Talk:Evolution/Archive 17

message: Does that new disclaimer really belong in the article? thx1138 06:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think so.  I've just removed it.  I think its unencyclopedic to discuss the editorial process within the article itself.   Barnaby dawson 07:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We don't do things like that here. In rare circumstances, we can use HTML comments in the article to address notes to editors but not readers. Except when there is a clear problem with the text as it stands (e.g. "citation needed") we do not clutter up the article with directions to future editors. --FOo 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer recently added to the article 

message: I've rewritten the rebuttal to the Information section of this topic.  The previous author states that Prijambada I.D. et al (1995) found that the the ability of bacteria to digest nylon is not solely based on mutations.  This is false.  Simply reading the abstract from the cites article will reveal that the authors have found the enzyme in the bacteria once they were exposed to nylon only nutrition.  Therefore the enzyme must have come from somewhere.  I quote "After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx
might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation."  Therefore the authors stipulated that a muation in an old protein caused the evolution of the new protein.  To further solidify the point, I have cited a new article where the exact mutation is pinpointed.
--Roland Deschain 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nylon digesting bacteria 

message: I removed this phrase in my most recent edit because evolution is not "mostly theory," it's all theory... a Scientific Theory - and the elements therein are already adequately discussed in the article.  The author who put this phrase into the section did exactly what the sentence following that edit described: highlighting the confusion of laypeople of what a scientific theory is.  In science there are no "absolute facts" there are models and laws which reflect observations.  As a scientist myself I know this well.  So to put perjoratives like "...it is mostly a theory" or "...more theory than fact" makes no sense in the context of science.  Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory, Relativity is a theory, Electromagnetism is a theory, and Evolution is a theory.  They are all raised to the status of theory, they are not hypotheses or conjectures. Astrobayes 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition was recent. All you did was revert it. Good. -- Ec5618 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Good work, Astrobayes. – ClockworkSoul 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most of it is theory" 

message: Please explain how this widely believed yet unproven theory can be properly asserted as fact in this article.84.146.212.154
:It is proven. Please see Futuyma, pg. 1-522. Titanium Dragon 10:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd have noticed the sections explaining in what senses evolution is a fact and in what sense it is a theory, and what exactly 'theory' means in science (hint: it isn't "unproven"). While there is a widespread ignorance about evolution in which it is viewed as an unproven theory in a hierarchy of proof below fact - an ignorance which you apparently share - that is, you wont be surprised to learn, completely wrong. I recommend actually reading the article before disparaging it, as that might clear up a few things. Particularly: Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolutionary_biology JF Mephisto 10:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A very kind wiki editor pointed me to the scientific theory article recently.  Having read this, anyone wishing to debate based on the whole "it's just a theory" stance should go there first. :) (Weenerbunny 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact or widely held belief: "Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of the biological world"?

message: The anonymious editor of last night and all that respond seem to miss a point, namely that wikipedia is dealing with verifiable information, not truth. The  tag was used to do the latter (is it truth or not), which is incorrect usage. For that reason, the reverting was correct. Furthermore, several of the claims were backed up by subsequent sentences, which made it silly to add tags. Finally, the first edit  of the series makes abundantly clear by itself, as does the edit summary removing extreme POV that is unsourced as fact.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tag edit war 

message: Please, let's do a better job of representing NPOV and consensus, isn't that what Wikipedia's always been about?--F.O.E. 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is a featured article and has been through several layers of scrutiny to achieve balance. Criticism of evolution is documented in the "religious and social controversies" section. Perhaps you could offer more specific comments on what you would like changed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just had a look at your user page. You say that "tolerance" of "ideas" like Darwinism makes "monkies" (you mean monkeys) of us all, and have a picture of a monkey with the caption "a portrait of your average evolutionist." I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that you aren't interested in representing NPOV and consensus (which is already done quite adequately in this article) but rather trying to force a fundamentalist viewpoint on everyone else. There is no scientific debate on whether evolution exists, and the article reflects that. You're welcome to complain about that and call those who disagree "monkies," but I don't think it will change anything.  Sorry! JF Mephisto 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, just for the record, it's a dead giveaway when you use words like "evolutionist" to characterise the consensus position of the scientific community (or even "evilutionist" as your  "fair and balanced" userpage has it).  Cheers, --Plumbago 10:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think those are bad—you should see what he had on his page earlier. I removed the especially inflammatory ones. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. -Silence 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow indeed! "Perverted un-natural deviants" and "pre-born infanticide." There's someone who must make great company at a party! JF Mephisto 00:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh... I don't think I want to know what the "especially inflammatory" ones were.  I like the ironic "live and let live" at the top of a page with all that down the side... Weenerbunny (195.153.124.163 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate every chimp I see, from chim-pan-A to chim-pan-Z. No, you'll never make a monkey out of me. Graft 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it possible that this person is a strawman/troll sockpuppet? Their user page seems rather unbelievably stupid in so many senses.... Skittle 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always found it impossible to distinguish the parody from the real on this topic. David D. (Talk) 18:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ape Man, Ape Man, Ooh ooh ooh! We are smart, smarter than you! Evolution, evolution must be true! Ape Man, Ape Man, Ooh ooh ooh! Scorpionman 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic Man, Magic Man, Zip zap zow! God must have made us, though we don't know how! Evidence, evidence, no need now! Magic Man, Magic Man, Zip zap zow! :P (I don't think that scientific theories are determined by who has the catchiest themesongs. Sorry, man. :)) -Silence 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what they are worth though, yours was awesome. ;) JF Mephisto 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, Silence, because you don't know how God made us, He couldn't have. Is that it? Well, I can't think of how evolution could have happened, but that doesn't stop it from being possible, right? Scorpionman 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O, please. Classic strawman argument. What's your point, Scorpionman? Evolution has a lot more going for it than "trust scientists, they're smarter than clergymen". Now, let's keep this lighthearted and good natured, eh. -- Ec5618 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's nothing straw-man about it. Silence thinks that because we don't know how God could have made us, it couldn't have happened. So I say to him, pthbthbththb. Scorpionman 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: [personal attacks removed by Guettarda] Scorpionman 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: [personal attacks removed by Guettarda] Scorpionman 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scorpionman, if you have something to actually contribute to this discussion, please feel free to. Otherwise, engaging in personal attacks and being generally unpleasant is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwanted. --Fastfission 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All right, fine. But I didn't even start this discussion; I just joined in. Every time someone tries to get this article to be neutral, some bullheaded evolutionist jumps down his throat with "Stupid! Evolution is proven and you're an idiot!" Scorpionman 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is definately NOt what's been going on.  What occurs is someone who has a nonscientific, religious bias attempts to make an assertion that is untrue.  You and others make claims out of a lack of knowledge, in which you try to assert simple false statments as factually accurate.  You're not an idiot for not understanding evolution or accepting it.  That's your decision to make.  But to assert the things that are asserted here by creationists, and to pretend that evolution is not a completely supported accepted scientific fact with NO peer reviewed refutations is to be incorrect. 68.105.170.18103:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are more than welcome to challange any point in this article using scientific literature.  Any paper criticising evolution that cites scientific literature is also very welcome (make sure to read the scientific citations first so you can defend their validity.  This article is about the science of evolution and therefore should be focused on the scientific lietrature.  If you want to criticise evolution beyond the scopes of science, the Creation-evolution controversy is a good place to go, as a lot of that article is beyond science and open to other sources. --Roland Deschain 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy evolutionist bias 

message: I just came across this site after following a link from the acid article.  It appears to have lifted some of the article here, but doesn't attribute it to WP.  Seems a tad unsporting.  Has anyone come across them before?  Just before I fire an e-mail rocket at them ...  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just yet another uncompliant GFDL re-user, nothing too much to worry about. You could complain to them but they probably don't care. --Fastfission 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, any contributor to this article is the copyright holder of their contributions, and has standing to bring action against a copyright violator. Notably, Wikimedia is not going to pursue violators, since Wikimedia does not hold copyright to the contents of Wikipedia articles (but only holds a license from us, the contributors). --FOo 19:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of their article they have a copyright logo along with  "thebioreview.com. All Rights Reserved." I suppose they now claim it as their own (eye rolling) David D. (Talk) 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  theBioReview.com 

message: This is just a minor point.  The reference to the article by Lucena and Haussler (who happen to be my colleagues) should be removed.  Their article is not a criticism of the methods used in ancestral reconstruction, but rather presents a counterexample to a claim in the literature that says a certain phylogenetic tree topology (the so-called "star" topology) is optimal for reconstruction of ancestral states.  It's a nice paper but addresses a fairly technical, mathematical issue that is not really relevant here.
--Adamsiepel 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about Ancestral Reconstruction 

message: Whats up with the huge see also section?--Peta 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With a topic as broad and noteworthy as evolution, everyone wants their favorite quasi-noteworthy and/or quasi-relevant article, such as teratogenesis or evolutionary art or HeLa or language, to be linked to here, even though if it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article text (or in our new, compact linkbox), it probably doesn't belong in the top-level article's "see also" section, and if it is relevant enough to be mentioned in the article text, it probably doesn't need to be linked to a second time. Eventually, it should be trimmed down heavily or even removed entirely, though I don't see it as a high priority (as long as the article proper is high-quality, linkbloat near the bottom is less of a concern). -Silence 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's Finches 
Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant
Science 14 Jul 2006; 313: 224-226. 
Just for those who would like some more evidence of changes in nature Arnoutf 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper in Science on recent natural selection of Darwin finches 

message: I dont think this article will ever be safe. Rorrenig 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it won't be, but that doesn't mean it should be permanently semi-protected. If you feel it should be, make a request on WP:RFPP - although the level of vandalizing here does not warrant protection. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope I don't think it will be safe, but on the other hand there are more than enough 'watch dogs' guarding this article, so there is hardly any serious and lasting damage done; so protection maybe to heavy a measure. Arnoutf 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-protect please 

message: :1. Using natural selection as evidence for transitions to more complex organisms in nature (i.e. the elusive information gain that evolution requires) without referring to processes that simply repeat the same information or scramble it around (i.e. duplication, replication, polyploidy, etc.).- This is called the bait’n’switch tactic that evolutionists use in which they use small changes (natural selection) as proof that ridiculous changes happened such as molecules-to-man. Natural selection could just as easily be an incredibly complex adaptive mechanism built into our genes by an intelligent designer. Evolution would require a near infinite amount of beneficial functional information-gaining mutations to get to the point we are now, and yet beneficial mutations are extremely rare, and beneficial mutations which increase functional information are non-existent. This argument cannot be used as scientific evidence.
Bioliquid2fusion
:*"they use small changes (natural selection)" - Natural selection is not "small changes". Natural selection is a major mechanism under which evolutionary changes, especially large, long-term ones (because it's much easier to measure selective forces over hundreds of generations than over a handful of them), occur. It is a theory explaining the fact that species change over time, adapt to their environments, etc., which is information gathered from fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and morphological evidence.
*Okay, natural selection facilitates changes, from what we know, within a structure of limitation. Meaning you can breed ever larger dogs, but I’ve never observed a dog the size of a train, have you?  And just to say that because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it cannot happen is no more credible of an argument then creationists’ argument for God. How large and long term are you talking about? We have to look at what we have observed as the evidence, but all else is strictly fanciful thinking, no more. You cannot use your opinions to suggest something you and I cannot observe as evidence and call it science. 
:*"as proof that ridiculous changes happened such as molecules-to-man" - Although I know you didn't want us to accuse you of crafting any strawmen, this is, in fact, a strawman. :) If you don't want us to point out strawmen, please refrain from utilizing strawmen. Deal? Abiogenesis is a topic distinct from evolution; the origins of life are not directly addressed by evolutionary theory, which deals with how life changes over time, not how it first came into existence to begin with. Arguing against evolution based on your concerns over the origin of life is as silly as arguing against gravity based on concerns over the Big Bang.
*It’s not a strawman argument. Evolution claims we came from molecules-to-man, and cites natural selection as its evidence. That is directly your argument, which is a complete fallacy in itself, but I did not try and misstate your beliefs, I was just realistically candid
:*"Natural selection could just as easily be an incredibly complex adaptive mechanism built into our genes by an intelligent designer." - And gravity could just as easily be an intelligent designer "pushing" objects towards heavy objects. Just because something is possible doesn't make it remotely likely, nor does it negate valid scientific explanations for them. Just about anything is possible, after all. It's possible that rainbows occur because leprechauns make them, but since there's no evidence for that and plenty of evidence for the dispersion of sunlight being refracted by raindrops, it is reasonable to operate under the working assumption that rainbows are caused by the aforementioned naturalistic occurrences, until contrary evidence arises. For the same reason, it is reasonable to operate under the working assumption that natural selection is caused by the well-explained naturalistic processes and interactions we've observed for centuries, not by an invisible magical man in the sky known only from anecdotal claims, until contrary evidence arises.
*Once again, I agree with science, but not that evolution is science. Do you think that it is realistically possible to prove whether there is creator? What about by dying? Do you know anything about what happens after you die? Perhaps the physical laws and dimensions that you are aware of and are capable of observing with your five senses are only part of the equation. Does not death present a conundrum in which your beliefs could possibly be wrong? I know your argument is that anything absurd could arguably be possible, but regardless of what an individual believes, there is an ultimate truth and reality that governs our universe (agreed?), and if it is that a supreme being created us all 6,000 years ago such as is stated in a certain historical document (whether you want to believe it or not), then why do your claims to the contrary, which are based on mass amounts of assumptions about the lack of that creator and historical document, automatically become true?
:*"Evolution would require a near infinite amount of beneficial functional information-gaining mutations to get to the point we are now," - Hyperbole. "Near-infinite" is not a meaningful scientific descriptor. I'd say that a few billion years of constant mutations would be sufficient to get to about where we are now. :) A billion years is a staggeringly long length of time, just about inconceivable on any but an abstract level to human beings, but that doesn't make it "near-infinite", and it certainly seems to have sufficed to produce the diversity of life in the world today, unless the rocks are "lying" to us about how old they are. :) Or maybe it's a conspiracy of geologists? Damn those tricky scientists!
*Okay, well, statistically speaking then, that many beneficial mutations (remember they must be information GAINING mutations) are not just highly unlikely, they are ludicrous. After all, we have yet to observe even a single verifiable beneficial mutation that subsequently increases functional information.  The rocks are not lying to us, the dating methods are unreliable at best, and cannot even give accurate dates for things of known ages, so definitely cannot be a good resource for dating things of unknown age. 
:*"and yet beneficial mutations are extremely rare," - This is either a falsehood, or just going out of its way to be exceedingly misleading and loaded. Beneficial mutations are no rarer than harmful mutations. Most mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial; a mutation becomes "harmful" when it happens to have a negative effect on the organism's chances of surviving and reproducing, and it becomes "beneficial" when it happens to have a positive effect on the organism's chances of surviving and reproducing. With that in mind, beneficial and harmful mutations are both actually extremely common; every human being in the world has at least minor beneficial and harmful mutations. Antibiotic resistance is one well-known example of a common and well-studied "beneficial" mutation—beneficial for the microorganism, at least. :)
*Okay, so mutations are for the most part neutral, but there are a lot more documented cases of harmful mutations then beneficial, and irregardless of the effect of the mutation, it is always represented by a loss of overall genetic information, not a gain. The examples of antibiotic resistance and sickle-cell anaemia I have heard, but if they are so common, can you provide me with some more examples please?  
:*"and beneficial mutations which increase functional information are non-existent." - Judging by your last few comments, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of information theory. I recommend reading up on the topic before you continue to make such false (and really, rather silly) assertions. Here are some links you'll find useful:      
:*I've got to go to dinner now, but I'll finish replying to the above points as soon as I return. -Silence 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this page is not the page to debate evolution and creationism, if you want that go to talk.origins. All of thse are old tired arguments, second of all, I've noticed that you seem to be impersonating another user with your signature. Stop. JoshuaZ 02:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural selection

message: :4. Using existence as evidence for abiogenesis- since evolution has no cause or reason, and no intelligence to guide it, there must have been a spontaneous generation of life from non-life which there is no evidence of. Using Genesis as a historical reference for the creation of life is just as plausible and “scientific” as abiogenesis. But of course evolutionists already know this, which is why they try to avoid this topic.
Bioliquid2fusion
:*"Using existence as evidence for abiogenesis- since evolution has no cause or reason," - Evolution has a cause just as much as all events do. However, I don't see what you mean by "reason"; why would a process have a "reason", per se? What would it be a reason for? Does gravity have a "reason" and "cause"? If so, evolution does as well.
*Okay, let’s think logically here for a second. Your beliefs basically give credit to an unintelligent and unguided process, which basically breaks down to random occurrences with no goal to drive toward and no reason to continue to drive forward in the first place. Events have a reason because they behave according to the process of cause and effect and are bound by the physical laws that govern our universe. Evolution cannot even explain how life began, as either way it would have to refer to something outside of our known physical laws (i.e. life coming from non-life, or God).
:*"and no intelligence to guide it, there must have been a spontaneous generation of life" - "Spontaneous" is misrepresenting the occurrence, which involved millions of years of tiny changes in organic molecules like DNA and RNA. Your intelligent designer is the one who apparently involves "spontaneous generation of life"; science is much more gradual, and dramatic change only occurs in retrospect, looking over millions and billions of years of small changes. Furthermore, you should keep in mind that there is no hard, fast, obvious line between "life" and "non-life"; the distinction between inorganic and organic molecules and chemicals is largely a matter of historical convention, not an objective scientific "fact". There are numerous things that demonstrate some, but not all, of the characteristics of life, such as viruses.
*Okay, so as long as you can blur the lines between what constitutes life and non-life you can give credit to some random process that you suppose brought us to the point we are now, and don’t have to explain why that defies the laws of physics?  Merriam-Webster dictionary defines life as:  “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction” So before you can have DNA and RNA to build on, which we have never seen happen anyways, you have to have an origin of DNA or RNA, which are pretty complex in their own regards. Just because you cannot define life, does not mean that you can assume that the origin of life is a non-issue.
:*"Using Genesis as a historical reference for the creation of life" - ... is as silly as using any of the millions of other origin beliefs as historical references for the creation of life. Genesis is not a historical account anymore than any other mythological explanation for life's origins, and there is no external evidence for the supernatural assertions within Genesis. Religion is not science; myth is not history.
*Okay, it’s silly because you say so, is that it? Did I mention how silly an impossible amount of coincidences driven by randomness and non-intelligence is to explain our origins?  You are obviously welcome to believe whatever you want, but your wild mythological fairytale called evolution is no more credible then my documented beliefs that I call history. 
:*"is just as plausible and “scientific” as abiogenesis." - There is a problem here. You misunderstand the basic dichotomy in play between the two options of abiogenesis and biogenesis. Abiogenesis is "life from non-life"; the only other possibility is biogenesis, "life from life". In other words, regardless of whether an intelligent designer created life or not, the only two options are for all life to either have arisen from earlier life (biogenesis) or for at least some of it to have arisen from non-life (abiogenesis). The Creation account in Genesis is an example of religious, mythological abiogenesis: it asserts that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation by a deity. Modern theories of abiogenesis are examples of non-religious, scientific explanations of how life arose from non-life. But regardless, almost everyone, scientist and theologian alike, agrees that abiogenesis of some sort occurred, because the only other option is that life has always existed, forever, which would require an infinitely old universe and would generate an infinite regress of more and more organisms.
*How is creation by an intelligent living being the same as life spontaneously and for no reason bursting forth from nowhere; or building itself up slowly from nothing for no reason over billions of years for that matter? I think that abiogenesis, depending on how you define it, either never happened, or was prompted by a creator who started life from non life, although technically speaking that would be life creating life, which is biogenesis. I think it’s all semantics either way, but my main point was simply that without an intelligent source with supernatural means, life, however you define it, could never have arisen by itself.
:*"But of course evolutionists already know this, which is why they try to avoid this topic." - ... Vigorously studying a field for decades is "avoiding" it? You have a strange definition of avoidance. -Silence 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abiogenesis

message: :6. Using the supposed geological column as evidence for evolution- the geological column does not exist, it is a fictitious tool that evolutionists try to use to give the appearance of millions of years between rock layers (which they give presupposed dates according to fossils) and in a [not so] amazing display of circular logic, use each strata layer to date fossils, even though things such as polystrate fossils and radiohalos completely destroy the credibility of this idea.
Bioliquid2fusion
:*"Using the supposed geological column as evidence for evolution- the geological column does not exist," - You are mistaken. The geological column and its fossil differentiation has been attested by independent observers in every part of the world for hundreds of years; tens of millions of people all over the world see them every year. Are all of them colluding in some vast, pointless "conspiracy" just because you disagree with them? Please read this page on the geologic column, if you have any interest whatsoever in clearing up your profound misconceptions in this issue.
*Elephant hurling at its finest I see. ‘Hundreds of years’ and ‘tens of millions of people’ he says, and it magically becomes true. I read it, and then I read this, and it sounded better .
:*"it is a fictitious tool that evolutionists try to use to give the appearance of millions of years between rock layers" - Uh. So, an imagined, centurious-old nefarious group called "evolutionists" has engendered a worldwide conspiracy that has placed trillions of fossils in the ground in every part of the world, meticulously sorted by species and anatomical features according to an elaborate fabricated timescale, for no apparent reason and to the detriment of their own purposes? Wow. I never knew "evolutionists" had the godlike powers to restructure the very earth's structure on a mass scale, arbitrarily change the rate at which naturally-occurring isotopes decay, surgically implant vestigial structures in trillions of organisms, etc. Impressive. :D
*Obviously you do not know what you are talking about, but you are of course welcome to believe whatever you like. And I never said the claims evolutionists made were actually true, so no, they did not reconstruct the evidence; it simply never existed to begin with.  
:*"(which they give presupposed dates according to fossils) and in a [not so] amazing display of circular logic, use each strata layer to date fossils," - Incorrect. Geological strata are not dated based on fossils, they are dated based on reliable methods such as radiometric dating, which are then in turn used to date the fossils within such strata. Is the fact that organisms of specific varieties occur only in specific strata (along with the fact that the deepest strata represent progressively "simpler" organisms) a mere coincidence in your view?
*Radiometric dating is not reliable, organisms do not only occur in specific strata, and deeper strata does not necessarily represent “simpler” organisms. In fact, vertebrates have been found in the Ediacaran strata, which is below the Cambrian strata, in which consequently, almost every variety of phyla can be found without so much as a viable ancestor fossil (simpler fossil) below it representing a supposed transition.  Overlapping strata are commonly found, as well as polystrate fossils, and many fossils “out of place” according to evolutionary geological dating .
:*"even though things such as polystrate fossils and radiohalos completely destroy the credibility of this idea." - Again, you are mistaken. You are parroting debunked pseudoscience back at us as though it somehow still has credibility despite thousands of refutations. I wish you would at least have the imagination to use new arguments, not the same ones that were refuted a hundred years ago. Please review this page on radiohalos and this page on polystrate fossils. -Silence 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geological column

message: :7. Using vestigial organs and “junk DNA” in any way to support evolution- many of the so called “vestigial” organs that evolutionists have presumed were useless really had redeeming qualities and quite important biological functions after all that they failed to realize. “Junk DNA” is just evolutionists making assumptions again that attempt to make their hypothesis sound more credible.
Bioliquid2fusion
:*"Using vestigial organs and “junk DNA” in any way to support evolution- many of the so called “vestigial” organs that evolutionists have presumed were useless really had redeeming qualities and quite important biological functions after all that they failed to realize." - You obviously do not understand what the word "vestigial" means. It does not mean "useless", it means "the remnant of a structure that formerly had a different or fuller functionality". Please read Wikipedia's article on vestigial structures, which clearly explains that the definition of vestigial has always been this, making arguments like "the vermiform appendix might have some minor function!" irrelevant red herrings.
*So something that “supposedly” had functionality but is now useless for all intensive purposes is a pretty good way of summarizing it then right?
:*"“Junk DNA” is just evolutionists making assumptions again that attempt to make their hypothesis sound more credible." - Um? Junk DNA is not "made up", it really exists. Interpretations and explanations for such DNA sequences vary, but noone disputes that they exist, though some prefer to call them noncoding DNA to avoid misconceptions. Your arguments are getting even more bizarre and unsubstantiated. -Silence 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article. Vestigial structures may very well have function. Just not the original function. -- Ec5618 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vestiges

message: I haven't been around wikipedia for a couple of months now & it was pleasant to return and see the article has been improved greatly. I particularly liked the changes to the intro, well done everyone! Anyhow, I did see one (small) thing: in the controversies section it is said, "The proposition that biological evolution occurs through one method or another has been almost completely uncontested within the scientific community since the early 20th century". That is true, but it understates the consensus in my opinion - isn't the consensus since at least the '30s that natural selection is the mechanism that explains the occurence of evolution? That is, the sentence says the fact of evolution is uncontested, but withint the scientific community, there is consensus also that Darwin's mechanism is the theory that explains the fact. I've changed the sentence to reflect this... Mikker (...) 11:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one small correction.  Natural selection is just one of the recognized mechanism that drive evolution.  Your sentence "...natural selection is the mechanism that explains the occurence of evolution?" indicates that you think it is the only mechanism.--Roland Deschain 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, right. There is sexual selection, drift, etc. Knew that, just wasn't thinking of it at the time. Though, aren't the other types of selection considered special cases of natural selection these days? (And drift of course cannot feature in an explanation of complexity). Mikker (...) 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social & religious controversies 

message: Wouldn't it be a good example on how fast evolution works in some situations by referring to the evolution of the urban animals in the article? For instance, in the London underground there is a population of mosquitos who has evolved from Culex pipiens into almost a new species called Culex molestus. It is clear that this mosquito has been exposed to a very strong selecture pressure within a limited area. A relevant link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/ns-tue041906.php  193.217.193.140 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban evolution

message: Mikkerpikker made a small but interesting edit to speciation just now. I know that Darwin failed to recognise the finches as such until Gould identified them back in England. However I thought the finches were used as evidence in "Origins", a book of course written 20 years later and after much reflection. Or am I wrong? I think Mikkerpikker is right to have edited the paragraph, as otherwise it read a little like the discovery of the fincbes was a Eureka moment for Darwin. But I don't think that is the end of the story. --Michael Johnson 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I've no objection to Mikker's edit which may save misunderstandings, the discovery of the finches was indeed a Eureka moment, but it happened when Gould make the identification during the Inception of Darwin's theory#Geological début, species related to places and subsequent Transmutation ideas. While on the islands, Darwin thought the relationship of bird to island so unremarkable that he didn't bother noting this on his labels, and after Gould revealed that they were all finches, Darwin had to find better labelled specimens collected by others. The "discovery" of the significance of the finches came while he was still working on his journal, which incorporated the description cited in Darwin's finches including the statement that "one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends". However Gould's explanation in Jan. 1837 rather predated Darwin's idea of natural selection which appears to have come to him around Nov. 1838. ....dave souza, talk 01:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I mostly made the edit, as both of you above seem to realise, to avoid misunderstanding - the pop conception is often that there was some sort of causal relationship between the finches and Darwin's discovery of natural selection. (And, *blush* one I shared when I originally wrote that caption way back when I first uploaded the picture...) Michael, if you can think of altering the caption to both avoid misunderstanding and address the concerns you seem to have ('it's not the end of the story') I certainly won't object... Mikker (...) 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's Finches 

message: I don't know about you guys, but I know I am starting to see evidence of evolution in the behavior of vandals on Wikipedia. Whereas most used to just come in, write utter nonsense and depart, several now create themselves an ID and either put in totally outrageous claims in different articles (but not utter nonsense) or just take the article and revert it to a stub (properly done, actually).
ok... that was meant to be taken as a joke. Don't get mad, just delete it if totally inappropriate.--Ramdrake 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think more sophisticated vandalism makes them more likely to breed? -- Ian Dalziel 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably makes them more likely to last long enough to influence others with their views, thus the vandalism breeds :-) Oh gods, I've got into memes again. Skittle 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Evolution? 

message: *Darwin developed a blending ... generation of new mutants at a very high rate -this is from Fisher - when I remember where I got the link, I'll cite the book
*(rather than controlled by the environment)  - this is the specific point that was important, since at the time people were attributing directed mutations to environmental conditions and other stuff like that.
**"since at the time people were attributing directed mutations to environmental conditions and other stuff like that."  Mendel did not touch upon mutations at all, much less evironmental conditions.  He never went about describing why his traits were so (ie: mutations), but that they were  heritable (from parent to offspring).  It was an axiom of his theory, and, at that time, a commonly accepted one.  That time period had a good grasp that traits were heritable in many oganisms (see Vítezslav Orel, Heredity before Mendel, 1996 by Oxford University Press).  So saying that heritable means not controlled by the environment is a) a false dicotemy (traits can be non-heritable and not be affected by the environment, like genetic methylation) and b)a fact that was understood before Mendel proposed his laws and simply stated as an axiom.  When Mendel said that traits were heritable, he meant that they were passed on from parent to offspring and not that they were not affected by the environment. 
*described by the algebraic laws  - this is a strict description of what what he did. it therefore includes "well defined and predictable manner"
**I cannot see how Mendel's laws are algebraic and have never heard anybody use that specific term for his theories.  The oxford dictionary (2004) defines algebraic as:  denoting a mathematical expression or equation in which a finite number of symbols are combined using only the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponentiation with constant rational exponents.  Mendel's laws led to statistical applications (this offspring has a 3/4 chance of being tall), but his laws were not algebraic.  He said that different traits (on different chromosomes) seperated independatly of each other and that the same versions of a trait (allele) seperated independantly of each other: how is that algebraic?
*From these observations Fisher was... - I read recently (letter to one of the journals) that Mendel did not actually explicitly talk about discrete units of heritablility, and that it was Fisher who, describing Mendel's work, said "discrete", in his discussions of particulate inheritance. I'll try and find it, but its rather thin as an authoratative source.
**Mendel, to even propose his theories, must have understood that his traits were discret units of heritability.  His entire theory depends on that fact.  Here are a couple of websites that state that Mendel understood his tratis to be what we call today genes (in the most loose sense of course, Mendel had no chance in hell to propose what we know today to constitute a gene).  
**:"But the concept of the gene dates back only to the late 19th century. It was first put forth by an Austrian monk named Gregor Mendel, who used his monastery garden for a now-famous series of breeding experiments with pea plants."
**:"Mendel proposed instead a theory of particulate inheritance, in which characteristics were determined by discrete units of inheritance that were passed intact from one generation to the next. These units would later come to be known as genes, though Mendel did not coin the term himself."
**:--Roland Deschain 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that he was confused, but the letter I read said that he never explicitly talked about discrete units of inheritance. and it is hard for us now to evaluate whether it was obvious, since we grew up with genes. I will look for the letter, but I don't think it is an authoritative source. better to simply clip the sentence out, I think. Sillygrin 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: modern synthesis

message: This paragraph here is wrong or, at best, very misleading:
:"Evolutionary developmental biology is an emergent subfield of evolutionary biology which inspects the genes of related and unrelated organisms. By comparing the explicit nucleotide sequences of DNA and RNA, it is possible to trace and experimentally determine the timelines of species development. For example, gene sequences support the conclusion that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans, sharing a common ancestor as recently as 5 million years ago."
Compare it to the introductory paragraph for the actual topic:
:"Evolutionary developmental biology (evolution of development or informally, evo-devo) is a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different animals in an attempt to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved. The discovery of genes regulating development in model organisms allowed for comparisons to be made with genes and genetic networks of related organisms."
I propose to change this paragraph to mirror the actual introductory paragraph of the topic.--Roland Deschain 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evo-Devo  

message: Extinction is an event that might be said to be sort of independent of evolution, if you consider fluctuations in population size to not be part of 'evolution', but in any case, the latter is obviously AFFECTED by allele frequency nonsense. If there's low variation in a population, it's health suffers, and it's far more likely to be stuck in adaptive valleys and die out. Et cetera. Anyway, it's contentious, I agree; but extinction ought to be fitted into the intro somehow. Graft 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet fluctuations in population size are quite important to evolution! Aside from the obvious problem that a species whose population fluctuates to zero (or one, or a sexual species) will have no further evolution, there's also the effects of a small gene pool -- beginning with the founder effect, and then carrying on to inbreeding and so forth. --FOo 06:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allele frequency/extinction/chicken/egg 

message: In the "History of life" section, it states : "However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including cellular structure and genetic code."  This is too great of a simplification, given the distinctions between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and the fact that there are several alternative non-standard genetic codes.  I don't want to detract from the subject of the article, but simplifications/inaccuracies like this are quite misleading.  I'd be interested in people's opinions on how to best improve this. --GoldenTorc 07:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-standard genetic codes are minor variations at best; they're not substantial re-writes with completely different codon structures. Often they're variations only in specific contexts, and most of the really radical variants exist in mtDNA. So I think that's a pretty safe claim. As to general structure, sure, eukaryotes, prokaryotes are different, but cellular structure has a lot in common - ribosomes, lipid bilayer, nucleic acids, proteasomes, etc. Graft 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - while I agree with you, I still see the text as inaccurate, and inaccuracy in this article merely provides fodder for creationists. How about "However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including various aspects of cellular structure and in large part their genetic code."? --GoldenTorc 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All known organisms share the same genetic code.  Any nucleotide that works in one organism works also in another no matter how far apart the are on the evolutionary tree.  So rewriting it to large part of their genetic code would be misleading, as that would imply some exceptions and, to my knowledge, there are none. The basic building block of life (nucleotides) is conserved across all known life.--Roland Deschain 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, all organisms do not share the same genetic code.  Please see the genetic code article.  The genetic code is not the same as which nucleotides you use, it is how you translate triplet codons into amino acids.  There is a Standard Genetic Code, and then many variants, all mostly the same as the standard, but with one or more exceptions.  Thus, to say that all organisms use the same genetic code is not completely accurate. --GoldenTorc 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll consult the canonical list, you'll see that most of the variation is in mtDNA, as I said; this can't really be considered "separate organisms", anyway, but the point is, this is really a TINY, TINY minority of organisms anyway. If you say "Well, 99.99% of life uses one genetic code, but there's about 50 different codes used overall," - unless you want to capture that nuance, I'd avoid mentioning it. Graft 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion.  You are right in that there are exceptions to the genetic code (most notably the mitochondria).  To make the sentance more accurate and reflect universal attributes of life that are used to argue for a common ancestor the sentance can be rewritten:  "However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including cellular structures and genetic materials."  Material in this case would denote nucleotides (NTP or dNTP) which are the basic building block of all known life.--Roland Deschain 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Variations in the code don't suggest that they're different codes - they're clearly of common origin. That's like saying fly and human alcohol dehydrogenase are "different" and not worthwhile evidence of common descent because there's some amino-acid substitutions. I think the genetic code is probably one of the strongest available pieces of evidence for common descent - it oughta stay in. Graft 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From someone who knows next to nothing about evolutionary genetics, let me say I agree with Graft that to quibble over .01% would be confusing to the user. In science we always know that 100% is very rare for any statement, but we must also be precise in our wording. In this case we seem to balancing 100% correct wording with the chance for misunderstanding by the user. Personally I would lean toward eliminating the chance for misunderstanding but if we can be more precise without getting too confusing we should aim for that. In that vein I support Roland's general revision but maybe we can find a word better than materials. Genetic Construction? Genetic Makeup? Genetic Structure? Don't flame me, like I said I know little about genetics apart from a 200 level Evobio class. Nowimnthing 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to refer to the Genetic Code, rather than genetic materials, because, as Graft says, the Genetic code is one of the strongest pieces of evidence available for evolution.  When I said that there are different codes, I didn't mean to imply that there are completely different codes, but that they are not all identical.  Clearly my wording did not convey this, so need to be improved, so as to not mislead readers in a different direction.  How about "However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including various aspects of cellular structure and their genetic code (for which minor variations exist)."?  I just want to make sure it is accurate.  --GoldenTorc 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The genetic code is just one example, and not the best, for universal common ancestry.  My favorite one is that all amino acids have left symmetry across all known life.  There is no functional advantage to having left over right symmetry, so the simplest explanation is that the original developing life, for some reason, evolved to take advantage on one form and, through common descent, passed it on.  (There are right amino acids, but they require special enzyme that have been shown to have evolved later to convert left amino acid to right amino acid)  A reason I don't like using the genetic code is that it's very easy to manipulate it without affecting the organism too much, allowing some leeway for evolution (see suppressor mutations).  However, a right amino acid is vitually impossible to introduce into an oganism.  So, as there is this small exception in the genetic code and as its just one of the arguments for common descent (and certainly not the best one), lets just go with the nucletides, as there is absolutly no known exception to that rule and it is the best example for the common descent of all life.--Roland Deschain 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of life inaccuracy 

message: We currently have a short section on this topic linked to a short article.  
The May 11 issue of the New York Review of Books has an essay by Israel Rosenfeld and Edward Ziff on evo-devo, reviewing From DNA to Diversity, Endless Forms and The Plausibility of Life.  This essay I think makes an important case that the section on evo/devo should be expanded.  It could also be a be a source for improving this article.  I could draw on it myself but would defer to someone actually in the field of evolutionary biology, or who has actually read the three books reviewed. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evo-Devo is a huge field that is rapidly expanding and offering evolutionary mechanisms for macroevolution (God, I hate that word).  I am familiar with the field, but the first thing that needs to be done is expand the actual evo-devo page and then take the salient points and put them in this topic.--Roland Deschain 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure.  I'll pick the book up tomorrow and read through it.  I'll take notes and update the evo-devo site accordingly.--Roland Deschain 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we sure we need to expand the section.  This article already seem to long.  Shouldn't we be directing users to a more specific page that discusses evo-devo only? David D. (Talk) 16:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evo devo 

message: I reverted the request for citation because we do not need to cite general knowledge otherwise we would cite everything. See Science and the Bible. Nowimnthing 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested citations for two unsourced statements, something which is encouraged in Wikipedia policy. Whether these sweeping statements are "general knowledge" is debatable. The loaded phrasing of the sentence on "kinds" needs a citation. There is no reason why you would need to revert such a request. —Aiden 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't work that way.  It is impossible to cite every single sentance.  Conflict between science and religion is general knowledge.  However, kinds is not that well known, so add Created kind.--Roland Deschain 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you admit that it is not well known, yet rather than simply adding the link to created kind, you revert my request for a citation? —Aiden 16:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Secondly, your revert comment claiming that it is "general knowledge that science contradicts religious faith" is highly POV. This article itself makes mention of theistic evolution, mentioning that according to many faiths, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the statement is not only unsourced, it is POV, hence my requesting a citation (which of course you reverted). —Aiden 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that you want a source for is "such as cosmology and earth science, also conflict with a literal interpretation of religious texts". Can you find a source that states the opposite, that sciences do not conflict with a literal interpretation? Until you do, I vote for common knowledge. Nowimnthing 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is common knowledge it should be pretty easy to provide a source, no? I know of no Wikipedia policy which requires that I show an opposing source in order to request a citation. Further, regardless of source, that statement is POV in that it claims definitively that religion and science conflict, something which many on "both sides" may disagree with. Hence, providing a source is the right thing to do. Why is that so difficult? —Aiden 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to the specific topics that are linked concerning this section of the article: Creation-evolution controversy.  There you will find all the necessary links.  We have simply taken the information from that article.  If you have problem with the info, take it up over on that topic.--Roland Deschain 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would I take up an issue with an unsourced statement in the evolution article at another article? —Aiden 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because all the information in the evolution article is cited to have come from Creation-evolution controversy.--Roland Deschain 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agree that the idea of a literal intepretation of Genesis being at odds with earth and life sciences, is general knowledge and doesn't need a citation. JPotter 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed, for the second statement.  While many other fields of science, such as cosmology and earth science, also conflict with a literal interpretation of religious texts, is absolutely common knowledge and needs no citation.  In no way does that statement "[claim] definitively that religion and science conflict," Aiden.  The first statement, about creationist redefining macroevolution, would benefit from a citation.  bikeable (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a wiki link to the kind argument.--Roland Deschain 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation of bible conflicts with science

message: This sentence is really bad: "While from a scientific viewpoint one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent designer . . .".  This sentence is really wrong.  The fact that evolution does not require a supernatural influence is not a scientific strength of the theory.  
*Every scientific theory (true or false) cannot be based on supernatural influences, so the fact that evolution does not include it makes it no better than any other competing scientific theory.
*This sentance implies that just because evolution doesn't need supernatural intervention it's a great theory, which is (mildly put) totally ridiculous.
*The great strenghts of the theory of evolution is all the evidence gathered over the last 150 years
--Roland Deschain 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a very poor sentence. However, at the time, there was a widespread perception that life was the last vestige of creation that hadn't been conquered by science. So in the minds of some people, including many scientists, the theory had an additional meaning in representing the final nail in the coffin of the pre-scientific worldview. Actually, in science it did have that effect (and nobody ever really thought the lay public would accept it anyway). Darwin realized this and addressed it in his famous passage about there being beauty in the evolutionary  outlook. The most vocal proponent of evolution as antidote to religion was Thomas Henry Huxley, and his writings are well worth the read. Perhaps this sentence or something like it belongs in a section about the public perception of evolution. --Aelffin 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem of a sentance being put in the history of evolution saying that evolution offered a naturalistic mechanism to explain life.  But to say that the strenght of evolution that it does not include supernatural explanation is wrong in any section of this article.--Roland Deschain 17:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the sentence is stylistically problematic, but disagree that there is a problem with the content. If you look at the history of the study of life (e.g. Paley's "Natural Theology" or Hume's "Dialogue concerning Natural Religion") you'll see that, before Darwin, people had tremendous difficultly in conceiving an alterative to "God created it". But, of course, saying God did it is no explanation at all because to account for one set of puzzling facts (the appearance of design) you have to posit the existence of an entity that is even more puzzling. Essentially, you "explain" something you don't understand by gesticulating in the direction of something else you don't understand. So, in my view, it *is* one of the greatest strengths of evolutionary theory that one doesn't need to posit a "greater intelligence" that is itself beyond science. Mikker (...) 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you say that evolution's strength as a scientific theory is that it doesn't posit a supernatural creator, then you're implying that there could be weaker scientific theories that do posit such a being. Which, or course is ridiculous. In other words, the reason that it's better than natural theology is that it is scientific (read: mechanistic), where Paley's was not. So, the contribution is that it played a role in bringing biology into the purview of science. Note, however, that Darwin's theory was not the first attempt to do so. Buffon and Lamarck and (significantly) Erasmus Darwin all attempted more-or-less scientific descriptions of evolution. The main strength that Charles Darwin's theory had over these is that it presented a tight, evidence-based approach to the study of life. So, I think the sentence fails in its content, but could be reworded so it neither implies that all of the predarwinian theories were non-mehanistic nor that a non-mechanistic theory could be scientific. --Aelffin 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with Roland that the "greatest strength" of evolution should be posited relative to its scientific value, not relative to its ability to do away with God... That is exactly what the creationists are erroneously claiming.--Ramdrake 23:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why saying it's a scientific strength of a theory not to posit a creator implies there are scientific theories that do imply such a being. I am fully aware of Buffon, Lamarck & Erasmus Darwin (though calling the last "scientific" is a serious stretch IMO). However, these opinions were distinctly in the minority. Basically no one in the scientific community accepted these pre-Darwinian theories and Darwin himself was not widely accepted for decades, the last doubters being convinced only after the modern synthesis in the '30s. To the extent that we want to minimise debatable metaphysical assumptions in science, it is a strength of Darwin's theory that it did not need a god, because before Darwin few people could see how it would be possible to explain the appearance of design mechanistically (i.e. w/o god). Before Darwin the was seemingly no way for a scientifically minded person - witness Hume - to do away with the proposition that god was needed. Mikker (...) 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's like saying "The strength of the internal combustion engine over other horseless carriages is that it requires no animal for locomotion." By virtue of saying it's scientific, you're already saying it posits no god so you can't use that as a point of contrast with other scientific theories. You can, however, say it's a strength over nonscientific theories. What Darwin had over other scienfitic theories is that his was the first to provided a large body of supporting evidence. --Aelffin 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed that sentance again as the consensus is that the sentance is wrong.  Scientific strength is not based on the lack or inclusion of supernatural intervention as this sentance implies.  It is a deep misunderstaning used (unfairly) against evolution when all of science (be it right or wrong science) must follow this rule. --Roland Deschain 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit warring is childish and I won't indulge in it here, but rv-ing me and claiming (falsely) there is a consensus to do so on talk is far from kosher. If a person makes an alteration to the status quo & somebody objects, the onus is on the person wanting the change to convince the community the change is necessary. Mikker (...) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think, originally, the sentence was there because someone perceived the clause which follows it (that evolution upsets some religious cosmologies) as a slur against evolution, and wanted to point out that the qualities that annoy fundamentalists about it are actually qualities which most scientists think are good for a scientific theory. I agree that it isn't necessary. In any case, evolution is neutral on supernatural creators, like most scientific theories. It is either a description of what they did do, or what they did not do; it simply says what happens, and does not posit whether or not there is or is not guidance from a supernatural creator. A supernatural creator is not necessary for the theory but that does not mean that it would not exist or play a key part in it being true. Richard Dawkins aside, scientific theories are usually agnostic on the ultimate involvement of a deity. --Fastfission 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Roland and Fast have given good rationals for the removal. JoshuaZ 23:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "That which we were looking for and could not find, was a hypothesis respecting the origin of known organic forms, which assumed the operation of no causes but such as could be proved to be actually at work. We wanted, not to pin our faith to that or any other speculation, but to get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested. The 'Origin' provided us with the working hypothesis we sought. Moreover, it did the immense service of freeing us for ever from the dilemma–refuse to accept the creation hypothesis, and what have you to propose that can be accepted by any cautious reasoner?"  
Nevertheless, I would say that there is no need for those two introductory paragraphs at all.  Those two paragraphs are poorly focussed and have no useful purpose.  Those two introductory paragraphs are "misunderstandings" themselves and are not accurate statements about misunderstandings.  I suggest we should go directly from the heading "Misunderstandings ..." to the sub-heading  "Evolution and devolution."  --Rednblu 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Huxley would say something like that, but he was always happy to be anti-religious. I agree that those particular paragraphs don't do a whole lot, and are covered in more detail in the controversies section below it. --Fastfission 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The lack of supernatural intervention is just one criteria for a scientific theory.  There are many more (see  here).  So evolution meets the lack of supernatural criteria as well as the other criteria.  Evolution is not for or against a creator.  Any scientific theory must be agnostic, as it is impossible to prove or disprove a supernatural god via the scientfic method.  For all we know, God designed evolution when he breathed life into the first life form.--Roland Deschain 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And is something more scientific because it upsets fundamentalists? Homestarmy 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues we are discussing now are best explored in the Creation-evolution controversy.  And User:Slrubenstein, I understand your point.  But this topic is not about appeasing fundamentalists, but rather the description of the Theory of Evolution.  The article links to the Creation-evolution controversy for those who are interested in this ago old conflict.--Roland Deschain 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will anybody miss this sentence? 

message: A post was made to this talk page which was off topic and very unlikely to result in any improvement to the article.  The text has been moved to the talk page of the user who originially started the discussion.  Wikipedia guidelines ask that users use article talk pages for the improvement of the article and not as a discussion forum.  Barnaby dawson 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved off topic debate