomatoes 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)