Talk:Evolution/Archive 25

message: I think we should cut the history of evolution section, including the Modern Synthesis subsection, or at least trim it to one or two paragraphs. What purpose does such a very long section serve? Adam Cuerden talk 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Still, one or two paragraphs ought to be sufficient. Darwin. Mendel, synthesis. That's all we really need. Adam Cuerden talk 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This already has its own article, history of evolutionary thought, which is badly in need of rewriting if anybody's interested. I did a small amount of cleanup on the lead (though it needs more), but the text is badly organized and hard to follow. (As a side comment, I'm not at all a fan of the 'highlights' section from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon; if you need such a thing for the evolution articles, consider a separate timeline.) Opabinia regalis 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, any information removed from here that isn't already in the other article should be merged. On the timeline, something akin to timeline of evolution for the actual events in evolutionary thought (also see computing timeline for a graphical example, though IMO it's ugly and hard to read). I'm not really suggesting this as a project; I just hate reading the same information twice in the same article. So if there was a use for something like this, it should be separate - which also makes for easier searching. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Evolution section cut? 

message: Having many editors is wonderful but sometimes it produces splashes instead of flow. It seems it needs to be better organized and introduce next subject for flow. Cooperation should be in Mechanisms of Evolution section. Variation section should introduce Heredity, Recombination, Mutation, and Gene flow- HGT and hybridization. Then each section goes into detail. The Mechanisms of Evolution section then address what nature does with the variation. Then side issues like history and social stuff at bottom. It would be nice to have examples of speciation with pics of something plant, fish, or insect and demonstrate microevolution (Fill brought how naive people are of examples of speciation we can actually see). Macroevolution should address uniformity at molecular level, evodevo correlates, and something like horse evolution illustration or something. Horse is great example because it demonstrate that evolution is not linear but a web and how environment influenced changes. Perhaps talk about sickle cell and malaria and environmental change that precipitated the success of this trait.  GetAgrippa 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all good ideas. As an outsider, I was going to wait until Adam had trimmed down some of the extra sections and changed their order a bit. When it had settled down a bit, then I was going to revisit the problem of the lead section of the article as a whole, and possibly for each subsection, as Adam had suggested. I would still argue that we might want to consider having only a VERY short section objections/misunderstandings, and put most of this material in a sister article. I think that making this article as trim and svelte as possible, containing mostly science, is a very reasonable approach, given its length and bulk.--Filll 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, I disappear for a week and the article gets a whole new face lift, go figure.  Luckily, I see the intro has been reverted to reflect the old version (even the phrase "theory of evolution" is used in the right context).  I do agree with GetAgrippa that the large changes in the article have made it somewhat confusing and some ideas hard to follow.  I'll have to read it in more detail to suggest any concrete solutions.  Basically, such a large re-organization in a long standing article is not the best way to go ahead, as it makes it impossible to follow ideas without a detailed rewrite of each rearranged section.--Roland Deschain 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about evidence is covered at length, but doesn't include the experimental evidence / observation of speciation as far as I can, though it's hinted at under Study of evolution. It would be good to conclude the lead with one or two sentences outlining the point. .. dave souza, talk 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The strength of the Wikipedia concept is the ability to modify, adapt, improve ... I'm actually amazed at the degree of changes that have transpired; especially in the introduction section. I was begining to think the article had taken on biblical porportions, and any changes would be analogous to rewriting Genesis. I'm not sure that the introduction constructed here was so much a matter of luck, but a function of the input and skills of several contributors. If anyone thinks that a particular version represents perfection, is their not a way to "lock it" as a shrine for academic excellence? --Random Replicator 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Disjointed

message: Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.  
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts.
2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts DC across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of DC current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong.  Another example is the kinetic energy of a 1-2 kG object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light.  One hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v.  Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).  It is interesting to note that at times in history the other hypothesis was deemed correct by the majority of scientists.  Of course, scientific truth does not submit to the will of the majority of scientists.
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species?  That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwin supporters (those who claim that new species evolve from old via evolution) claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well and good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences--
This is a valid discussion, and I request that you not stifle the discussion.  From a logical and scientific perspective, the article has problems, one of which is the failure to identify what it would take to prove the theory of evolutionary speciation incorrect. 
170.215.45.95 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered you before. It is in the archives. Take a look.--Filll 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I didn't get a chance to look before it was moved.  I wonder why it wasn't kept.  This seems like a fair question, in my opinion.  In any event, are you saying that at no time was a species once thought to have followed another was later discoverd to have actually preceeded it? 170.215.45.95 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is basically a null hypothesis. It is an idealized model to no evolution. This has been applied to SNP's.GetAgrippa 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can look up Hardy-Weinberg easy enough, but what is SNP?  Sorry for the stupid question.  170.215.45.95 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Personally I think the hard/soft science distinction is specious (and GetAgrippa has provided some fine reasons why) and while many people make it, I have never seen the distinction made as a serious claim in either the sociology or history of science, discussions among scientists, or epistemologists.  Theoretical versus experimental versus applied, clinical versus experimental, these are examples of useful distinctions (not that they necessarily are relevant here).  My guess, admittedly just that, is that the main proponents of the hard/soft science distinction are university undergraduates who are either snobs or lazy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with GetAgrippa in this. In fact, when I answered this before (now in the archives), I pointed out that biology is normally included in the hard sciences with physics and chemistry. Soft sciences are things like economics and sociology and anthropology. Biology is a far harder science than psychology. Not that these "soft sciences" are all garbage, but they are at an earlier stage of development since their subject matter is a little less amenable to our investigations. And theories in physics that are unsupported or weakly supported by the data are looked at with a fair amount of suspicion. Our standards however for evaluating a science should not be whether it is classified as a soft science or a hard science, or how much mathematics is used in the science or in how long the science has been around. We should evaluate a theory in science on  one basis: "What is its predictive power?" Now on this score, evolution ranks admirably. It is so powerfully predictive that it is of phenomenal applicability. The main problem I see is that evolution scientists have done a very poor job of explaining their field. An inordinately bad job in fact. Leaving the door open to creationist nonsense.--Filll 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's theory versus scientific theories, laws, etc. 

message: "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones."  The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species.  Is this strictly correct?  Seems a bit misleading.  I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.
In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.
:Why the lab, better examples of speciation in nature. Evolution is not synonymous with speciation. Evolution can lead to speciation, but evolution occurs without it. Speciation is a by product of evolution. Plenty of examples of speciation in plants, insects, birds, and mammals in nature. GetAgrippa 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, speciation is inferred from evolutionary effects within a species.  170.215.45.95 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stickleback fish has become a supermodel of evolution studies. Here is a good review by Elizabeth Pennisi:Science 18 June 2004:Vol. 304. no. 5678, p. 1736 Changing a Fish's Bony Armor in the Wink of a Gene. More recent articles determine that shifts in ectodysplasin alleles correlate with speciation within decades time frame. There is also a good Science paper on genomic change and speciation in Siberian warblers as I recollect, and a large number of plant examples. The review article has some dramatic images demonstrating the changes in spines and lateral plates with speciation in marine and freshwater fish populations. I always thought the images of lateral plate loss was dramatic evidence of evolution. 
Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. 
Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. 
Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. 
Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 
These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg.GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks GetAgrippa, but are any of these published on the internet, or do I need to join some biological society to read these?  VacuousPoet 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All college and most public libraries probably have a Science magazine subscription. GetAgrippa 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Evolutionary" effects are observable within a species, if by evolutionary you mean adaptations or mutations over a period of generations due to natural or artificial selection.  I really can't tell if you don't catch that I understand and concur on this point or if you're trying to obfuscate.  The question is speciation.  It also seems that you are technically defining evolution to be natural or artificial selection with or without speciation.  But the way I understood it, evolution was short for the evolutionary origin of species, which is inferred from natural and artificial selection within a species.  My understanding may be wrong, as so many of the responses seem to suggest, but this makes things much more clear.  I doubt very much that so-called creationists dispute natural and artificial selection resulting in mutations within a species (e.g., adaptations over generations of goats is described in Genesis itself).  But if they do, and they are basing it on the Bible, simply refer them to Genesis 30:37-41.  It appears that the Darwinists are being less than intellectually honest when they seem to fail to recognize that the skepticism is not with natural or artificial selection, but speciation.  It is the speciation that is less than perfect scientific theory.  With some justification, I hear people argue that speciation is just a story, logically equivalent to the creation account on the origin of species.  Of course, referencing a repeatable experiment that demonstrates speciation in an artificial environment would do a great deal to silence this criticism.  VacuousPoet 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a common mistake to confuse evolution with speciation (evolution is not synonymous with speciation it is a by product of evolution). Evolution occurs and can lead to speciation. The point of defining speciation is somewhat valid as scientist do argue over defining species, however Mayr's definition is the generally accepted definition (hybridization is problematic to Mayr's definition). Speciation doesn't have to be a perfect story but it is a useful tool for humans to measure evolution through time by fossils and by molecular analysis. The fact is some organisms have been mislabeled by anatomical characterization when analyzed on the molecular level. None of this detracts from evolution. The only valid argument you may find ground is to argue that evolution theory cannot totally and with certainty predict evolution. You can argue the significance of natural selection  or genetic drift as mechanistic in evolution. That argument accepts evolution, natural selection, and genetic drift as verifiable fact, but the significance can be questioned as is this purely the mechanism. Evolution theory is predictive but random events can alter the predictive course. In any case, the whole point of research is to resolve, refine, and increase the predictive power of evolution theory. I am sure in another ten  years new mechanisms will be resolved, new fossil finds, and more genomes will sequenced to give a more clear and focused picture of evolution fact and theory. I think we may be in for some surprises which makes it all so much more interesting. It reminds me of the marine annelid "living fossil" genome recently sequenced. Many expected to find a very primitive genome a reflection of a primitive organism. However, what was revealed was a complex genome with many human-like genomic elements. I remember in the seventies turtles were misclassified and by comparative anatomy standards were considered evolutionarily dead ended (because of skull features). It just keeps getting better-molecular biology has revolutionized evolution studies. Better questions are to ask: Why do reproducing organisms organize into discrete cluster within a population, and since the gene number does not correlate with organism complexity-Where does complexity arise?  GetAgrippa 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speciation 

message: Fill, you wrote No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God  I did some reading, and if creationists are saying such things, it may be a case of them not understanding their own Bible.  At least, differences of opinion exist within the community that interprets the Bible literally.  For example, one popular commentator, E.W. Bullinger[], cites 2Pet3:6 regarding the "World that was," and interpret that to mean the time from which fossils come.  To quote:  'Creation in eternity past, to which all Fossils and "Remains" belong.'  This isn't a young Earth theory, or a God or the devil played a practical joke theory.  It might be an escape valve, but it slightly more complex than the ones you attributed.  If you're going to speak for creationists, you might employ some of your research skills to help ensure that you speak accurately.   65.73.44.65 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escape Valve 

message: ::Vacuous Poet, rather than speak around and around in circles, please define the following in your own words (don't cut and paste from a creationist website):
::*science
::*scientist
::*falsifiability
::*Darwinism
::*scientific proof
::*scientific fact
::*evolution
::*religion
::*scientific truth
::*scientific theory
::*theory
Thanks.--Filll 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not care if you are a creationist or not. Just do not cut and paste from a creationist website because I do not think they are at all reliable, in my opinion and experience. I did not see a succinct definition from you of falsifiability, so humor me with a definition. Just tell me what you are talking about or else the conversation is pointless. --Filll 20:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to agree with you when you write:  "...I do not think they [creationist websites] are at all reliable..."  But you implied that I do cut and paste from them.  Are you retracting that now? VacuousPoet  21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not retract a thing. I just am asking you to not cut and paste from unrealiable sources such as creationist websites. Period.--Filll 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also believe that the word "fact" has different meanings in common usage and in scientific usage. Facts for scientists are either well established theories or data. Facts in common usage are reality, or truth, or proven statements, or potentially provable statements.--Filll 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, provisional definitions. Of course, logic could be included as a place where proof exists. I think there are scientists without PhDs, although scientists with PhDs are in general far more reliable than those without in my observation. And scientists that follow the scientific method are far more likely to get their material published in peer reviewed journals than those who do not.--Filll 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was being a bit passive aggressive regarding my definition of a scientist.  There are too many self-proclaimed "ologists" in this world, and he admits to essentially that.  I am a doctor (though I do not play one on TV), I have a medical degree, a medical license, a DEA license, an internship, a residency in cardiology, a fellowship in interventional cardiology, an MS in biochemistry, an MBA, and I am a season ticket holder to the LA Kings.  I probably could rant more on the state of the NHL, but I don't claim to be a hockey player.  I am NOT a scientist in the form of Filll, but my master's work was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and a lot of my cardiology studies have been published.  That makes me a scientist.  Evolution is NOT a theory in the sense you are using Poet.  Evolution is a fact, and I've read those peer-reviewed journal about Evolution from people who are a lot smarter than I, and they know it's a fact.  If you want to go read those articles, and really study them, perform whatever experimentation that you can conceive, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, then come back here and say that evolution is not on par with gravity, I'll be willing to listen.  But  your proclamation that it is not is beyond my understanding.  In my opinion, there is no difference between gravity and evolution in the spectrum of truth or science.  They are equivalent.OrangeMarlin 22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "That makes me a scientist. Evolution is NOT a theory in the sense you are using Poet."  I do not say you are not a scientist.  Like fill, I think that a scientist is somebody who uses the scientific method to learn more about the natural world.  Congratulations on your achievments, by the way.  I am distinguishing between two levels of theories.  Theries that are falsifiable, and those that are not.  It seems to me that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is a theory that is not falsifiable, and this is not a good thing.  VacuousPoet 03:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. I have seen no evidence whatsoever of you acting like a scientist, using the scientific method, or even know what science is or what a scientist is. None. And the Theory of Evolution is definitely falsifiable, and it has had to be modified repeatedly because of that. Contrary to what we all know you are frantically defending but do not have the honesty to admit here. So we have literally millions of scientists that have professional credentials that accept the basics of Darwin's theory. Well over 99.9% of professional biologists as reasonable. Well over 99.84% of the 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed that accept the theory as reasonable. So are these people all working for Satan? Are they all evil? Is it all a grand conspiracy? Do all these people with PhDs publishing in peer-reviewed journals not know what science is? Have they been tricked and only you, great scientific genius that you are, with no degrees, no publications and no knowledge that is apparent, have figured it out? Please. Give it a rest.--Filll 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Define your terms Vacuous poet

message: falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not:  Do you know what Ph.D. means?  
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability:  Really?  Therefore, you're not a real scientist?   Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here:  This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point.  You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist.  You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
In creation science...:  This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron.  The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism.  If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.:  Exactly right.  But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory.  E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species.  Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
This has given me an idea for another article:  Good.  Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
Merry Christmas.  By the way, fill, I am not a sockpuppet of [| Ken].  I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him.  Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person.  You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation.  I hope you think more clearly when you do real science.  74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ph. D. indicates you've achieved a certain level of educational mastery in your field, or got a diploma from a degree field. It doesn't actually connotate expertise necessarily; not only are many Ph. D.'s not very competant (though on the whole they are far more competant than normal people) but Ph. D.'s are specialists. You seem to think it indicates you are a scientist, but a historian is not a scientist yet can get a Ph. D. Almost every creationist Ph. D. is the result of either a diploma mill or is in a wildly different field, often liberal arts and quite often religion. Wielding the Dr. prefix is fun, but it doesn't actually mean you're competant or even able to commment meaningfully in a field. Most creationist Ph. D.'s, even the legitimate ones, don't actually know what they're talking about in terms of biology. Titanium Dragon 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ph.D. 

message: My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. --Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiability and evolution draft 

message: My thought exactly Margareta (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. --Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiability and evolution draft 

message: The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden talk 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct Adam. I and others have noticed this. However, since you had suggested that we wait until you had worked more on the rest of the article, I was going to hold off. Also we had some strong opposition from one or two quarters. I wrote to the editors about trying to develop some sort of simpler compromise, but I have not heard back yet.--Filll 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've partially restored the last low-jargon version, then adjusted the new material. I'm not sure the whole history is useful in the lead, and the gloss of alleles needs work, but it's better. Adam Cuerden talk 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The LEad Again 

message: I know little about the way evolution works, and I didn't find the article helpful in answering some of the questions I still have. I have heard that wisdom teeth either evolved in order for humans to have an extra set of molars (because of decay) or that it is because our jaws have just gotten smaller and could not accomidate this. Can someone tell me which of the two theories is true? I've also heard that having fewer wisdom teeth today means that you are more "advance" or have evolved (in the context of your dentry), since now humans do not require their wisdom teeth. Is it true that if I lack wisdom teeth, I have more advanced in this sense? I really don't understand how evolution works.
I have also heard that humans have a trend of losing hair (or having our hair become thinner) as we evolve; that is, our ancesters had a lot of thick hair, while we have gradually evolved to having fewer or thinner hair. What is the reason for this? From what I understand of evolution, you only evolve when a new genetic mutation benefits the species in some way so that the new mutation is selected for -- in terms of humans eventually growing to have fewer hair... I don't see how the mutation of less-hair would make much of a difference -- how could we have "evolved away" our body hair? 
Assuming that the logic so far is correct, would it mean that having less hair today would mean you are more evolved or "more advanced" in this sense? For example, asians tend to have less body hair (or at least, thinner body hair) than other races from what I know -- would this mean that in this sense, they are more advanced (in that they have "evolved away" their useless hair)? I don't mean more advanced generally speaking, but in the sense of being "further along" in terms of body hair (or lack thereof). I mean, if Homo sapien sapiens have evolved from having a lot of body hair to having less hair, doesn't that mean that those races today with less body hair have evolved? 24.23.51.27 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution doesn't make things more or less advanced. In the case of humans, natural selection is not playing nearly as strong a role as it used to - we can cure cancer and a number of previously-fatal diseases, so genes which select for resistance to those are not as strongly held. Basically, were we still under significant pressure, with clothes we might lose our body hair even more, and with our softer food and better dental care, lose our wisdom teeth. These mutations, however, are more likely to be controlled by genetic drift, as few people in the first world die of wisdom teeth, and we have enough food to support body hair freely. Only when there is pressure will it be forced, though sexual selection may gradually select for or against certain traits. Titanium Dragon 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisdom Teeth and Hair 

message: Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on. from . Wow we have to revise all those science books. All those Nobel Prizewinners and scientist are dumb !! We had it all wrong--Filll 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entertaining, and remarkably similar ideas to Aristotle's concept of Formal Cause, the perfect ideal with variations being perceived as deterioration: see also History of biology#Classical Greek biology. This perception filled well with the medieval interpretation of Created kinds. Which of course resurfaces with out modern evangelical chums. Onward to the Dark Ages! .. dave souza, talk 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this contributing to the evolution article?  Selective application of rules and guidelines.  The rules and guidelines apply to those who find fault in the evolution article.  74.33.26.71 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A great "explanation" of mutations