Talk:Flock of Dodos

message: Can you say 'evolutionary famous dodo'? This seems to me to be bad grammar, but 'evolutionarily famous,' while more correct, has the wrong meaning. I didn't change this piddling little detail b/c I thought that perhaps I don't know of some special scientific use of this form of the word! Oh, the details we obsessive editors obsess about!    
Hazelii 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary famous dodo

message: We need to put in more citations. This is a good citation link from the paragraph on Haeckel's embryos. http://designparadigm.googlepages.com/haeckel
William2233 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Since I added links to this page in all the pages that referred to Flock of Dodos, I took off the orphan marker.William2233 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan Pages

message: What is this sentence supposed to be saying:
The film attempts to determine who the real "dodos" are in a constantly evolving world: the mainstream scientists who are failing to promote evolution as a scientifically accepted fact, the intelligent design advocates who, to other scientists, or the American public who get fooled by the slick salesmanship of the Discovery Institute.
There seems to be something missing in the "who, to other scientists" area. Once upon a time it said 'are known as "dodos."' there, but that does not seem appropriate. I'd edit it myself, but I haven't seen the movie to be able to rephrase this authoritatively.
Kevinwparker 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacked-up sentence 

message: I would say that PZ Meyers comment doesn't really belong to the criticism section, as he's not really criticizing the film. Having watched the film and looked at the textbooks myself, it's obvious that it's an error. If we feel it's very necessary then we can make another section called "Response to Criticism", but that would look kind of silly (imho).William2233 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: :It highlights the debate between proponents of the concept of intelligent design and the scientific consensus/establishment that supports evolution.
I have reverted to consensus rather than establishment, since the former is far more accurate.  In the two decades since creation science was rebranded as intelligent design, millions of papers have been published in the field of biology that accept the dominant evolutionary paradigm.  Even if you count creationist "journals" like PCID, it's still a 1-in-a-million that does not use an evolutionary framework.  Thus "consensus" is far more accurate than "establishment".  Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority is also somewhat misleading, since 50% + 1 is a majority.  Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Although this is an old thread, since it's still unarchived and related, I added "evidence", because scientific consensus is not ideological, it depends on evidence, it's a reality vs ideology issue rather than two equal philosophical traditions...  —PaleoNeonate – 09:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment v. Consensus 

message: From the article: "Biologist PZ Myers responded to the institute's "bogus complaint that Olson was lying in the movie" about Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos is false."
I don't understand this. Maybe the intended meaning is that Meyers responded that the complaint is false? Would somebody who's familiar with the matter please fix the grammar? 173.66.1.39 (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 71.236.253.188 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar? 

message: The section below was recently added to the article. While it is insigtful, it is not referenced to published, reliable sources, and therefore it may be an opinion of a wikipedian. Even if this opinion is correct, by wikipedia rules, unfortunately it does not belong to the article. Moreover, even if supplied with references, this is a rather general remark about ID vs. science, and as such belong to the Intelligent design article (if supplied with valid references). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance