Talk:Evolution/Archive 14

message: The section about misconceptions suggests that "blindness" is implicit in the theory of evolution. Does anyone else believe the idea of blindness (in respect to chance) metaphysical rather than scientific?Leon... 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Existing evidence shows no foresight in the evolution of species. WAS 4.250 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both "chance" and "blindness" here are attempts at the same concept. As Darwin specified in Origin, it is not "chance" or "randomness" in a true sense, but rather an attempt to convey the idea that the variations in organisms are not based upon any particular structure or plan (i.e., against orthogenesis). Personally I think "blindness" works better than "chance" to get at this — "chance" seems to lead to all sorts of misconceptions about random arrangements of matter, tornadoes in junkyards, etc. — but perhaps the right solution is to list both (I've seen "blindness" discussed in the context of evolution before, so it's not a neologism) and explain a bit more specifically what they mean in this context. --Fastfission 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconceptions

message: I've semi-protected the page for now.  Drop me a line on my talk page when you think it should be lifted; I may forget about this.  --Cyde Weys 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I've un-semi-protected and blocked the offending user instead.  --Cyde Weys 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I will be posting a notice regarding the biased point of view of this article.  I will be doing this because the way the article is written, it is as if everybody agrees with this topic and considers it to be true.  Regardless of your personal opinion, it should be changed to a format which will show that many people disagree with the topic.  The beginning of the article should mention that what it says evolution is is believed by some people.  (The italics don't need to be included in the actual article.)  Other changes of that sort should also be added throughout the article.  AH9 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is as much a fact as relativity or Earth history prior to 6,000 years ago. You are not disputting this article's contents as being POV (which just means "biased") as the term is used and understood in the context of encyclopedia writing. No encyclopedia can write every article with disclaimers for every possible point of view. WAS 4.250 16:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the other points of view are significant enough that they should be mentioned. Scorpionman 03:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And they are mentioned, in Evolution#Social and religious controversies, which seems to me to be the appropriate place to discuss non-scientific issues of a scientific theory. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Speaking as a practicing Christian I have absolutely no problem with this article whatsoever.  It reflects, as policy says it should, the dominant view.  I have compassion for those whose faith is not strong enough to survive the idea that evolution exists; my Bible does not state that the Lord thinks we are stupid - I see it as one of the great challenges laid down by God and one of the most marvellous mysteries of His creation that He has given us so much to work with and understand the workings of the universe.  Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried banging the "This article doesn't show other POV's correctly!" drum once, gave it all I had too in the last archive, im afraid there's not much in the way of fighting to do about POV here that I can see anymore :/. If you've (the OP) got something useful to say on NPOV with this article, by all means, feel free to lay out whatever you have, but im just warning you beforehand, I think this issue was beaten to a pulp quite awhile ago, im not really so sure if it's much of a battle worth fighting. Homestarmy 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: I recieved this request:
:Do you have access to the full article for Van Valen, Leigh M. & Maiorana, Virginia C. (1991): HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10:71-74.. I always wanted to read the full text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked my university's database as best as I could and I wasn't able to find the full text of the article anywhere.  The closest I was able to find was the journal Evolutionary Theory, but they don't keep years worth of back issues.  --Cyde Weys 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying. I checked out Richard Arthur Norton a bit and he seems like a nice enough chap. He freely lists his home address. Google hits show employment data. With the home address, I suppose one could even mail him a copy if someone could locate a hard copy (or micro-fishe?). Anyway, lots of us are tight with a dollar for obvious reasons. Thanks again. WAS 4.250 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been digging as well, and I pretty uch can not find a single trace of this article, either in libraries (world wide search through OCLC firstseach) or at the internet. I am actually getting suspicious about the article.....--KimvdLinde 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could n't find the article either. I could find a homepage of the first author (Van Valen) website at Uni-of-Chicago.  http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/faculty/vanvalen.html . Perhaps this helps you in finding the paper Arnoutf 09:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangly enough, he is not menitoning it as one of his major articles.... confusing KimvdLinde 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not too strange, many senior scientist have many dozens of papers. Perhaps this is not one of his major personal achievements, but it may nevertheless be very well be the best one for the argument in the article. Arnoutf 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Van Valen's email is dstotz@fmnh.org. I'm sure he'll send it to you if you ask. Mikker ... 14:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted this on Richard Arthur Norton's talk page so if he still wants it he can contact you (his email and even home address are readily available if you want to be proactive). WAS 4.250 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As for it "not proving anything"; well, what is and isn't a species is a matter of definition and the article apparently says using defintion X, this is a species so let's discuss it as a species and see where that leads. WAS 4.250 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: "...by means of political policies." Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 
:May I direct you to the "edit this page" button? Mikker ... 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he doesn't know what meaning was intended. Perhaps he thinks it too vague, and would like like additional specificity from someone who knows what policies are being refered to. Perhaps he sees everything being reverted and is cautious about deleting something that may have been bitterly fought over, resulting in "language by committee". Then again, maybe you are right, Mikk, and he simply wasn't aware that he could edit it himself. WAS 4.250 19:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that "political policies" is nonsensical. I have no idea what meaning was intended here, so I won't try to edit. But someone who does know what's meant should make this more specific. PiCo 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re PiCo: I've fixed it... Please have a look & let me know if it has been adequately explained. Regards, Mikker ... 13:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Re WAS 4.250: yeah you're right. I guess I was a bit, erm, snippy there... The title of the section ("On the slaughter of the English language") seemed to suggest he had a minor problem with the wording... Anyhow, sorry PiCo. Mikker ... 13:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Ignignot... Yeah, I agree with you. The "supporters and detractors" phrase was there before I edited the section but I can't find an alternative wording. Thought about "Some supporters and detractors" but that's even more cumbersome. Suggestions? Mikker ... 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like WAS 4.250's wording.  Although may I suggest that we make the previous sentence "Given that some religious people — especially devotees of the Abrahamic religions — believe evolutionary origin beliefs are incompatible with their faith, the debate is often heated and seemingly endless." Or is that too much? ;-) joking of course --Ignignot 20:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the slaughter of the English language 

message: The see also section shouldn't be reduced by putting them into the body of the text.  That's the point, you get a nice list of related topics altogether and you don't have to go fishing through the text for a link to some specific thing whose exact name you temporarily forgot.  Even if they are already mentioned in the text they should also be in the See also section.  --Cyde Weys 07:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree with Cyde overall, I think the 40+ see also links may be somewhat excessive... Additionally, there are even more links in the box at the bottom. Are all these really necessary? At what point do we start getting diminishing returns with respect to such links? Mikker ... 18:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I aggree that putting links into the text where they do not fit is bad.  However we do have too many... and if you look at the bottom of the page you will see the category "evolution" which contains an even more extensive list.  Maybe we should just reduce the See also section to the 10-20 most important topics, and then put a reminder in the See also section that the category is available.  Thoughts? --Ignignot 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair to me Homestarmy 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 10-20 seem a reasonable number to me. Now we just have the massive task of determining which half of the links should go! Mikker ... 20:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you coming up with this 10-20 number?  What is the basis for choosing that?  Evolution is a large and complicated field, and trying to shoehorn it into a small, arbitrarily-chosen number of links is doing a huge disservice.  And categories function entirely differently than lists such as this See also.  Categories are almost invisible and I would estimate that a large proportion of users who benefit from See also lists would simply not find or use the category.  The category is something we have no control over anyway, and contains a lot of irrelevant stuff.  Having a thorough See also list is essential.  And since it's already at the bottom of the article I don't understand the complaints that it is "too long".  --Cyde Weys 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It occurs to me that we can also put some of these into subsection see alsos.  There are already a few in the article, but we could put a few more in.  For example in the Ancestry of organisms, it says "see also: common descent." --Ignignot 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, independent of the question of whether there are too many links, several of the linked to articles are just horrible. Like:
#Atavism 
#Catagenesis 
#Cladogenesis 
#HeLa 
#Teratogenesis 
Mikker ... 21:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Bleh, I ruined my response due to an edit conflict.  I'll rewrite it slightly shorter - I think that the evolution category can better show interesting topics to people who are looking for additional articles.  I think that if we add in a note in the see also section to look at the category, we can get rid of many of the see also links which are not as important / relavant / already linked in "Main article:" / are in the disambig.  I put down my sort of votes just to show what I thought about the links and a rationale behind it, to reach a consensus instead of to count popularity.  It would be nice to see what people think is important and what people think is frivolous before just cutting out links. --Ignignot 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While I am not sure they should be in the see also, I think HeLa and Atavism are not that bad. --Ignignot 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree with you that the HeLa link isn't really relevant and can be removed, but the others are solid links.  So what if the articles aren't up to featured standard; the more eyes browsing them the better they'll get.  Your solution, to corner them off and have nothing link to them, would hurt their chances of becoming better.  This is the same rationale for keeping redlinks ... hopefully someone will come along and create the article.  --Cyde Weys 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting a complete exclusion of the links, instead I am suggesting that we put a notice on the top of the See also section loudly telling people to check the  evolution category for a larger range of articles, and limit the See also to the best, most relevant, and diverse articles.  I think of this as a compromise between outright deletion and leaving it as it is.  And while I also think that it is important for articles to have visibility so that people can modify and improve them, I think that when a See also section gets too big, people don't use it.  By limiting the size, readers may be less intimidated.  I think if we do it well, it will result in an overall increase in traffic to the articles in the See also section, even if the range of articles is smaller. --Ignignot 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think HeLa can definitely be removed (is not directly related to evolution, is only related via the intermediary topic of observed speciation); I also don't think atavism is needed here (not important enough for a see also link to be useful here); and while altruism in animals has been a fertile topic of discussion in evolutionary thought I'm not sure it needs to be elevated to a "see also" here. I think the general philosophy here is that things which would rightly fit as subcategories of other topics here should be culled a bit, because having this many "see alsos" is really not useful for the reader, I don't think. --Fastfission 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm for deleting some, but several others disagree. Mikker ... 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why reduce see also? 

message: I am not sure how any one could argue that evolution (of life) disproves the Laws of Thermodynamics. I only believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics disprove a universe void of God. If matter and energy have existed for an infinite amount of time, wouldn't everything have already exchanged energies and only entropy exist?
: No, they don't do that either. One could have it always approaching but never reaching a totally entropic state. Handwavyness: One could have a f(t) measuring total entropy such that lim f(t)=2 as t goes to minus infinity and f(t)=1 as t goes to 00 and the function is decreasing. JoshuaZ 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws of Thermodynamics question the beginning of the universe not Evolution. 

message: WHO IS THE FATHER OF EVOLUTION? - unsigned
:In the context of this article, I guess either Mendal or Darwin, relations between genetics and evolution and whatnot, I dunno. Homestarmy 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the point of the question?  I think Charles Darwin is commonly accepted as the most influential person in the modern theory of evolution, but using a word like "father" is kind of inappropriate and inaccurate.  --Cyde Weys 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is the "father of evolution" just as no one is the "father of grass" or "father of sun". WAS 4.250 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think our anom means father of the theory of evolution in the sense that Einstein might be said to be the father of the theory of relativity. In this case, the answer is probably no one, since the relevant ideas in the modern theory are in fact a product of many different people all of which lead to the body known as the modern synthesis. JoshuaZ 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution, grass, and sun are all things as well as concepts/ideas that have developed from prehistoric conceptions to modern scientic conceptions. Neither the things nor the concepts we have of them have such a clear originator that any single father could be selected. WAS 4.250 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are looking for a "father" in the usual hand-wavy metaphorical sense, your answers are usually either Lamarck or Darwin, depending on whether you want evolution to be written broadly or precisely. If you want "who is the creator of the current model of evolution" then you are getting into an issue of seriously mixed fatherhood. --Fastfission 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So evolution's a bastard? -Silence 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just a fairy tale for grown-ups. If it needs a father, it is Satan. rossnixon 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually religion is the fairy tale for grown-ups.  Satan is a religious concept and doesn't have anything to do with science.  --Cyde Weys 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people will be surprised to discover that evolution is a religious concept. It just pretends to be scientific. rossnixon 01:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Please take it to Usenet, this is not the place. Mikker ... 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Which Darwin? Ras or Chas? ;) ..dave souza, talk 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither. I'd have to say that the "father" of evolution was most likely Anaximander. Scorpionman 16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the father of evolution? 

message: There is still an error in this article. I previously wrote above about it.  The word Antibiotics was replaced with "antibodies".  I have read the words of Darwin that he wrote to Alfred Russel Wallace who was in the Australia area. He wrote to him: "Long after we are dead and gone, this debate will continue. ,,,.Great is the power of Misrepresentation."  In the 1860's a Frenchman was his Nemesis in the public, forum debates, the genesis of his comments. The Frenchman was still living in whatever world, the frenchman was referring to.
I Now, Know how to find the three "antib- " words, with the find function.  Sorry for being a dummy.  So if you put in antib , you get the first "antibiotic" resistance, or whatever, The find next–goes to the "antibody" word.  When I first read the sentence in Nov/Dec, ...I did a doubletake, and had to reread what I had read....The third "Find Next" takes one again to 3rd use of "antibiotic resistance" now with the 2nd of antibody resistance.
Here's the point,  I could hardly ever find where these references were hidden in the article.  I evolved.  But nobody else has read every word in this article,...and not being an author of it, and having read Darwin, and the Great Mr. Wallace, I would prefer other items of my time...... So somebody else can still remove this antibody reference.
I still like going beyond a discussion of Evolution and would rather discuss speciation, Law of superposition, Law of faunal succession or geological topics. Any way, that is my latest "Talk" on the Evolution discussion page.MMcAnnis,YumaAZ--Mmcannis 02:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AAAAlllrighty then... Mikker ... 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on correcting a miss-spelling (evolve!)

message: :But why do we should leave Wikipedia to discuss this or other subjects? Wikipedia is not enough so big for this? I find the very important the opinions, and I think that this talk page (or other specifically for this) should be as a forum of discussions and not a mere discussion on how to do a good article, that is a subject of very smaller significance! Berton 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people might of gotten annoyed at the archive size so they decided to squish the debate before it started again :/. Homestarmy 14:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also without the above, this page basically devolves into a creationism v. evolution page and it seems to be much harder to get stuff done on the talk page. JoshuaZ 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Put another way -- it's fine to use this talk page to discuss what goes into the article. That's what talk pages are for. It's not fine to use it as a general-purpose debate/ranting forum for excoriating biologists or creationists. The talk page is for collaborating with one another to build an article; it isn't for arguing about radiometric dating or transitional fossils. --FOo 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we have a notice on top of the talk page pointing to talk.origins?

message: The "Theory of Evolution" Is a Misnomer - Wayne Getz, BioScience 56(2): 97 (Listed as Open Access content, so this link should work for anyone)
It's an interesting piece which might have some bearing on the article (he also cites Wikipedia, albeit not this article).  Guettarda 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link doesn't seem to work... I've found the article here though. Mikker ... 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article makes sense in saying it is anachronistic to refer to the current body of biological evolution science as a theory of evolution meaning defintion one "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." at http://www.answers.com/theory&r=67; it does make sense to talk of theory of evolution or evolutionary theory in the same way as one talks of musical theory or theory of music meaning definition two "branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis" which contains within it untold numbers of what are theories by definition one. WAS 4.250 01:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theory of Evolution a Misnomer" 

message: The selective pressure to evolve to evolve has created rates of evolution that make no sense unless the fact of having evolved to evolve as explained in PNAS's August 10, 2004 Evolvability is a selectable trait article is understood as well as specific cellualar mechanisms like spliceosomes that can turn the cell's genome into a vast workshop of billions of interchangeable parts that can create tools that create tools that create tools that create us. WAS 4.250 01:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very interesting, will you add it to the article? (I don't quite know enough about this to be confident enough to do so). Mikker ... 13:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created Evidence from studies of complex iteratation with the above in it. What do you think? WAS 4.250 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job... I think paraphrased + reffed paragraphs are better than large quotes, but good nonetheless. Mikker ... 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolved to evolve

message: There seems to have been a veritable renaissance of editing on this section lately. I'm wondering whether people have comments to make? My main worry at the moment is that we lack refs for the section - I think Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" should cover a lot of it, but other sources are still needed. (book info would be great for those of you who own it, my copy is currently deep in a box 1500km away). Additionally, several weasels are still in evidence, and I'm a bit worried about whether the last paragraph satisfies NPOV. Mikker ... 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the first paragraph to me really seems like it is begging for either some serious citations or some well deserved deletion, its far too much of a long string of absolute statements. Homestarmy 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please elaborate? Sentence 1 seems indisputable (but we do need a ref, maybe we can steal one from Creation-evolution controversy or something?). Sentence 2 through 4 say, essentially, evolution (in either its explanatory or factual sense) is not controversial among biologists/scientists  and hence the controversy surrounding evolution is societal/philosophical, not scientific. Dennett will cover the philosophical nature of the debate bit, whilst I think there are some nice refs at Intelligent design that biologists don't find evo controversial. Mikker ... 16:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I fully recognize that among most scientists today the science behind evolution is rock solid, but one of the most frequent charges I hear against creationists is that they "don't understand evolution". So it would then seem to me the controversy somewhat has something to do with evolution being mis-represented scientifically, which does have to do with science i'd think. Most creationists i've seen seem to think the issue has alot to do with science, and since this paragraph is about the societal and religious conflict, it seems like it should at least note many opponents of evolution feel like it is a matter of science even when almost all biologists supposedly disagree with this compleatly. Homestarmy 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree... what you are referring to is a problem of education, not science. In the context of the section under consideration, "science" refers to "what scientists do", if non-biologist arm-chair critics claim there is a problem with the science, that doesn't mean there is one. That said, I think you make a good point, we should add a bit about how people think it is really about the science. Mikker ... 16:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think the third paragraph shouldn't be trying to quantify "some people's opinions", im sure "Degrading" isn't the only word people who are opposed to evolution use. Homestarmy 16:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social and religious controversies" section 

message: Here's some news: TSRI converts RNA Enzyme to DNA Enzyme In Vitro After TSRI publishes the research in Chemistry & Biology it may have a place in the atricle. Pasado 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TSRI converts RNA Enzyme to DNA Enzyme ''In Vitro'' 

message: I think it would be a very good adition to this article to add at least A small space on some of the many Faults in the evolutionary theory/hypothesis.  there is alot of "proof" against it, such as the Cambrian explosion, the sheer improbability of a ameba like thing turning into a human and the complete lack of "missing links" Jedi of redwall 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The evolution article is about the science of evolution. Please see Creation-evolution controversy and Social effect of evolutionary theory for the alleged faults. Mikker (...) 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, all the comments above are simply wrong and/or misleading. First) Evolution has no problem with the Cambrian explosion.  2) Amoeba's are incredibly complicated critters that have gone through millions of years of selection, they most likely do not resemble early life. 3) Such probability calculations are at best naive given lack of knowledge. 4) Speaking as a mathematician, if a mathematical model conflicts with your physical evidence, the model is generally wrong. 5) If by "missing link" you mean transitional fossils, we have transitional fossils between most major families and classes. I suggest you go over to www.talkorigins.org which deals with many common misconceptions about evolution and should serve as a good primer on the subject. JoshuaZ 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  at least mention it! 

message: There is a misconception among many people concerning the fact that evolution is directly contradictory to a specific theology (one I was raised with, and no longer believe). The theology of Jesus the Christ dying for sins that are based on the fall of Adam depend on Adam having the fall depicted in Genesis, which if evolution is true, never happened, meaning the whole story of Jesus dying for our sins is nonsense.  WAS 4.250 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, to clarify, you are saying that the theology is not contradictory with evolution, yes? JoshuaZ 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that the theology I was raised with, that millions of people believe, is directly contradicted if evolution is true. WAS 4.250 03:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not exactly.  If evolution is a fact, Genesis is false.  If Genesis is false, then Adam and Eve didn't exist and subsequently didn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  If that didn't happen, the doctrine of Original Sin is meaningless, and if that's the case, then, according to some, then it can hardly be said that Jesus died to save mankind from original sin.  Teflon Don 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, of course, contradicts theistic evolution, which I find completely useless and ridiculous. Scorpionman 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Not necessarily, for example you could have had Adam and Eve as essentially spiritual entities who were then put into nasty physical human bodies, or you could have a more Jungian original sin. There are actually many possibilities consistent wih the notion of OS and with evolution. JoshuaZ 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  Most Western Christians are not creationists, and still have no problem with the concepts of Jesus dying for others' sin.  We are, however, straying rather far from evolutionary theory here!  bikeable (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not that all Christian theologies are false if evolution is true; the point I am making is that the specific theology I was raised with, that millions of bible-thumpers believe, is falsified according to them if evolution is true. There is logic in their position. The fact is that evolution and American Christian fundamentalism are logically at odds. Christ's death is meaningless if evolution is true, according to this specific ideology. WAS 4.250 03:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it vaguely humorous that an aspect of someone's ideology requires that their ideology be false. :) Then again, the same could be said for common Christian beliefs a few hundred years ago and the revolutionary idea that the earth moves. Fun stuff. -Silence 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconception

message: A notice could be added stating that all comments debating the relative merits of religion and evolution, disputing the science of evolution or making accusations of overall POV without specific detailed suggestions for improving the article will be moved to a subpage, where discussion on such comments can take page. A standard statement that such a move has been made could routinely be put on the talk page of the relevant editor when making the move. ..dave souza, talk 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who say they want creationist misconceptions concerning evolution in the article are talking about what should or should not be in the article. One proper response it to say that it is in the article here (show where), where it is refuted. WAS 4.250 18:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, part of the FAQ as discussed by G and below. ..dave souza, talk 18:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: These are covered in the article, and I think in a very clear way.  I do not think it is too much to ask people not to edit articles that they have not read. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk pages go into much more depth than the article.  Also, the article may not cover every single objection, whereas the talk probably does.  Finally, telling them to go back to the article could be seen as encouraging them to edit it, which is disruptive to readers and is the last thing we want to have happen. --Ignignot 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but this is a silly idea. We're going to end up with the "Talk:Evolution FAQ" being the minor cousin of the Talk.origins one. Taking it to user talk pages is in my opinion the best way to redirect attention - you can say what you want, you can trash arguments far more thoroughly because you're not worried about cluttering space, and Creationists feel like they're being addressed. Graft 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was thinking about something along the lines of what's on the ID page (see link above) where there were explicit links to where this had been discussed (the word FAQ may have been ill-advised).  I was just thinking that, if we can point people to where it had been discussed, then it might avoid some of the repeats.  Just telling them "look at the archives" is unlikely to have the same effect, because the archive is so dauntingly large that only an exceptionally dedicated person would look through it.  Guettarda 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to do with the "FAQ" - after having read the talk page for Intelligent design, it seemed the most efficient way to deal with common issues that had been extensively discussed.  I'm not sure if putting the topics first is the best way or if going through the archives and seeing which topics have been covered exhaustively is the best way, or if a combination of the two would be better.  In any case it is more work than I would want to do alone.--Ignignot 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah. votes are evil and, in this case, I think unnecessary. Mikker (...) 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In perspective, is it really that bad and horrible of an issue? :/ Homestarmy 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal