Talk:Evolution/Archive 7

message: Honestly, folks, the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article -- not to debate a dogmatic creationist.  Can we focus on the article, now? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: -Albert Einstein
Deepest regards, Salva 16:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debating evolution 

message: Why is an active discussion being archived?
:It was getting pretty silly. I thought it was pretty much "done". Revert if you like. Graft 17:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Barnaby dawson 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I just archived.  The reason to archive is that the talk page gets too long.  Nothing is deleted, and anyone can consult the archives easily.  A personal observation: talk pages are for discussing changes to the article.  There was an awful lot of discussion for relatively few changes to the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: The second paragraph deals with Darwin's theory.  Someone deleted "Darwin" from the sentence stating that we are all descended from a common ancester, when in fact this is a claim made by Darwin.  Then, someone identified the theory of speciation through natural selection with "Darwinism."  What the hell is Darwinism?  We are talking about theories of evolution, let's stick to that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re JeremyA's comment on my talk page, well, thanks. I have no objection to the way you phrase it on my talk page — it is "Darwinism" that I really can't stand. But can you tell me (or just add to the article) who before Darwin claimed descent from a common ancestor? Working within natural science? We aren't talking about Lucretious are we? I have heard philosophers of science argue how Darwin's theory requires common descent. If it was just one of many ideas kicking around before Darwin, I think we should credit Darwin. Or was Darwin himself explicitly drawing on earlier work? If so, we should cite that earlier work. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This second paragraph is terrible. Who added it and why? Though Darwin predicted common descent and evolution implies it, it is not actually a part of the theory necessarily, and the processes involved are quite seperate from it. This article is about the modern synthesis; I think the current wording is poor at best. Titanium Dragon 10:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I edited the second paragraph, and moved it down. Apparently I never really noticed it. It was poorly worded and the last part of it was downright false. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, and the word is usually used to apply to all of those. Titanium Dragon 10:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi, Benjy, thanks for your comment. Wikipedia is really not a place to discuss or debate viewpoints like this, but you may find the Vestigial organ and Creation-evolution controversy articles enlightening. Personally, I am a scientist (in the sense of someone who embraces science as an explanation for how the world works), so naturally I accept the scientific account of the history of this planet, just as I do the mechanics of our solar system or the wavefunction of an electron. However, supernatural phenomena are beyond the scope of science, and there are many people who hold religious historical views which conflict with scientific views. To clarify about vestigial organs: in general, they are organs that in one species are well-developed or useful, but in another, the analogous organ appears to have dgenerated or lost most or all of its functions, perhaps while picking up newer ones. It is not limited to humans; many dolphins and whales (which are mammals) have vestigial hind "leg" bones, which we believe to be remnants from their land mammal ancestors. Those who do not that dolphins evolved from land mammals have alternate explanations, such as that those bones are not related to land mammals' leg bones and that they are intended to serve their current purpose (perhaps anchoring reproductive organs) or that we cannot always comprehend God's plan: just because we cannot find a good use for them doesn't mean they have no use. It is up to you to decide your own beliefs; all we can do here is provide information on both sides. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: As an analogous phenomenon, you might want to read about pseudogenes. Graft 21:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is going on here? 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. 
I know that this is not related to evolution.  But I do think scientists might have valuable opinions.  See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: I have noticed (and I'm sure others will have too) that there is a large amount of discussion on this page related to issues surrounding creationist beliefs.  I suggest we create a talk subpage exclusively for debates of this kind.  Discussions surrounding these issues can occur there and all other matters can be dealt with on the main talk page.  This should help those who wish to advance the article without having to wade through long discussions on creationist matters to do so.  But it would allow debate to continue concernings those issues.  I suggest we create a subpage talk:Evolution\Creationist related issues and we put a header up saying:
 This article is about Evolution not about creationism.
 Those wishing to discuss issues concerning the article that 
 are related to creationism should use this talk subpage.
Opinions.  Perhaps a better name for such a subpage?  Barnaby dawson 15:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to throw cold water on the suggestion, because I think it has merit. But I think it may be unlikely to work well in practice. Just as Talk:Creationism is prone to having talk about the article itself spin off into extensive discussion about scientific challenges to creationism, I think this talk page is going to remain a magnet for debate, regardless of the existence of a subpage where that debate would more properly take place. For myself, I think I'd view the isolation of the debate to (only) this talk page, rather than having it spill onto the article page itself, as a relative victory. John Callender 17:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for this talk page