![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Original: The theory of natural selection was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.[2][4][5] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[6]
Maybe:
The theory of natural selection was originally presented in 1858 in (separate) a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of Natural Selection increases the probability (chance) that organisms with favorable traits will survive and thus reproduce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they (are) may be passed to the offspring; thus, the trait becomes more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
The strike throughs are optional proposals for the words enclosed in (). Wasn't sure which would better serve since the change might be more than cosmetic . I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of the last sentences so I left it intact. Up for consideration by the masses ... -- Random Replicator 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am guessing (just a guess however) that
Also:
The reason to use "might" instead of "may" is that it is better English. In everyday usage, people use both words, as well as "can" or "could" to express possibility. In some versions of English and formal English, "may" is reserved for permission and "can" is reserved for ability. If you want to take a look at the various nuances and different versions, take a look at [1] and [2] to start with, which I will point out do not agree with each other completely. Also take a look at [3] or [4]. I would probably choose "can", meaning "being able" as my first choice. Might to me suggests more stochasticity, or possibility, but maybe that is the sense that is needed here. May to me can be used to express both of these, but to me it still smacks more of permission. Could has more of a subjunctive feel and seems more complicated, although I am a bit uncertain. Sometimes if you publish in one place or another there will be a style manual that will dictate one usage over another. That is why professional editors exist. There is no hard and fast rule in many of these circumstances, and the rules change with time anyway. -- Filll 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A bit of space to regroup my thoughts
Ok ... I'm not sure if that is a thumbs up or thumbs down but lets try again ... shall we?
One is the original ... one has been changed ... Do you know which is which? .... no cheating ... now which is the better A or B?
A. The theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of natural selection is a mechanism that increases the chance that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. Those that survive produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they are passed to the offspring. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
vs.
B. The theory of natural selection was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
vs.
C. The theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The mechanisms of natural selection increase the chances that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. Those that survive produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
Should you see anything in the text of either choice, that is just plain "silly' by all means suggest an edit. --
Random Replicator
23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus: This issue may need even future clarifications: ie... rework the first sentence for clarity ...
"Although Wallace had not requested that his essay be published, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker decided to present the essay, together with excerpts from a paper that Darwin had written in 1844." Each had his own paper... yes? no? -- Random Replicator 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember this was originally the opening of the article, so probably has more explanations than are now necessary. That said, though, should we just spin this article off? Adam Cuerden talk 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the line about "heritable" essential for content. It reads better without it. Are we trying to avoid the pitfalls of Lamarckism and aquired characteristics. See Option C above and voice your opinions, Not to be biased but I like it without the line as Titanium suggest. A bigger question, will anyone be willing to make the actual change in the evolution bible, I've not the courage.-- Random Replicator 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, a pedantic point: the 1859 title is On the Origin of Species. Bits of each are useful, so here's my suggestion: ... dave souza, talk 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
D. An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, which eventually convinced the scientific community that evolution occurs. Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms best adapted to their circumstances are more likely to survive and successfully reproduce. If the adaptations are passed on to the offspring, the favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations. In time, this passive process can result in cumulative adaptations to meet different environmental conditions, to the extent that a new species is formed resulting in a new species.
D2. An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms best adapted to their circumstances are more likely to survive and successfully reproduce. If the adaptations are passed on to the offspring, the favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations. In time, cumulative adaptations can result in a new species being formed.
It looks good to me, but I am no expert. You should have a few experts in the area check it out.-- Filll 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. I retained the references because I think they are needed in the rest of the paper, plus I just like references in general. We will see if it meets with a firestorm of disapproval.-- Filll 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should cut the history of evolution section, including the Modern Synthesis subsection, or at least trim it to one or two paragraphs. What purpose does such a very long section serve? Adam Cuerden talk 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should cut it but reference the history article and give a brief synopsis of the main points. This has come up before and most editors thought it remiss not to mention the subject. I think it is too long for this article since it has a spin off. GetAgrippa 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The history of evolutionary thought is fascinating and deserves a very full article of its own. I would even favor expanding the current history of evolutionary thought article, as long as it had a nice accessible introduction of course. All we need here is the briefest of summaries and a pointer to the other article. Many people want to shove everything into the main article, and everything into the introduction. I think that is not helpful, and results in an unreadable inaccessible mess. There is nothing wrong with farming out other specialty topic areas to other articles. If someone is interested in that particular subject, they can go to that specific article. If not, they can avoid it. For example, in the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon article, we wrote basically three or four histories; a one sentence introductory statement, a very brief set of 7 highlight statements, a historical summary consisting of 7 short paragraphs covering prehistory and 500 years of European habitation, and a more extended multiple section history. The one sentence statement, 7 highlight statements and historical summary were retained in the main article, and these with the extended history were sent to their own article, History of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Readers with different needs can choose which versions they want to utilize, giving them control over how they want to access the information, how much information they want and how they want it packaged. And that is what makes an information delivery venue, like a well-written Wikipedia article, a good one. That is why having short sentences and clear words, not requiring excessive use of links, breaking the text into reasonable paragraphs and short sections with good titles to break it up, and so on, is so important; the reader can control their information assimilation experience.-- Filll 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does have a separate article. I hope the material we cut from this one is all in the separate history of evolutionary thought article. It probably needs work. I at least thought about it for a minute or two and still might take it on, although I am no expert. On the issue of highlights and timelines, what exactly would you prefer? A graphic display of a timeline ? or ? -- Filll 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Having many editors is wonderful but sometimes it produces splashes instead of flow. It seems it needs to be better organized and introduce next subject for flow. Cooperation should be in Mechanisms of Evolution section. Variation section should introduce Heredity, Recombination, Mutation, and Gene flow- HGT and hybridization. Then each section goes into detail. The Mechanisms of Evolution section then address what nature does with the variation. Then side issues like history and social stuff at bottom. It would be nice to have examples of speciation with pics of something plant, fish, or insect and demonstrate microevolution (Fill brought how naive people are of examples of speciation we can actually see). Macroevolution should address uniformity at molecular level, evodevo correlates, and something like horse evolution illustration or something. Horse is great example because it demonstrate that evolution is not linear but a web and how environment influenced changes. Perhaps talk about sickle cell and malaria and environmental change that precipitated the success of this trait. GetAgrippa 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
After the creationist talk just archived I think we need verbal and visual of speciation so that point will be neutralized. GetAgrippa 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts.
2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts DC across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of DC current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of a 1-2 kG object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer). It is interesting to note that at times in history the other hypothesis was deemed correct by the majority of scientists. Of course, scientific truth does not submit to the will of the majority of scientists.
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwin supporters (those who claim that new species evolve from old via evolution) claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well and good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences--
This is a valid discussion, and I request that you not stifle the discussion. From a logical and scientific perspective, the article has problems, one of which is the failure to identify what it would take to prove the theory of evolutionary speciation incorrect.
170.215.45.95 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. They are part of what make us all different and believed to be the genetic basis of many diseases. Scientist are scrutinizing the human genome looking for SNP's related to disease. Hardy-Weinberg is used by evolutionist and geneticist to test the independence of alleles within loci (it is used in forensic science also). GetAgrippa 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why distinquish biology as a softer science. I would argue just the opposite. Does a theory have to be consistent with observable facts? In physics, I would argue that relativity or quantum-string theory often defies logic or at least observable is relative to the observer. A theory has to be tested by methods that are observable, but may seem paradoxical to observed facts. Like cooperation in a competitive world. Any logic used against evolution is basically against all science, medicine, agriculture, genetic, neuroethology, immunology, physiology, metabolism, disease,etc. They are all linked by a common origin, so I can study chick or zebra fish development and it is applicable in many ways to human. Exploring the dog genome is useful in understanding human disease. Humans have taken advantage of evolution principal to domesticate animals and plants by artificial selection-biodesign. I can isolate some genes from a bacteria and use them to correct a gene defect in a human. It is capricious to pick on evolution without any thought to the repercussions of that statement. Creationist should dismiss modern medicine, agriculture, and any benefits from basic research with the arguments they hold. I like others hold evolution scientist responsible for failing to communicate the ideas of evolution that are beneficial and have no bearing on any faith. GetAgrippa 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.
In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.
Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg. GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Evolution can create new species, but it doesn't have to. For instance, take the peppered moth, a classic example. They became darker, then lighter again in response to their environment. No speciation, but evolution. The changes in beak size/body size amongst some finches in the galapagos is another example. Titanium Dragon 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see Falsifiability before adding to this section.
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do [supporters of Darwin's theory on the origin of species] claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences? VacuousPoet 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Exactly. Consequently, your rabbit example would not falsify the theory, it would only modify the theory. VacuousPoet 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Sit around and wait? The point is what is the experiment, that if it failed, would prove that the evolutionary origin of species was an incorrect thoery. Not that the experiment would fail. In your exmaple, if I waited for 10 million years, and did not observe the creation of a single new species, it would not *prove* evolution wrong. To a Darwinist, it would prove that no mutations sufficient to create a new species occured in this 10 million year window. Consequently, your suggestion to wait does not meet the standard. Regarding the fossil record, the theory of the evolutionary origin of species is a good story, a model, but I don't think it is a good scientific theory, because no experiment exists that could disprove it, at least none has been provided so far. VacuousPoet 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet.
Prove I am a creationist, or recant. You're attempting to avoid the valid criticism by lumping the person who brings it up with a group that you believe would discredit the criticism. 70.59.125.17 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I never knew mules were sometimes fertile. The point was regarding the definition of a species, though. The gernalization I have heard numerous times (for the general public) was that species can create hybrids, but the hybrids are never fertile.). Even so, I do not claim that this definition is now, or ever was, considered to be the scientific definition. I'll do some looking into your claim of fertile mules. And now, please, follow up on my rabbit question. VacuousPoet ] 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Hi, Vacuous Poet. The answer to your question is (in a sense) very simple. It is a proven fact that organisms change over generations. You acknowledge this. Your only remaining problem is that you want to know when to call it a new "species" - and you are not alone in finding this a difficulty. The concept of a "species" is in fact somewhat arbitrary, a matter of trying to draw a line (maybe largely for human convenience) where none really exists in such a hard-and-fast way - as demonstrated by the constant redefining of species boundaries in lumping and splitting by taxonomists. It's actually a problem of definition - of how far apart two organisms need to be to be considered separate species - not a problem with the theory (and fact) of evolution. Snalwibma 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Popper was making a statement of logic. Falsifiable is not false but just an alternative from what I gather. Interestingly, I could only find six publications by Popper in Pubmed. I've also noted a number of living scientist in various fields have articles. What qualifies having an article as some seem like advertisement as there are so many other notable names in the field? Popper must have books out or something more than six papers. GetAgrippa 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Brainless Vacuous Poet. You have no right to delete posts. I went in here and I saw that you've deleted numerous posts just because you didn't like them. I ought to revert them all, but I don't have the time. You delete anything I've written again, and I'll propose that you be blocked from here. Once again you have NO right to do that under any condition. If you don't like the tone, and we're convinced, I'll change it. Typical censoring Christian apologist.
OrangeMarlin
16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing that is not so evident from what is here are the exchanges that were deleted, and the material that was archived already over the last few days. With creationists, it sometimes starts out simple, and then when they refuse to do anything but be obstructionist for days on end, people lose patience. That is my interpretation.-- Filll 18:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I might be incorrect, I suspect that several different names that we encountered here with similar questions over the past week are just one person. Part of the difficulty with the concept of falsifiability is some confusion and disagreement about what it really means. To me, falsifiability means that one can test the current explanation of the data and cause the explanation to be replaced with another explanation. These explanations are of course called "theories" in science. If it is a small change, then only some details of the theory are changed or refined. If a big change is required, the scientist who is able to force the change (like Michelson and Morley testing the ether theories, for example) will have accomplished something very substantial, and it is something that scientists try very hard to do. So the new evidence that forces the theory to change to accomodate it is exactly what is meant by falsifiability. It demonstrates that the scientific system is working as it is supposed to. Creationism or other religious type beliefs is different. First, the supporters do not try to find replacement versions, the way scientists try to replace the dominant evolution theory. The explanation does not change, has never changed, and cannot change by definition. What does change, however, are the convoluted explanations dredged up to protect the explanation from attack: "God made the earth appear old to test our faith", "The speed of light is variable", and so on. All kinds of ancillary explanations are created to protect the main explanation at all costs. A creationism supporter who did not do this would be rejected as a blasphemer. A scientist who was able to scientifically demonstrate evidence that was not in accord with the NeoDarwinist theory would be heralded as a genius. A scientist who attempted to bend over backwards to protect a dominant theory in the face of all evidence to the contrary would soon be marginalized. This has happened in the past, because the most important thing in science is NOT the explanation, but the FIT between the predictions of the theory and the data. The most important thing in creationism/religion is the explanation and NOT the fit between the explanations and the data. In creationism, new theories will be produced to avoid ever changing the explanation:
and on and on and on. And does anyone actually believe that creationists are at all interested in changing the main explanation, or rejecting biblical inerrancy?-- Filll 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN HIGHJACKED. I tried to keep responses on topic, because too many of the responses were resorting to ad hominems, ignoring the point of the section, attempting to bait me as though I were a fundementalist christian on a mission to suppress science, etc. Please please stick to the subject of the thread!!!! If I am not allowed to removed posts which clearly have nothing to do with the subject of the section, but are instead intended to harrass, intimidate, obfuscate, and otherwise take cheap shots, would somebody else please do so? Thanks. 199.62.0.252 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Vacuous, I am sure I have answered your questions before when you had a different name or IP address. I and others have answered over and over. However, my past experiences with creationists lead me to suspect
Fill, you wrote No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God I did some reading, and if creationists are saying such things, it may be a case of them not understanding their own Bible. At least, differences of opinion exist within the community that interprets the Bible literally. For example, one popular commentator, E.W. Bullinger[ [5]], cites 2Pet3:6 regarding the "World that was," and interpret that to mean the time from which fossils come. To quote: 'Creation in eternity past, to which all Fossils and "Remains" belong.' This isn't a young Earth theory, or a God or the devil played a practical joke theory. It might be an escape valve, but it slightly more complex than the ones you attributed. If you're going to speak for creationists, you might employ some of your research skills to help ensure that you speak accurately. 65.73.44.65 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Thanks.-- Filll 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me why you think I am a creationist? Please give me just one single example where I "cut and paste from a creationist website." This thread should be deleted. If fill is unable to provide a single example of me cutting and pasting from a creationist website, I think that is all we need to know about his credibility. Please show me where, except for the post on the rabbit, my question has been addressed. And even with the rabbit rebuttal, I had a follow-up question which was valid, but sadly, ignored. That was, in my view, the most promising example of a falsifiable counter-argument (your rabbit example). But you failed to respond to my follow up question. I am not going in circles. I am just not chasing after red herrings (e.g., some have provided exaxmples of experiments that support the theory of the evolutionary origin of species, but the question was regarding the conceivable experiment that, if failed, would disprove the theory.) Good try at your ad hominem, though. And regarding your philosophically deep questions, you know as well as I do that they are complicated, and have driven some men insaine. Ultimately, the answers depend upon premises. I did already articulate, I think, falsifiability with regard to scientific theories, and even admitted, initially, that the theory of evolutionary origin of species is not the only so-called theory to not meet the criteria. VacuousPoet 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I will give you my provisional working definitions, just in my own words off the top of my head:
Now, how about your definitions?-- Filll 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Your definitions are good enough. I'll cut and paste yours, or you can just pretend that I did. Proof exists in logic and philosophy, too, unless you consider both to be branches of mathematics. And regarding scientific truth, I think there is a whole spectrum. It seems to me that the theory of the evolutionary species is not on par with the law (or theory) of gravity, though. I am surprised that you do not require a scientist to hold a Ph.D. and be published in a suitable peer reviewed journal, though. 199.62.0.252 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Gravity | Evolution |
---|---|
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other. | Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change. |
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity. | Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution. |
Gravity is a "fact". | Evolution is a "fact". |
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation. | The "facts" of evolution require an explanation. |
Aristotle and Galileo created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Newton created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes but turned out to require refinement. | Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations. Darwin created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes, but turned out to require refinement. |
Einstein's explanation, refining Newton's is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity. | The Neo-Darwinist explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution. |
Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity. | The Neo-Darwinist explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution. |
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory." | Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory." |
So how is the theory of evolution not on a par with the theory of evolution? In what aspect?-- Filll 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That is my impression. Working scientists do not worry about falsifiability. It has arisen in these debates with creationists in recent decades as one of the ways that scientists can use to discriminate between science, like evolution, and nonscience or pseudoscience, like creationism and intelligent design. Now the vacuous poet is attempting to use it back on evolution like a weapon. It really is a concept from philosophy of science. Real scientists do not worry about it because they know garbage like intelligent design or creation science when they see it. Basically if there is no evidence for the theory , it is all crap.-- Filll 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Vacuous Poet, you clearly are not a biological scientist. You have admitted to being an unpublished scientist. You also clearly are not a physical scientist. So what kind of scientist are you? What you have written about Newton's laws being modified at the "boundaries of matter/space/time" is complete nonsense. It is clear to me that you do not know very much at all about gravity. Or physical science. Or biology. What kind of scientist are you? Then you claim that Einstein's theory was hard science, I guess as opposed to evolution. So what makes a science hard and not soft? (these are completely vague terms). Is it making predictions that can later be verified? Evolution does that. Is it making quantitative predictions? Evolution and genetics do that; ever hear of bioinformatics? biostatistics? Even the paper you found that you claimed proved evolution was wrong was about some sophisticated mathematical modeling. Does having repeatable experiments make a science hard? Evolution has repeatable experiments. You claim that the modification of Newton's laws came faster than the modifications to Darwin's theory. Well I count more than 225 years between Newton's theory and Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory was met with great disdain at first (so was Newton's). These were not universally accepted by any means. If people with your attitudes had been running things at the time, these men might have been imprisoned like Galileo was for their theories, or even executed for these theories. These sorts of things were viewed as a threat to religion just as Evolution was (and by some fruitcakes, is still viewed as such). It has not been 225 years since Darwin's origin of the species; more like 137 years. And it had already been modified several times, including the first time in just a few years by the incorporation of genetic information to form NeoDarwinism. So the temporal argument you make is complete hogwash as well. And as for the species arguments, do you know what a species is? I think that the problem is, you only have one answer you want to hear in mind. And nothing else will satisfy you. Isn't that correct?-- Filll 13:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you expect to be able to define your own standards for what you will accept as experimental ... proof of evolution: Please explain how you inferred this? Do you really think that it is possible to have a dog turn into a deer in the laboratory by watching them change over generations?: No. Why do you think that. I just pointed out that as a person who is not a biologist, it is easy to see that a deer is a different species than a dog, and hard to see that a fruit fly is a different speicies than its descendants that still look, act, and smell like fruit flies. It is like telling Einstein, show me gravity bending my flashlight beam in the lab and I will believe: Einstien's theory is falsifiable. If you could have enough mass sufficient to measure the bending of light in the lab, it would either be validate or falsify it. The experiment does not actually have to be done. However, the evolutionary origin of species, unlike the Einstein example, doesn't propose that species X will turn into species Y within N generation under environment E. If it did, it would be falsifiable, even if the experiment could not yet be performed. 74.33.29.35 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Not a problem. I think those are difficult questions. I know various definitions of species exist, and my level of understanding is somewhere between the Folk concept and Biological Concept. It is most easy for me to understand mammals. 65.73.44.65 06:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
As I originally thought Falsifiable is just another alternative. Evolution is a fact like gravity, however there are and have been alternative mechanisms and theory to explain the fact, so the issue is mute. Evolution theory is falsifiable and continues to be so as it is changing with more info. Orthogenesis and Lamarckism have been ruled out as alternative theory. GetAgrippa 12:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I decided this page was probably not the place one was going to get many answers to the question of "what would falsify evolution," (besides Precambrian rabbits--not that hat wasn't a good example) so I went looking for what other people had to say on the matter. For anyone who's interested, here is a sampling of some other ideas:
As I mentioned above, I was interested in the answer to this question because it is the sort of thing I could easily see myself called upon to answer, and I wasn't confident in my own ability to address it. These examples may not satisfy everyone, but they do me.-- Margareta 07:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Dionyseus, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't actually trying to say that any of these things have happened, thus I wasn't seeking explanations for any of them (no one has found Precambrian bunnies, either). What I meant was, these are examples of things that, if they were to happen (none of them have), they could potentially falsify evolution. Thus, the existence of these hypothetical situations that could falsify evolution makes evolution falsifiable (not falsified). This was in response to the long threads above regarding whether evolution is falsifiable. So in the places where you said you did not understand, perhaps it was because you were thinking I meant that someone had discovered those things?-- Margareta 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That they're impossible doesn't mean they're bad examples. Apples flying upwards would falsify gravity, but it's impossible for apples to fly upwards because gravity is a fact. The examples given above would falsify evolution, but evolution is a fact so those examples are impossible.-- Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great and thoughtful replies, everyone. I just want to clarify a few things.
In short, in answer to the question of "how could evolution be falsified," all you really need to do is take any of the proofs of evolution and imagine its opposite. Of course it's a purely intllectual excercise. Apples don't fly up and genetic information is passed on. But an intellectual excercise is all that's been asked of us: present an example that, if true, would disprove evolution. And here we are. Maybe you don't agree that any one of these would amount to disproof, but certainly several of them together would. One or two might even do so in isolation.
A merry Christmas (to those of you who celebrate it, of course) and a big thanks to Delta Tango for a great laugh this morning!-- Margareta 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As GetAgrippa points out, real scientists do not worry about falsifiability. The reason is that falsifiability is already built in to real science because it is inherently part of the scientific method.
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here. However I will admit that this has revealed more good information, but we are still getting our chains yanked by creationists.
As I understand falsifiability, it is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not. And it has been used in the battles with creationists, to try to distinguish between science and pseudoscience like creationism.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false. Any tests. They might not be easy to perform, or might be very unlikely to produce the contrary result. If you do, the theory is falsifiable.
In creation science, there are no tests that one can perform to demonstrate that the "theory" is false, because the "theory" is true by definition, by fiat, by declaration ab initio. So Creationism/Creation Science/Intelligent Design etc are not falsifiable.
The very fact that scientific theories would change and have to adapt to new data, and have already done so, is proof that they are falsifiable. And that is the distinction between evolution and creation science.
The creationists who visit us are using falsifiability as a weapon against us, to try to claim that evolution is not falsifiable, and that evolution is a religion like creationism. They are taking advantage of the fact that evolution scientists, and scientists in general, are not familiar with the term "falsifiability". Since new theories have to be produced or modified to account for new data, it is already built in. We never think about it.-- Filll 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Regrdless of motivation, I think we have done a pretty good (and thorough) job of showing that evolution is falsifiable. As you said, "All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false." We have shown that. I would like to see an article on this, though. That way next time it comes up (and it will), we can just refer back to it.-- Margareta 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas. By the way, fill, I am not a sockpuppet of [ | Ken]. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.-- Margareta 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. -- Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.-- Margareta 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Fill and Orangemarlin, your comments here seem strange, since you've been adding this to another article:
Your behavior might objectively appear to be troll-like in that you take a point raised here on the talk page and troll it to the Creationism article page. Why do you not want falsifiablity addressed on the evolution page? This seems truly inconsistent. Would you care to explain this? Your behavior might be interpreted as you're on a mission, in violation of WP:POINT. 65.73.81.251 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
It seems to me that there is a crucial flaw in the argument that evolution is not falsifiable. If the fossil record somehow indicated in future discoveries that creatures did not actually change, or tests showed that the earth is in fact 5,000 years old, or scientific evidence emerged which showed that genetic mutation does not in fact affect the phenotype of a given animal, or any other of a host of other possible discoveries are shown to be true, the viability of evolution as a scientific theory would dissolve. The problem with previous arguments on the subject is that they assume you must watch as evolution actually happens in order to prove its truth. Under this reasoning, a huge amount of science should be thrown out because it cannot be directly observed: to use Vacuous Poet's earlier example of Astronomy, we shouldn't try to guess at the composition of sun based absorbance of light because you can't actually touch the suns atmosphere and measure it. We shouldn't try to investigate the composition of the atom or the behavior of electrons (this knowledge has been essential to past and current progress in computing and other fields, by the way) because we can't hold it in our hands and watch where an electron goes. The point of my argument is that not all scientific evidence needs to be directly observed with our five senses, in the present; in fact, indirect evidence, such as that used to judge the feasibility of evolution as a theory, must be used in order to further understand the world. Natsirtguy 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. -- Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. We need more references and citations for this. I am not proposing that for this article but for another article. It is a summary for people to understand the differences between creationism and evolution. Please comment.-- Filll 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Does this apply to the talk pages? 65.73.44.65 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
Ymous 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What accusation? 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Very good. I wrote that after my IP was blocked for being a sockpuppet of KdBuffalo. I admit to deleting posts in accordance with WP:NPA 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I find Vacuous Poets claim not to be a creationist disingenious. While not promoting creationist positions, he/she trots out well worn creationist attacks on evolution, both here and on other pages. Proof? VP previously quoted a D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, who it turns out only exists on the internet on four creationist quote mine pages. This page is about the science as it exists today. Unless VP can come up with a scientificly accepted theory that challenges the current theory he/she should be ignored, like the troll he/she is. -- Michael Johnson 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to put something very inflammatory here, but I have thought the better of it. If you can't say something nice....--
Filll
22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I know little about the way evolution works, and I didn't find the article helpful in answering some of the questions I still have. I have heard that wisdom teeth either evolved in order for humans to have an extra set of molars (because of decay) or that it is because our jaws have just gotten smaller and could not accomidate this. Can someone tell me which of the two theories is true? I've also heard that having fewer wisdom teeth today means that you are more "advance" or have evolved (in the context of your dentry), since now humans do not require their wisdom teeth. Is it true that if I lack wisdom teeth, I have more advanced in this sense? I really don't understand how evolution works.
I have also heard that humans have a trend of losing hair (or having our hair become thinner) as we evolve; that is, our ancesters had a lot of thick hair, while we have gradually evolved to having fewer or thinner hair. What is the reason for this? From what I understand of evolution, you only evolve when a new genetic mutation benefits the species in some way so that the new mutation is selected for -- in terms of humans eventually growing to have fewer hair... I don't see how the mutation of less-hair would make much of a difference -- how could we have "evolved away" our body hair?
Assuming that the logic so far is correct, would it mean that having less hair today would mean you are more evolved or "more advanced" in this sense? For example, asians tend to have less body hair (or at least, thinner body hair) than other races from what I know -- would this mean that in this sense, they are more advanced (in that they have "evolved away" their useless hair)? I don't mean more advanced generally speaking, but in the sense of being "further along" in terms of body hair (or lack thereof). I mean, if Homo sapien sapiens have evolved from having a lot of body hair to having less hair, doesn't that mean that those races today with less body hair have evolved? 24.23.51.27 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be good for you to get an account and sign in. Evolution does not make a later species "more advanced" or less advanced, or more or less evolved. This is a common misunderstanding. If there was some strong disadvantage to having wisdom teeth, they would disappear. If there was some strong disadvantage to having body hair, it would disappear. If there is no strong disadvantage, my impression is that it is a matter of genetic drift, but I would bow to any biological experts to weigh in on this. These are examples of vestigial structures, and you can read about them in that article. Humans have at least 180 of these. This was presented as part of the Scopes Monkey Trial in which creationists were roundly and soundly discredited and made to look like complete, well, monkeys (even though they won the case, they lost the battle). -- Filll 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that if humans do not wipe themselves, out, we will end up changing the gene pool through genetic engineering rather than through natural selection.-- Filll 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on. from [9]. Wow we have to revise all those science books. All those Nobel Prizewinners and scientist are dumb !! We had it all wrong-- Filll 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to start a new topic: this topic looks bogus and biased, but its the closest one I could find to the MUTATION section in the main EVOLUTION page. I propose a few comments be added to the following sentences:
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under current environmental conditions are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on alleles to which they are linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. Note that if the environment changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial --
DNAunion
23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A few improvements can be made to this:
Large chromosomal rearrangements do not necessarily change gene function, but do generally result in reproductive isolation, and, by definition, speciation (species (in sexual organisms) are usually defined by the ability to interbreed). An example of this mechanism is the fusion of two chromosomes in the homo genus that produced human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the chimp lineage, resulting in two separate chromosomes in extant chimps.
1) the name of a genus should be capitalized and either underlined or italicized. Therefore, I believe that "in the homo genus" should be changed to "in the Homo genus".
2) Is the parenthetical definition of species needed here? Can't it be eliminated?
3) It would more convincing to point out that the fusion did not occur in chimps, gorillas, or orangutans, which all have the primitive state of possessing 24 pairs of chromosomes, instead of 23 pairs as humans do. --
DNAunion
23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are only some personal disputes removed? E.g., see [ [10]]. 199.62.0.252 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
1. The article does not sufficiently differentiate between evolution in general and evolutionary speciation in particular. Specifically, evolution can be divided into two classes: a. Evolution within a species. b. Evolutionary speciation. The article (and author?) treats them as equal, when in fact there is a quantum leap from a. to b.
2. The first sentence might be improved with "In biology, evolution is the process in which the relative frequencies of inherited traits change through successive generations."
3. The article does not define what term population means.
4. While some in this discussion object to science philosophy with regard to falsifiability of evolutionary speciation, the article relies on science philosophy for definitions of a scientific fact and scientific theory.
5. With regard to falsifiability, 1.a is much easier to show as being falsifiable (read: testable/observable/empirical) than 1.b. Describe in the article how falsifiability is applied to 1.b. From wikipedia's article on the scientific method.
6. "Some people find this offensive because it "degrades" humankind." should have a reference. Otherwise, it sounds like original research.
7. "Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most contemporary scientists consider were neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science..." Reference, please? Sounds like original research, please provide a reference. Scientific theories never limit how they are applied. Not that the misapplication should be removed from the article, but the defensive stance seems to be more soapboxing. This section needs to be reworked with regard to social controversies.
8. The section on speciation would do well enumerate experimental confirmation of speciation in the lab. Please consider the inclusion of a table of the various life forms. E.g., insects in one row, mammals in another row, plants in yet another row, and so on and so forth. In one of the columns list if speciation has been experimentally observed, or if a change in fertility has been observed between two or more distinct populations descended from the same lab ancestry (which does not prove speciation, but it is evidence of moving toward speciation). Another column might explain why speciation has not been experimentally verified in the lab, e.g., because the generation time of some life forms is too long. Do not let concerns with providing so-called "Mythical God-believing fundamentalist Christians" ammunition dissuade you from making the article better and more informative.
I'll add more in the future as time goes on. Meanwhile, please consider these suggestions, but please do not take them personally. I like the new fill who is trying to avoid personal attacks. 74.33.26.71 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I am just wondering what the right response is. They want to find someone to play word games with, and play the same games over and over. They are not interested in knowledge or learning, as near as I can determine, but just being trolls. I do think that Wikipedia needs to have some good articles where people looking to defend themselves from this sort of crap can go to get information and links to other sites. But should it in be in the science article itself? Just wondering... If we deleted that material, and then just deleted people like vacuous poet on sight, then how long would a given creationist nut try to disrupt things?-- Filll 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And Filll continues to delete messages on a talk page that he has NO BUSINESS deleting. None. If a post agrees with his factually inaccurate view of Evolution, it stays. If it disagrees, he removes it.
Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias.
12.145.177.110 21:41, 27 December 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Original: The theory of natural selection was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.[2][4][5] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[6]
Maybe:
The theory of natural selection was originally presented in 1858 in (separate) a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of Natural Selection increases the probability (chance) that organisms with favorable traits will survive and thus reproduce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they (are) may be passed to the offspring; thus, the trait becomes more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
The strike throughs are optional proposals for the words enclosed in (). Wasn't sure which would better serve since the change might be more than cosmetic . I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of the last sentences so I left it intact. Up for consideration by the masses ... -- Random Replicator 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am guessing (just a guess however) that
Also:
The reason to use "might" instead of "may" is that it is better English. In everyday usage, people use both words, as well as "can" or "could" to express possibility. In some versions of English and formal English, "may" is reserved for permission and "can" is reserved for ability. If you want to take a look at the various nuances and different versions, take a look at [1] and [2] to start with, which I will point out do not agree with each other completely. Also take a look at [3] or [4]. I would probably choose "can", meaning "being able" as my first choice. Might to me suggests more stochasticity, or possibility, but maybe that is the sense that is needed here. May to me can be used to express both of these, but to me it still smacks more of permission. Could has more of a subjunctive feel and seems more complicated, although I am a bit uncertain. Sometimes if you publish in one place or another there will be a style manual that will dictate one usage over another. That is why professional editors exist. There is no hard and fast rule in many of these circumstances, and the rules change with time anyway. -- Filll 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A bit of space to regroup my thoughts
Ok ... I'm not sure if that is a thumbs up or thumbs down but lets try again ... shall we?
One is the original ... one has been changed ... Do you know which is which? .... no cheating ... now which is the better A or B?
A. The theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The process of natural selection is a mechanism that increases the chance that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. Those that survive produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. If the favorable traits are heritable, they are passed to the offspring. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
vs.
B. The theory of natural selection was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
vs.
C. The theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory was later popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book, The Origin of Species. The mechanisms of natural selection increase the chances that organisms with favorable characteristics will survive. Those that survive produce more offspring than their competitors with less desirable traits. Therefore, the favorable traits become more common in the next generation. In time, this passive process results in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
Should you see anything in the text of either choice, that is just plain "silly' by all means suggest an edit. --
Random Replicator
23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus: This issue may need even future clarifications: ie... rework the first sentence for clarity ...
"Although Wallace had not requested that his essay be published, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker decided to present the essay, together with excerpts from a paper that Darwin had written in 1844." Each had his own paper... yes? no? -- Random Replicator 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember this was originally the opening of the article, so probably has more explanations than are now necessary. That said, though, should we just spin this article off? Adam Cuerden talk 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the line about "heritable" essential for content. It reads better without it. Are we trying to avoid the pitfalls of Lamarckism and aquired characteristics. See Option C above and voice your opinions, Not to be biased but I like it without the line as Titanium suggest. A bigger question, will anyone be willing to make the actual change in the evolution bible, I've not the courage.-- Random Replicator 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, a pedantic point: the 1859 title is On the Origin of Species. Bits of each are useful, so here's my suggestion: ... dave souza, talk 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
D. An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, which eventually convinced the scientific community that evolution occurs. Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms best adapted to their circumstances are more likely to survive and successfully reproduce. If the adaptations are passed on to the offspring, the favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations. In time, this passive process can result in cumulative adaptations to meet different environmental conditions, to the extent that a new species is formed resulting in a new species.
D2. An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms best adapted to their circumstances are more likely to survive and successfully reproduce. If the adaptations are passed on to the offspring, the favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations. In time, cumulative adaptations can result in a new species being formed.
It looks good to me, but I am no expert. You should have a few experts in the area check it out.-- Filll 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. I retained the references because I think they are needed in the rest of the paper, plus I just like references in general. We will see if it meets with a firestorm of disapproval.-- Filll 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should cut the history of evolution section, including the Modern Synthesis subsection, or at least trim it to one or two paragraphs. What purpose does such a very long section serve? Adam Cuerden talk 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should cut it but reference the history article and give a brief synopsis of the main points. This has come up before and most editors thought it remiss not to mention the subject. I think it is too long for this article since it has a spin off. GetAgrippa 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The history of evolutionary thought is fascinating and deserves a very full article of its own. I would even favor expanding the current history of evolutionary thought article, as long as it had a nice accessible introduction of course. All we need here is the briefest of summaries and a pointer to the other article. Many people want to shove everything into the main article, and everything into the introduction. I think that is not helpful, and results in an unreadable inaccessible mess. There is nothing wrong with farming out other specialty topic areas to other articles. If someone is interested in that particular subject, they can go to that specific article. If not, they can avoid it. For example, in the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon article, we wrote basically three or four histories; a one sentence introductory statement, a very brief set of 7 highlight statements, a historical summary consisting of 7 short paragraphs covering prehistory and 500 years of European habitation, and a more extended multiple section history. The one sentence statement, 7 highlight statements and historical summary were retained in the main article, and these with the extended history were sent to their own article, History of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Readers with different needs can choose which versions they want to utilize, giving them control over how they want to access the information, how much information they want and how they want it packaged. And that is what makes an information delivery venue, like a well-written Wikipedia article, a good one. That is why having short sentences and clear words, not requiring excessive use of links, breaking the text into reasonable paragraphs and short sections with good titles to break it up, and so on, is so important; the reader can control their information assimilation experience.-- Filll 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does have a separate article. I hope the material we cut from this one is all in the separate history of evolutionary thought article. It probably needs work. I at least thought about it for a minute or two and still might take it on, although I am no expert. On the issue of highlights and timelines, what exactly would you prefer? A graphic display of a timeline ? or ? -- Filll 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Having many editors is wonderful but sometimes it produces splashes instead of flow. It seems it needs to be better organized and introduce next subject for flow. Cooperation should be in Mechanisms of Evolution section. Variation section should introduce Heredity, Recombination, Mutation, and Gene flow- HGT and hybridization. Then each section goes into detail. The Mechanisms of Evolution section then address what nature does with the variation. Then side issues like history and social stuff at bottom. It would be nice to have examples of speciation with pics of something plant, fish, or insect and demonstrate microevolution (Fill brought how naive people are of examples of speciation we can actually see). Macroevolution should address uniformity at molecular level, evodevo correlates, and something like horse evolution illustration or something. Horse is great example because it demonstrate that evolution is not linear but a web and how environment influenced changes. Perhaps talk about sickle cell and malaria and environmental change that precipitated the success of this trait. GetAgrippa 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
After the creationist talk just archived I think we need verbal and visual of speciation so that point will be neutralized. GetAgrippa 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts.
2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts DC across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of DC current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of a 1-2 kG object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer). It is interesting to note that at times in history the other hypothesis was deemed correct by the majority of scientists. Of course, scientific truth does not submit to the will of the majority of scientists.
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwin supporters (those who claim that new species evolve from old via evolution) claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well and good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences--
This is a valid discussion, and I request that you not stifle the discussion. From a logical and scientific perspective, the article has problems, one of which is the failure to identify what it would take to prove the theory of evolutionary speciation incorrect.
170.215.45.95 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. They are part of what make us all different and believed to be the genetic basis of many diseases. Scientist are scrutinizing the human genome looking for SNP's related to disease. Hardy-Weinberg is used by evolutionist and geneticist to test the independence of alleles within loci (it is used in forensic science also). GetAgrippa 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why distinquish biology as a softer science. I would argue just the opposite. Does a theory have to be consistent with observable facts? In physics, I would argue that relativity or quantum-string theory often defies logic or at least observable is relative to the observer. A theory has to be tested by methods that are observable, but may seem paradoxical to observed facts. Like cooperation in a competitive world. Any logic used against evolution is basically against all science, medicine, agriculture, genetic, neuroethology, immunology, physiology, metabolism, disease,etc. They are all linked by a common origin, so I can study chick or zebra fish development and it is applicable in many ways to human. Exploring the dog genome is useful in understanding human disease. Humans have taken advantage of evolution principal to domesticate animals and plants by artificial selection-biodesign. I can isolate some genes from a bacteria and use them to correct a gene defect in a human. It is capricious to pick on evolution without any thought to the repercussions of that statement. Creationist should dismiss modern medicine, agriculture, and any benefits from basic research with the arguments they hold. I like others hold evolution scientist responsible for failing to communicate the ideas of evolution that are beneficial and have no bearing on any faith. GetAgrippa 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.
In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.
Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg. GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Evolution can create new species, but it doesn't have to. For instance, take the peppered moth, a classic example. They became darker, then lighter again in response to their environment. No speciation, but evolution. The changes in beak size/body size amongst some finches in the galapagos is another example. Titanium Dragon 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see Falsifiability before adding to this section.
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do [supporters of Darwin's theory on the origin of species] claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences? VacuousPoet 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Exactly. Consequently, your rabbit example would not falsify the theory, it would only modify the theory. VacuousPoet 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Sit around and wait? The point is what is the experiment, that if it failed, would prove that the evolutionary origin of species was an incorrect thoery. Not that the experiment would fail. In your exmaple, if I waited for 10 million years, and did not observe the creation of a single new species, it would not *prove* evolution wrong. To a Darwinist, it would prove that no mutations sufficient to create a new species occured in this 10 million year window. Consequently, your suggestion to wait does not meet the standard. Regarding the fossil record, the theory of the evolutionary origin of species is a good story, a model, but I don't think it is a good scientific theory, because no experiment exists that could disprove it, at least none has been provided so far. VacuousPoet 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet.
Prove I am a creationist, or recant. You're attempting to avoid the valid criticism by lumping the person who brings it up with a group that you believe would discredit the criticism. 70.59.125.17 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I never knew mules were sometimes fertile. The point was regarding the definition of a species, though. The gernalization I have heard numerous times (for the general public) was that species can create hybrids, but the hybrids are never fertile.). Even so, I do not claim that this definition is now, or ever was, considered to be the scientific definition. I'll do some looking into your claim of fertile mules. And now, please, follow up on my rabbit question. VacuousPoet ] 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Hi, Vacuous Poet. The answer to your question is (in a sense) very simple. It is a proven fact that organisms change over generations. You acknowledge this. Your only remaining problem is that you want to know when to call it a new "species" - and you are not alone in finding this a difficulty. The concept of a "species" is in fact somewhat arbitrary, a matter of trying to draw a line (maybe largely for human convenience) where none really exists in such a hard-and-fast way - as demonstrated by the constant redefining of species boundaries in lumping and splitting by taxonomists. It's actually a problem of definition - of how far apart two organisms need to be to be considered separate species - not a problem with the theory (and fact) of evolution. Snalwibma 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Popper was making a statement of logic. Falsifiable is not false but just an alternative from what I gather. Interestingly, I could only find six publications by Popper in Pubmed. I've also noted a number of living scientist in various fields have articles. What qualifies having an article as some seem like advertisement as there are so many other notable names in the field? Popper must have books out or something more than six papers. GetAgrippa 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Brainless Vacuous Poet. You have no right to delete posts. I went in here and I saw that you've deleted numerous posts just because you didn't like them. I ought to revert them all, but I don't have the time. You delete anything I've written again, and I'll propose that you be blocked from here. Once again you have NO right to do that under any condition. If you don't like the tone, and we're convinced, I'll change it. Typical censoring Christian apologist.
OrangeMarlin
16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing that is not so evident from what is here are the exchanges that were deleted, and the material that was archived already over the last few days. With creationists, it sometimes starts out simple, and then when they refuse to do anything but be obstructionist for days on end, people lose patience. That is my interpretation.-- Filll 18:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I might be incorrect, I suspect that several different names that we encountered here with similar questions over the past week are just one person. Part of the difficulty with the concept of falsifiability is some confusion and disagreement about what it really means. To me, falsifiability means that one can test the current explanation of the data and cause the explanation to be replaced with another explanation. These explanations are of course called "theories" in science. If it is a small change, then only some details of the theory are changed or refined. If a big change is required, the scientist who is able to force the change (like Michelson and Morley testing the ether theories, for example) will have accomplished something very substantial, and it is something that scientists try very hard to do. So the new evidence that forces the theory to change to accomodate it is exactly what is meant by falsifiability. It demonstrates that the scientific system is working as it is supposed to. Creationism or other religious type beliefs is different. First, the supporters do not try to find replacement versions, the way scientists try to replace the dominant evolution theory. The explanation does not change, has never changed, and cannot change by definition. What does change, however, are the convoluted explanations dredged up to protect the explanation from attack: "God made the earth appear old to test our faith", "The speed of light is variable", and so on. All kinds of ancillary explanations are created to protect the main explanation at all costs. A creationism supporter who did not do this would be rejected as a blasphemer. A scientist who was able to scientifically demonstrate evidence that was not in accord with the NeoDarwinist theory would be heralded as a genius. A scientist who attempted to bend over backwards to protect a dominant theory in the face of all evidence to the contrary would soon be marginalized. This has happened in the past, because the most important thing in science is NOT the explanation, but the FIT between the predictions of the theory and the data. The most important thing in creationism/religion is the explanation and NOT the fit between the explanations and the data. In creationism, new theories will be produced to avoid ever changing the explanation:
and on and on and on. And does anyone actually believe that creationists are at all interested in changing the main explanation, or rejecting biblical inerrancy?-- Filll 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN HIGHJACKED. I tried to keep responses on topic, because too many of the responses were resorting to ad hominems, ignoring the point of the section, attempting to bait me as though I were a fundementalist christian on a mission to suppress science, etc. Please please stick to the subject of the thread!!!! If I am not allowed to removed posts which clearly have nothing to do with the subject of the section, but are instead intended to harrass, intimidate, obfuscate, and otherwise take cheap shots, would somebody else please do so? Thanks. 199.62.0.252 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Vacuous, I am sure I have answered your questions before when you had a different name or IP address. I and others have answered over and over. However, my past experiences with creationists lead me to suspect
Fill, you wrote No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God I did some reading, and if creationists are saying such things, it may be a case of them not understanding their own Bible. At least, differences of opinion exist within the community that interprets the Bible literally. For example, one popular commentator, E.W. Bullinger[ [5]], cites 2Pet3:6 regarding the "World that was," and interpret that to mean the time from which fossils come. To quote: 'Creation in eternity past, to which all Fossils and "Remains" belong.' This isn't a young Earth theory, or a God or the devil played a practical joke theory. It might be an escape valve, but it slightly more complex than the ones you attributed. If you're going to speak for creationists, you might employ some of your research skills to help ensure that you speak accurately. 65.73.44.65 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Thanks.-- Filll 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me why you think I am a creationist? Please give me just one single example where I "cut and paste from a creationist website." This thread should be deleted. If fill is unable to provide a single example of me cutting and pasting from a creationist website, I think that is all we need to know about his credibility. Please show me where, except for the post on the rabbit, my question has been addressed. And even with the rabbit rebuttal, I had a follow-up question which was valid, but sadly, ignored. That was, in my view, the most promising example of a falsifiable counter-argument (your rabbit example). But you failed to respond to my follow up question. I am not going in circles. I am just not chasing after red herrings (e.g., some have provided exaxmples of experiments that support the theory of the evolutionary origin of species, but the question was regarding the conceivable experiment that, if failed, would disprove the theory.) Good try at your ad hominem, though. And regarding your philosophically deep questions, you know as well as I do that they are complicated, and have driven some men insaine. Ultimately, the answers depend upon premises. I did already articulate, I think, falsifiability with regard to scientific theories, and even admitted, initially, that the theory of evolutionary origin of species is not the only so-called theory to not meet the criteria. VacuousPoet 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I will give you my provisional working definitions, just in my own words off the top of my head:
Now, how about your definitions?-- Filll 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Your definitions are good enough. I'll cut and paste yours, or you can just pretend that I did. Proof exists in logic and philosophy, too, unless you consider both to be branches of mathematics. And regarding scientific truth, I think there is a whole spectrum. It seems to me that the theory of the evolutionary species is not on par with the law (or theory) of gravity, though. I am surprised that you do not require a scientist to hold a Ph.D. and be published in a suitable peer reviewed journal, though. 199.62.0.252 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Gravity | Evolution |
---|---|
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other. | Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change. |
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity. | Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution. |
Gravity is a "fact". | Evolution is a "fact". |
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation. | The "facts" of evolution require an explanation. |
Aristotle and Galileo created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Newton created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes but turned out to require refinement. | Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations. Darwin created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes, but turned out to require refinement. |
Einstein's explanation, refining Newton's is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity. | The Neo-Darwinist explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution. |
Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity. | The Neo-Darwinist explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution. |
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory." | Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory." |
So how is the theory of evolution not on a par with the theory of evolution? In what aspect?-- Filll 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That is my impression. Working scientists do not worry about falsifiability. It has arisen in these debates with creationists in recent decades as one of the ways that scientists can use to discriminate between science, like evolution, and nonscience or pseudoscience, like creationism and intelligent design. Now the vacuous poet is attempting to use it back on evolution like a weapon. It really is a concept from philosophy of science. Real scientists do not worry about it because they know garbage like intelligent design or creation science when they see it. Basically if there is no evidence for the theory , it is all crap.-- Filll 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Vacuous Poet, you clearly are not a biological scientist. You have admitted to being an unpublished scientist. You also clearly are not a physical scientist. So what kind of scientist are you? What you have written about Newton's laws being modified at the "boundaries of matter/space/time" is complete nonsense. It is clear to me that you do not know very much at all about gravity. Or physical science. Or biology. What kind of scientist are you? Then you claim that Einstein's theory was hard science, I guess as opposed to evolution. So what makes a science hard and not soft? (these are completely vague terms). Is it making predictions that can later be verified? Evolution does that. Is it making quantitative predictions? Evolution and genetics do that; ever hear of bioinformatics? biostatistics? Even the paper you found that you claimed proved evolution was wrong was about some sophisticated mathematical modeling. Does having repeatable experiments make a science hard? Evolution has repeatable experiments. You claim that the modification of Newton's laws came faster than the modifications to Darwin's theory. Well I count more than 225 years between Newton's theory and Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory was met with great disdain at first (so was Newton's). These were not universally accepted by any means. If people with your attitudes had been running things at the time, these men might have been imprisoned like Galileo was for their theories, or even executed for these theories. These sorts of things were viewed as a threat to religion just as Evolution was (and by some fruitcakes, is still viewed as such). It has not been 225 years since Darwin's origin of the species; more like 137 years. And it had already been modified several times, including the first time in just a few years by the incorporation of genetic information to form NeoDarwinism. So the temporal argument you make is complete hogwash as well. And as for the species arguments, do you know what a species is? I think that the problem is, you only have one answer you want to hear in mind. And nothing else will satisfy you. Isn't that correct?-- Filll 13:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you expect to be able to define your own standards for what you will accept as experimental ... proof of evolution: Please explain how you inferred this? Do you really think that it is possible to have a dog turn into a deer in the laboratory by watching them change over generations?: No. Why do you think that. I just pointed out that as a person who is not a biologist, it is easy to see that a deer is a different species than a dog, and hard to see that a fruit fly is a different speicies than its descendants that still look, act, and smell like fruit flies. It is like telling Einstein, show me gravity bending my flashlight beam in the lab and I will believe: Einstien's theory is falsifiable. If you could have enough mass sufficient to measure the bending of light in the lab, it would either be validate or falsify it. The experiment does not actually have to be done. However, the evolutionary origin of species, unlike the Einstein example, doesn't propose that species X will turn into species Y within N generation under environment E. If it did, it would be falsifiable, even if the experiment could not yet be performed. 74.33.29.35 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Not a problem. I think those are difficult questions. I know various definitions of species exist, and my level of understanding is somewhere between the Folk concept and Biological Concept. It is most easy for me to understand mammals. 65.73.44.65 06:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
As I originally thought Falsifiable is just another alternative. Evolution is a fact like gravity, however there are and have been alternative mechanisms and theory to explain the fact, so the issue is mute. Evolution theory is falsifiable and continues to be so as it is changing with more info. Orthogenesis and Lamarckism have been ruled out as alternative theory. GetAgrippa 12:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I decided this page was probably not the place one was going to get many answers to the question of "what would falsify evolution," (besides Precambrian rabbits--not that hat wasn't a good example) so I went looking for what other people had to say on the matter. For anyone who's interested, here is a sampling of some other ideas:
As I mentioned above, I was interested in the answer to this question because it is the sort of thing I could easily see myself called upon to answer, and I wasn't confident in my own ability to address it. These examples may not satisfy everyone, but they do me.-- Margareta 07:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Dionyseus, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't actually trying to say that any of these things have happened, thus I wasn't seeking explanations for any of them (no one has found Precambrian bunnies, either). What I meant was, these are examples of things that, if they were to happen (none of them have), they could potentially falsify evolution. Thus, the existence of these hypothetical situations that could falsify evolution makes evolution falsifiable (not falsified). This was in response to the long threads above regarding whether evolution is falsifiable. So in the places where you said you did not understand, perhaps it was because you were thinking I meant that someone had discovered those things?-- Margareta 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That they're impossible doesn't mean they're bad examples. Apples flying upwards would falsify gravity, but it's impossible for apples to fly upwards because gravity is a fact. The examples given above would falsify evolution, but evolution is a fact so those examples are impossible.-- Margareta 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great and thoughtful replies, everyone. I just want to clarify a few things.
In short, in answer to the question of "how could evolution be falsified," all you really need to do is take any of the proofs of evolution and imagine its opposite. Of course it's a purely intllectual excercise. Apples don't fly up and genetic information is passed on. But an intellectual excercise is all that's been asked of us: present an example that, if true, would disprove evolution. And here we are. Maybe you don't agree that any one of these would amount to disproof, but certainly several of them together would. One or two might even do so in isolation.
A merry Christmas (to those of you who celebrate it, of course) and a big thanks to Delta Tango for a great laugh this morning!-- Margareta 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As GetAgrippa points out, real scientists do not worry about falsifiability. The reason is that falsifiability is already built in to real science because it is inherently part of the scientific method.
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here. However I will admit that this has revealed more good information, but we are still getting our chains yanked by creationists.
As I understand falsifiability, it is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not. And it has been used in the battles with creationists, to try to distinguish between science and pseudoscience like creationism.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false. Any tests. They might not be easy to perform, or might be very unlikely to produce the contrary result. If you do, the theory is falsifiable.
In creation science, there are no tests that one can perform to demonstrate that the "theory" is false, because the "theory" is true by definition, by fiat, by declaration ab initio. So Creationism/Creation Science/Intelligent Design etc are not falsifiable.
The very fact that scientific theories would change and have to adapt to new data, and have already done so, is proof that they are falsifiable. And that is the distinction between evolution and creation science.
The creationists who visit us are using falsifiability as a weapon against us, to try to claim that evolution is not falsifiable, and that evolution is a religion like creationism. They are taking advantage of the fact that evolution scientists, and scientists in general, are not familiar with the term "falsifiability". Since new theories have to be produced or modified to account for new data, it is already built in. We never think about it.-- Filll 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Regrdless of motivation, I think we have done a pretty good (and thorough) job of showing that evolution is falsifiable. As you said, "All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false." We have shown that. I would like to see an article on this, though. That way next time it comes up (and it will), we can just refer back to it.-- Margareta 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas. By the way, fill, I am not a sockpuppet of [ | Ken]. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.-- Margareta 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. -- Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.-- Margareta 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Fill and Orangemarlin, your comments here seem strange, since you've been adding this to another article:
Your behavior might objectively appear to be troll-like in that you take a point raised here on the talk page and troll it to the Creationism article page. Why do you not want falsifiablity addressed on the evolution page? This seems truly inconsistent. Would you care to explain this? Your behavior might be interpreted as you're on a mission, in violation of WP:POINT. 65.73.81.251 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
It seems to me that there is a crucial flaw in the argument that evolution is not falsifiable. If the fossil record somehow indicated in future discoveries that creatures did not actually change, or tests showed that the earth is in fact 5,000 years old, or scientific evidence emerged which showed that genetic mutation does not in fact affect the phenotype of a given animal, or any other of a host of other possible discoveries are shown to be true, the viability of evolution as a scientific theory would dissolve. The problem with previous arguments on the subject is that they assume you must watch as evolution actually happens in order to prove its truth. Under this reasoning, a huge amount of science should be thrown out because it cannot be directly observed: to use Vacuous Poet's earlier example of Astronomy, we shouldn't try to guess at the composition of sun based absorbance of light because you can't actually touch the suns atmosphere and measure it. We shouldn't try to investigate the composition of the atom or the behavior of electrons (this knowledge has been essential to past and current progress in computing and other fields, by the way) because we can't hold it in our hands and watch where an electron goes. The point of my argument is that not all scientific evidence needs to be directly observed with our five senses, in the present; in fact, indirect evidence, such as that used to judge the feasibility of evolution as a theory, must be used in order to further understand the world. Natsirtguy 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. -- Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. We need more references and citations for this. I am not proposing that for this article but for another article. It is a summary for people to understand the differences between creationism and evolution. Please comment.-- Filll 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Does this apply to the talk pages? 65.73.44.65 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
Ymous 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What accusation? 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Very good. I wrote that after my IP was blocked for being a sockpuppet of KdBuffalo. I admit to deleting posts in accordance with WP:NPA 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I find Vacuous Poets claim not to be a creationist disingenious. While not promoting creationist positions, he/she trots out well worn creationist attacks on evolution, both here and on other pages. Proof? VP previously quoted a D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, who it turns out only exists on the internet on four creationist quote mine pages. This page is about the science as it exists today. Unless VP can come up with a scientificly accepted theory that challenges the current theory he/she should be ignored, like the troll he/she is. -- Michael Johnson 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to put something very inflammatory here, but I have thought the better of it. If you can't say something nice....--
Filll
22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I know little about the way evolution works, and I didn't find the article helpful in answering some of the questions I still have. I have heard that wisdom teeth either evolved in order for humans to have an extra set of molars (because of decay) or that it is because our jaws have just gotten smaller and could not accomidate this. Can someone tell me which of the two theories is true? I've also heard that having fewer wisdom teeth today means that you are more "advance" or have evolved (in the context of your dentry), since now humans do not require their wisdom teeth. Is it true that if I lack wisdom teeth, I have more advanced in this sense? I really don't understand how evolution works.
I have also heard that humans have a trend of losing hair (or having our hair become thinner) as we evolve; that is, our ancesters had a lot of thick hair, while we have gradually evolved to having fewer or thinner hair. What is the reason for this? From what I understand of evolution, you only evolve when a new genetic mutation benefits the species in some way so that the new mutation is selected for -- in terms of humans eventually growing to have fewer hair... I don't see how the mutation of less-hair would make much of a difference -- how could we have "evolved away" our body hair?
Assuming that the logic so far is correct, would it mean that having less hair today would mean you are more evolved or "more advanced" in this sense? For example, asians tend to have less body hair (or at least, thinner body hair) than other races from what I know -- would this mean that in this sense, they are more advanced (in that they have "evolved away" their useless hair)? I don't mean more advanced generally speaking, but in the sense of being "further along" in terms of body hair (or lack thereof). I mean, if Homo sapien sapiens have evolved from having a lot of body hair to having less hair, doesn't that mean that those races today with less body hair have evolved? 24.23.51.27 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be good for you to get an account and sign in. Evolution does not make a later species "more advanced" or less advanced, or more or less evolved. This is a common misunderstanding. If there was some strong disadvantage to having wisdom teeth, they would disappear. If there was some strong disadvantage to having body hair, it would disappear. If there is no strong disadvantage, my impression is that it is a matter of genetic drift, but I would bow to any biological experts to weigh in on this. These are examples of vestigial structures, and you can read about them in that article. Humans have at least 180 of these. This was presented as part of the Scopes Monkey Trial in which creationists were roundly and soundly discredited and made to look like complete, well, monkeys (even though they won the case, they lost the battle). -- Filll 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that if humans do not wipe themselves, out, we will end up changing the gene pool through genetic engineering rather than through natural selection.-- Filll 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on. from [9]. Wow we have to revise all those science books. All those Nobel Prizewinners and scientist are dumb !! We had it all wrong-- Filll 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to start a new topic: this topic looks bogus and biased, but its the closest one I could find to the MUTATION section in the main EVOLUTION page. I propose a few comments be added to the following sentences:
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under current environmental conditions are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on alleles to which they are linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. Note that if the environment changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial --
DNAunion
23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A few improvements can be made to this:
Large chromosomal rearrangements do not necessarily change gene function, but do generally result in reproductive isolation, and, by definition, speciation (species (in sexual organisms) are usually defined by the ability to interbreed). An example of this mechanism is the fusion of two chromosomes in the homo genus that produced human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the chimp lineage, resulting in two separate chromosomes in extant chimps.
1) the name of a genus should be capitalized and either underlined or italicized. Therefore, I believe that "in the homo genus" should be changed to "in the Homo genus".
2) Is the parenthetical definition of species needed here? Can't it be eliminated?
3) It would more convincing to point out that the fusion did not occur in chimps, gorillas, or orangutans, which all have the primitive state of possessing 24 pairs of chromosomes, instead of 23 pairs as humans do. --
DNAunion
23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are only some personal disputes removed? E.g., see [ [10]]. 199.62.0.252 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
1. The article does not sufficiently differentiate between evolution in general and evolutionary speciation in particular. Specifically, evolution can be divided into two classes: a. Evolution within a species. b. Evolutionary speciation. The article (and author?) treats them as equal, when in fact there is a quantum leap from a. to b.
2. The first sentence might be improved with "In biology, evolution is the process in which the relative frequencies of inherited traits change through successive generations."
3. The article does not define what term population means.
4. While some in this discussion object to science philosophy with regard to falsifiability of evolutionary speciation, the article relies on science philosophy for definitions of a scientific fact and scientific theory.
5. With regard to falsifiability, 1.a is much easier to show as being falsifiable (read: testable/observable/empirical) than 1.b. Describe in the article how falsifiability is applied to 1.b. From wikipedia's article on the scientific method.
6. "Some people find this offensive because it "degrades" humankind." should have a reference. Otherwise, it sounds like original research.
7. "Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most contemporary scientists consider were neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science..." Reference, please? Sounds like original research, please provide a reference. Scientific theories never limit how they are applied. Not that the misapplication should be removed from the article, but the defensive stance seems to be more soapboxing. This section needs to be reworked with regard to social controversies.
8. The section on speciation would do well enumerate experimental confirmation of speciation in the lab. Please consider the inclusion of a table of the various life forms. E.g., insects in one row, mammals in another row, plants in yet another row, and so on and so forth. In one of the columns list if speciation has been experimentally observed, or if a change in fertility has been observed between two or more distinct populations descended from the same lab ancestry (which does not prove speciation, but it is evidence of moving toward speciation). Another column might explain why speciation has not been experimentally verified in the lab, e.g., because the generation time of some life forms is too long. Do not let concerns with providing so-called "Mythical God-believing fundamentalist Christians" ammunition dissuade you from making the article better and more informative.
I'll add more in the future as time goes on. Meanwhile, please consider these suggestions, but please do not take them personally. I like the new fill who is trying to avoid personal attacks. 74.33.26.71 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I am just wondering what the right response is. They want to find someone to play word games with, and play the same games over and over. They are not interested in knowledge or learning, as near as I can determine, but just being trolls. I do think that Wikipedia needs to have some good articles where people looking to defend themselves from this sort of crap can go to get information and links to other sites. But should it in be in the science article itself? Just wondering... If we deleted that material, and then just deleted people like vacuous poet on sight, then how long would a given creationist nut try to disrupt things?-- Filll 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And Filll continues to delete messages on a talk page that he has NO BUSINESS deleting. None. If a post agrees with his factually inaccurate view of Evolution, it stays. If it disagrees, he removes it.
Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias.
12.145.177.110 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)