Talk:Evolution/Archive 9

message: I added this section in an attempt to dispel a common myth that I often come across. Many people believe that certain organisms are superior to other since they evolved more recently, or because they are more complex. Also, there is the myth that evolution will one day culminate in an ultimate species. These are both myths under the theory of evolution and I thought warranted some mention and that the direction of evolution would be an appropriate heading since we often all forget that each organism fulfilling its niche is a perfect organism for its present environment. I mean, Hallucenogenia must have made sense when it was alive even if we have no idea how it lived. --Waterspyder 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of evolution 

message: I would like to add a section to this article called: "Evidence that challenges the theory of evolution" or something to that affect would anyone object to this? Please let me know so i can get started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  86.6.102.67 (talk • contribs) October 5, 2005.
:Would you care to outline your proposed changes here on the Talk page?  Guettarda 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that such a proposal should be outlined here first.  Barnaby dawson 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well let's hear it lad!  I would love to contribute.  Salva 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, please discuss your ideas here first. And sign up for a username so we can better respond to your information and concerns. Vsmith 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please bare in mind that biblical quotations are not forms of evidence. We await your assault with baited breath... Aaarrrggh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New question

message: In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.  WAS 4.250 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact versus theory

message: Nobody disputes microevolution anymore. There's no question about it. Evolution is happening. To most, macroevolution is just a matter of time and scale.
Take for example the 'theory of gravity.' (I'm being serious here) We don't really know how gravity works, but we know that gravity is happening. We have theories as to how it works, but they will always be just theories. There's still no 100% guarentee that the next time I drop something it'll fall to the ground.
So in the same light, evolution happened. How it happened, we're not entirely sure (although we've got a pretty good idea), but we know it happened. There's too much evidence.
Similarly, it's pointless to worry about creationism. We are evolving (however slowly). Maybe god fast forwarded the first few million years, nobody knows. And we can't ever prove what happened either way. To be on the safe side though, let's teach about those million years (since something clearly happened).
Well, that, or some deity's just messing with us, in which case there's really no point to worrying about it.
::(I was not responsible for writing the preceding unsigned statements) -- Yes, Shouldn't we still remain incredulous as to the precise means by which life originated?  Why is it reasonable for either side, creationist or evolutionist, to lay claim to what they deem an infallible explanation worthy of a science classroom or an encyclopedia article? Salva 19:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Macroevolution and microevolution are creationist PR terms. Real scientists (unlike agenda-pushing creationist) make no such distinction. →Raul654 21:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You don't understand science at all.  The only time you can ever prove anything is in mathematics.  You should go read up on The TalkOrigins Archive.  It will help clear up a lot of your misunderstandings of science.  And yes, evolution is a fact, much in the same way that radioactive decay is a fact.  We observe both, therefore they are facts.  The theory of evolution is the framework by which we explain the fact of evolution using descent with modification and natural selection.  --Cyde 16:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 1) You didn't sign your comments, nor did you log in with a name. 2) Arguments against the completeness or omniscience of formal logic are irrelevant to evolution.  Likewise, attempts at burden tennis are boring and futile.  The points you bring up have been routinely used by creationists and refuted by scientists, so there is nothing novel or valuable to them. 3) Speaking of which, this isn't even a debate forum, so why are you bringing these up?  You're trolling in the wrong waters, but I hear there's a talk.origins newsgroup where you'll fit right in.  Maybe you should seek it out and leave us all alone. Alienus 13:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that proof in the mathematical sense applies to math, not science.  In science, if we speak of proof, we mean sufficient evidence.  In short, the guy doesn't just fail to understand science, but fails to use the meaning of terms as appropriate to their context.  Of course, he links to creationist sites, so this is to be expected. Alienus 18:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution happened. 

message: :"It is important to note, however, that evolution has been disproven as a scitentific theory many times, and that it carries no true scientific application. All apparent proofs of evolution have been disproven or uncovered as hoaxes. It is a purely religious ideology."
I decided to remove this until editor presented evidence that is alluded to in the statement.  Psy guy (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I thought I removed it, but another editor did it first. :-)  Psy guy (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That was clearly vandalism. Just ignore it. There's no reason to mention it here, even. Just revert it, and hope ignorance is terminal. -- Ec5618 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Evolution 

message: ====There is no goal of evolution====
Species are constantly evolving. There is no devolving. Even if an organism evolves a trait that was characteristic of an ancestor, this is still an evolutionary adaptation and should not be associated with any sort of reversal. 
Additionally, evolution does not always create organisms that are increasingly suited to their environment, and will often do the opposite. Organisms that evolve that do not suit their environment typically die off.
There is no correct or ultimate goal for evolution to achieve.
----
Not only is it horribly written, it doesn't seem to make a point. The concept of devolution may deserve a mention, the rest is already explained in the article. -- Ec5618 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Find an outside, notable source that says something about "no devolution" and quote them. Otherwise its a bit too much of "original research". FuelWagon 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I think I may have been a little too tired when I wrote that. Essentially what I mean to say is there is no intentional direction for evolution. This was a concept drilled into me by Jim Fenwick, PhD and Professor at the University of Ottawa (who did indeed say repeatedly "There is no such thing as de-evolution". In Discover Biology  by Michael L. Cain, Hans Damman, Robert A. Lue and Carol Kaesuk Yoon, (WW Norton & Co, New York: 2000), on page 296 it is summarized under the heading "Biological Evolution: The Sum of Genetic Changes". Key highlights include a very important explaination of evolution as descent with modification. The work explains that evolution does not have a "designer", but is simply a function of the way in which heritable characteristics are passed on. The main reason I find it nessecary is because several people are approaching me to clarify "what they learned on wikipedia" and direction of evolution can honestly be a one-liner included somewhere in the article, but I do feel that it is necessary to at least mention that evolution does not necessarily occur for an ultimate goal ("is not teleological" as Fastfission phrases it). Thanks --Waterspyder 02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You know, creationism should go in this article long before Devo does. I say no mention of devolution at all. Graft 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't Dollo's Law try to preclude devolution? Just namedropping. -- Ec5618 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never actually heard of that law before, but yeah, that summarizes the gist of it. --Waterspyder 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, maybe. I think that sounds like a pretty speculative and perhaps even telelogical "law" though. I don't see why an organism couldn't re-evolve traits which were once evolved and later lost by a series of predecessor organisms. --Fastfission 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can, but the point is that the organism cannot retrace it's steps to gain that trait, it must obtain the trait through new selective pressures. --Waterspyder 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more a statement on random walks than anything else... Graft 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rem. new section 

message: Species are constantly evolving. There is no devolving. Even if an organism evolves a trait that was characteristic of an ancestor, this is still an evolutionary adaptation and should not be associated with any sort of reversal. 
Additionally, evolution does not always create organisms that are increasingly suited to their environment, and will often do the opposite. Organisms that evolve that do not suit their environment typically die off.
There is no correct or ultimate goal for evolution to achieve.
----
Not only is it horribly written, it doesn't seem to make a point. The concept of devolution may deserve a mention, the rest is already explained in the article. -- Ec5618 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Find an outside, notable source that says something about "no devolution" and quote them. Otherwise its a bit too much of "original research". FuelWagon 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I think I may have been a little too tired when I wrote that. Essentially what I mean to say is there is no intentional direction for evolution. This was a concept drilled into me by Jim Fenwick, PhD and Professor at the University of Ottawa (who did indeed say repeatedly "There is no such thing as de-evolution". In Discover Biology  by Michael L. Cain, Hans Damman, Robert A. Lue and Carol Kaesuk Yoon, (WW Norton & Co, New York: 2000), on page 296 it is summarized under the heading "Biological Evolution: The Sum of Genetic Changes". Key highlights include a very important explaination of evolution as descent with modification. The work explains that evolution does not have a "designer", but is simply a function of the way in which heritable characteristics are passed on. The main reason I find it nessecary is because several people are approaching me to clarify "what they learned on wikipedia" and direction of evolution can honestly be a one-liner included somewhere in the article, but I do feel that it is necessary to at least mention that evolution does not necessarily occur for an ultimate goal ("is not teleological" as Fastfission phrases it). Thanks --Waterspyder 02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You know, creationism should go in this article long before Devo does. I say no mention of devolution at all. Graft 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't Dollo's Law try to preclude devolution? Just namedropping. -- Ec5618 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never actually heard of that law before, but yeah, that summarizes the gist of it. --Waterspyder 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, maybe. I think that sounds like a pretty speculative and perhaps even telelogical "law" though. I don't see why an organism couldn't re-evolve traits which were once evolved and later lost by a series of predecessor organisms. --Fastfission 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can, but the point is that the organism cannot retrace it's steps to gain that trait, it must obtain the trait through new selective pressures. --Waterspyder 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more a statement on random walks than anything else... Graft 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no goal of evolution

message: It might be a good idea to add a section giving more information about how the evolution theory is actually used. (Creating new pesticides for example.) Bertus 12:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean natural selection. Evolution is of no use to anyone - well, except for non-scientific purposes (racial hatred, ethnic cleansing etc) RossNixon 03:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, much of modern medicine, from cell-signaling pathways to antibiotic development, is based on the framework of evolutionary theory. Of course, genetics and inherited diseases and such are intricately tied to the concept of evolution. It might be difficult to come up with specific examples since biology as a whole rests on evolution—similar to the awkwardness of describing how the repulsion of negative charges or the conservation of energy are used; they permeate the field and underly most if not all applications. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to recognize that Bertus said "Evolution theory."  And I do not agree with Rossnixon that that means "natural selection;" these days, it means "the modern synthesis."  The theory of evolution (the modern synthesis) is not the same thing as evolution itself.  Rossnixon is right that evolution is of no use to anyone, it is a non-teleological process.  But the theory of evolution, as Knowledge Seeker observes, is indeed useful, and the idea of a section on its uses is a good one. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One area of practical application is genetic algorithms--Nowa 22:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses of evolution 

message: User:FeloniousMonk, thanks for fixing the following bit of vandalism by "216.239.1.4", which said, "evolution is full of holes and hoaxes that no one can deny. it has been proved wrong on numerous occasions, and yet it is still pushed. it was hitler's inspiration."
You might be amused to know that the IP appears to come from Moorhead Public School in Minnesota, so the author was quite likely a child.  Not that this excuses the behavior... Alienus 19:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better that than a teacher, I suppose. The article is on my watch list and I'm always happy to help. FeloniousMonk 21:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to guess, from content, that it was not a teacher, at least not unless standards have dropped even lower.  Oh, and I followed up on a subsequent bit of vandalism, by the mysterious 71.243.236.227.  Turns out it's from an ISP in Tampa, FL.  Red state, Jeb state, so it's to be expected, I suppose.  I really have to wonder what these people think they're accomplishing. Alienus 06:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on recent vandalism 

message: [Off-topic comment removed - this is not a debate forum; talk pages are meant for discussing ways to improve the article. - Guettarda 19:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Wide Acceptance of Evolution??? 

message: User:Fastfission has respectfully suggested that the following description of experimental research on the spontaneous emergence organismal form is not appropriate for inclusion in the "History Section".  Can anyone suggest a more appropriate place?--Nowa 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origination of Organismal Form

message: I completely re-wrote and re-titled the "Impacts of theory" section. I think it is germane to include a note that the theory has been socially and religiously very controversial, but as such it should be given a title of that nature (i.e. "Objections" or "Controversy" or whatever), and should be fairly broad, linking to other articles for details. I assume that this will be a somewhat controversial section, and my changes may not be enjoyed by all camps involved, but hopefully we can make this a little better than it was before. --Fastfission 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Impacts of theory"

message: I have nominated Unguided evolution for deletion due to it being a WP:FORK of this page. Please add your comments. Joshuaschroeder 05:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD