Talk:Evolution/Archive 2

message: All of the books/sources I have perused recently have stated Archea and Eukaryota are more closely related to one another than they are to Bacteria due to molecular evidence, and didn't really mention any controversy about it. These include a couple textbooks as well as a book by Dawkins. Is this so, did I just miss that this was tentative, or is it still controversial among scientists? Titanium Dragon 09:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there sufficient evidence to say Archea is closer to Eukaryota in the article? Then again, if it is not a monophylitic group, we'd probably have to change the article again, and likely the term Archea would disappear to be replaced by two new groups. Then again, it isn't that much work to do, and it would be (slightly) more accurate, at least from the evidence I've seen. Titanium Dragon 11:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've  read arguments that a lot of early development (e.g. the genetic code) came about via horizontal gene transfer, making it difficult to argue phylogeny. But I don't think there is anything like consensus on this question. Graft 18:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archea, Eukaryota, and Bacteria 

message: This article has a lot of potential to become a featured article (I should know, being that I'm the featured article director; however, I'm writing now as an editor). I think with some work, this article could easily be brought up to featured article standards. I've done some work tonight trying to get it there, but I could use some help→Raul654 02:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
I munged with some stuff.
* A lot of the sections are very choppy - I messed with Ancestry of Organisms but it's still in a bad way. The paragraph on the evolution of metabolic processes (presently in "genetic sequence evidence") needs a better home.
* I removed a note on speciation from the Scientific Theory section. Maybe it needs to be put back there?
Graft 05:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has featured article potential

message: As folks are going through and cleaning shit up, can they keep an eye out for lines of the form, "Researchers have discovered so-and-so," or, "Scientists are researching the question of this-and-that". I hate that shit - it's ugly and needs to go. Graft 06:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style note 

message: The recent edit that removed the sentence regarding observed instances of speciation referred to an archived talk section to support his edit. I could find no such discussion in the referenced talk section. Also, here are some field observations of speciation:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. 
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) 
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41 
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. 
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) 
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
: Sorry that my comment was so hard to find.  Your examples sound pretty good; would you add them to the article to support the claim?  I'd be happy with the deleted sentence with these examples, although maybe the word "entirely" in the sentence is overstating the case.  (If the Faeroe Island house mouse evolved into a fish, I'd consider this an _entirely_ new species; if it evolved into a different type of mouse, this is merely a new species....)  Thanks for finding these examples.  Zashaw 23:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're going to have to be content with that if you want physical observation - even mice and shrews are separated by 80 million years of evolutionary divergence. Graft 05:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I found the "shorthand" paragraph vague, self-referential, and incomplete. It defined the 'common' understanding of evolution as based on Darwinian natural selection only, whereas most understand there's a genetic component as well. Therefore I rephrased and added a bit about Mendelian genetics and how that plays into the modern_evolutionary_synthesis to round it out. Thoughts? Issues? Flames?--FeloniousMonk 02:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction, the 'Shorthand' section

message: User:Boffey added the following section.  As far as I can tell most of these are not "problems" - it appears to be a list of ID talking points, rather than real shortcomings.  The article already has an "Evolution an Religion" section, it doesn't need a second one. Guettarda 14:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard nonsense. Delete (oh, it has been). - Randwicked 05:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Some of these might deserve refutation in the article, since they are traditional arguments against evolution. For example, it's true that most mutations lead to degeneration, but the point of theory of natural selection is that animals with good mutations live and breed more extensively, while those that degenerate are more likely to die. This has been confirmed by experiments wherein clusters of asexual bacteria quickly evolve immunity to antibacterial drugs. Deco 04:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Problems" with evolution 

message: The last sentence of the "genetic drift" section says it occurs if N < 0.5 s, \mu, m; but doesn't give units or hard (i.e. measurable) definitions of those variables.  Could someone with knowledge of the subject either delete the sentence or provide a bit more detail?
Thanks. SMesser 20:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Drift 

message: Hello,
If God is almighty and not bound by time; I see no reason, why the story about the creation of the universe, as told in Genesis of the christian Bible, and the scientific story about the appearing of earth, life and man should not both be literally true.
I think this is an interesting idea to think about and I didn't see it anywhere in the evolution/creation texts.
Greetings, Ben te Molder
:The reason it will never be discussed on this page is that there is no scientific evidence that God is almighty and not bound by time.  At best this is a theological claim that can be discussed only on pages dealing with theology. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This opinion might be considered an extreme form of evolutionary creationism — to say that both can be literally true because God is powerful enough to defy logic itself. But remember Wikipedia: No original research. Deco 04:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two truths 

message: It appears someone has found a bug in our software. They put in #redirect de:en:Goatse.cx and this redirects to Goatse WITHOUT the redirect flag appearing. - 203.35.154.254 01:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it up with the bugzilla and the software might evolve ot accommodate that. Dunc|☺ 12:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm... 

message: Can we do something to curb the vandalism?
:Theoretically, we could lock it, but that's only a temporary fix or else we're going counter to the purpose of the wikipedia.  So, really, not much can be done (short of finding a way to end the bitter conflict between religious zealots and scientists) besides continuing to revert whenever it happens.  It's already list on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. siafu 03:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This sentence, in the intro: "Natural Selection and punctuated equilibrium are two mechanisms used to describe how evolution has occurred."  Doesn't this suggest that these mechanisms are analytically comparable and mutally exlusive?  Isn't that wrong? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be "gradualism"?  PE still depends on a NS mechanism, AFAIK.  Guettarda 19:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Please sign your comments.  PE is not a mechanism, it is a characterization of a process. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NS and PE 

message: I have slight reservations as to the NPOVness of this article.  More specifically the distinct shortage of anti-evolution links at the bottom compared to other similar controversial articles.
--Xmp 22:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you supply some of the "other controvertial topics" for comparison please?  Guettarda 23:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't considered controversial, and we don't present the competing viewpoints as engendering controversy; we are pretty supportive of the idea that evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. It doesn't make sense, given that, to post external links to anti-evolution sources, merely to undermine the points made in the article. Graft 08:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is there's too many of them.  I guess we could put in links to the leading creationist websites  and  but that would miss several POVs.  Perhaps the best one would be  which is fairly comprehensive in terms of links (although it is maintained by thoese evil atheist conspirateurs) Dunc|☺ 12:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Token anti-evolution link? 

message: I deleted the last, concluding sentence (in bold) from the following:
:In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
::"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
:placing the Catholic church at odds with the findings of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, both of which attempt to provide scientific explanations for human behavior and consciousness.
It does not follow from the definition of "soul" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man."
--Johnstone 00:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence regarding Roman Catholicism and soul 

message: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation 3. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
So you simply remove everything that you disagree with?  We were still on topic.  This is not a spirit of cooperation!  Salva31
:I'm sorry Salva but I do not think that your comments to this talk page really qualify either as in "a spirit of cooperation".  I think that you have been guilty of many of those things you are accusing others of.
:You have broken the above rules in several ways:
*You've insulted people by the tone you've used in discussion.
*You've tried to intimidate those who don't agree with you by the shear volume of your text (on the talk page).
*You've not been civil or calm with your edits.
:As such although I have criticised others for deleting much of your text in which you do these things I would support them in moving all such material to a subpage in future.  Barnaby dawson 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not do that. As long as Salva 31 keeps it short and simple and on topic, there shouldn't be a problem in future, right? Kim Bruning 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to be fair to Salva, I was pretty uncivil to him, I think. Graft 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Graft.  This is obviously a debate that is sensitive on both sides.  Likewise, I owe you an apology for the contributions I made in escalating the argument.Salva3109:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a battleground 

message: As I understand things, the phrase evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. However, if most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution only tacked on as a secondary concern.
I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct?  (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.) 
Please offer your ideas and thoughts at Talk:Evolutionary creationism. Thanks. RK 20:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
:RK, would Pierre Teilhard de Chardin be an example of what you are talking about? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution

message: Could someone tell me why I was reverted.
:Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you'll take the time to read our Introduction and the material linked therefrom on how you can contribute. From the look of your contributions page, this might be the first article you've worked on. Because of the nature of the subject, this article is frequently highly controversial. It has also been listed as a featured article, so many editors keep an eye on it to make sure that it remains of high quality. An article like this is a difficult spot to start editing Wikipedia.
:Please sign your Talk page comments, so we know who you are without diddling around with the history. You can use the notation --~~~~ to sign a comment with your name (or IP address, since you're not logged in) and the date. You might want to also log in so that your work will be recognized.
:I did not revert your contribution. However, the editor who did left a comment: "revert/casual comments by anon." While it is not entirely clear what s/he meant by this, my supposition is that s/he believed your contribution was not in keeping with the tone or content of an encyclopedia article.
:Some of the claims that you make contradict other material which has been cited to primary sources. Other claims represent what we tend to call "POV" content, meaning, opinions or speculations offered from an idiosyncratic point of view. They are also couched in idiosyncratic language. For instance, it is not clear what it means to call evolution a "force of nature" or a "semi-conscious trait" -- but this is clearly not the ordinary use of the expressions force or consciousness. Because this article is about a natural science topic, we're going to be careful to use scientific and philosophical terms accurately -- and in the ordinary senses of the words, evolution is neither a force, nor is it conscious or "semi-conscious".
:Finally, since this specific article is about evolution and not about religious opinions of evolution or the like, some of the material is simply off-topic here, and particularly in the introduction. The introduction of an article needs to be about the topic itself, and not about outsider responses to that topic: for instance, we would not start the article on Christianity by saying that Muslims consider the doctrine of the trinity to be "sacrilege".
:There is another article about the creation-evolution controversy, and I believe you will find it is quite well-researched and shows many examples of how an encyclopedia can approach the topic from a standpoint that reflects many points of view. --FOo 03:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evolution is what one may call a semi-conscious trait. Semi-conscious meaning in the sense of a natural order. Or perhaps it IS in order of a higher consciousness.  At any rate evolution is not accepted by most people. It was and still is considered sacrilege in the sense of a personal God or have you. The scientific community at this date accepts evolution as fact and conducts scientific experiments proving it."  
Although I reverted your entries, I also moved it here to provide you the opportunity to respond.  Why?  The philosophical questions relating to evolution are often discussed here and (as above) are dealt with on another page as well.  You managed to select a complicated, somewhat controversial and often edited article as one of your first edits.  Please read the ongoing discussion on this page and then expand on your thoughts before attempting to edit the actual article.  The suggestions above are wonderful  Please also read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), dealing with fact versus opinion.  We welcome your thoughtful comments on this and other discussion pages and NPOV edits in articles. Look forward to working with you.WBardwin 05:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to my edit? 

message: Entry from anon user 69.208.212.163 on April 17, 2005 (see above). 
:"Evolution is what one may call a semi-conscious trait. Semi-conscious meaning in the sense of a natural order. Or perhaps it IS in order of a higher consciousness.  At any rate evolution is not accepted by most people. It was and still is considered sacrilege in the sense of a personal God or have you. The scientific community at this date accepts evolution as fact and conducts scientific experiments proving it."  
Although I reverted your entries, I also moved it here to provide you the opportunity to respond.  Why?  The philosophical questions relating to evolution are often discussed here and (as above) are dealt with on another page as well.  You managed to select a complicated, somewhat controversial and often edited article as one of your first edits.  Please read the ongoing discussion on this page and then expand on your thoughts before attempting to edit the actual article.  The suggestions above are wonderful  Please also read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), dealing with fact versus opinion.  We welcome your thoughtful comments on this and other discussion pages and NPOV edits in articles. Look forward to working with you.WBardwin 05:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's comments/philosophy 

message: Im not an expert on evolution. No one is (except Charles Darwin-and he aint talking)No sooner did I leave this page it was reverted by a second person-with no explanation!
* Sorry.  I was looking up some information, and this edit did not make sense.  Can you explain please?  ---Rednblu | Talk 03:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It happened again. 

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