Talk:The Edge of Evolution

message: the view that Darwinian evolution is the only existing form of evolution, and who take exception to intelligent design as well as other theistic and non-theistic complexity theories.
I'm personally not aware of any non-theistic/supernatural theories of the origins of complexity that are not inextricably bound to evolution.  The only thing that even possibly comes to mind is panspermia, but that just moves the question one step back.  As far as I know, the only naturalistic explanations of the origins of biological complexity are evolutionary explanations.  I move that reference to "non-theistic complexity theories" be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanpoet (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other "non-theistic theories of complexity" 

message: Review by David E Levin, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I don't think it adds anything startling -- but may be useful at some stage as a citation on some point or other. HrafnTalkStalk 06:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it just duplicates pre-existing criticisms, it's still a demonstration of the lack of acceptance by mainstream science.  I'd promise to integrate it, but, well, you know.  Not so good with the follow-up.  WLU (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another review 

message: WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Inspectre
Can anybody confirm that Denton is still "Senior Research Fellow in Human Genetics at the University of Otago"? I can find no evidence that he is still a member of the Biochemistry Dept (which was listed as his departmental affiliation on his article, until I removed it as being out of date), nor at the inter-departmental genetics research page.  HrafnTalkStalk 13:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until confirmed, how 'bout a 'former' WLU (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Former" is fine -- he turned up in a 2001 UO phonebook & is mentioned in passing on one of the Biochem Dept staff's webpage -- so he was definitely at the university at some stage. HrafnTalkStalk 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hrafn, it is irresponsible to make comments like this about books you have not read.Inspectre (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Inspectre would have us believe that Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is "not anti-evolutionary". Did anybody see news reports of aeronautic swine? HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inspectre would not have Hrafn believe anything, since Hrafn is unteachable.  But Inspectre would have Wikipedia readers believe the truth, i.e., that it is not evolution as such, but Darwinian evolution, which Denton rejects.  Hrafn would of course know this if he had read Denton's books instead of relying on his usual batch of mean-spirited and ill-informed internet sources.Inspectre (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inpectre, if you want to martyr yourself for your discredited, delusional, 'WP:TRUTH', please go somewhere else to immolate yourself. Your are trite, absurd, often unoriginal, patently false claims would be more at home in Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch than in a serious forum. You are a dead bore. Now go and find a minefield to play in. Korea's DMZ has a pretty one, I hear. HrafnTalkStalk 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Denton 

message: I added a citation needed tag at the end of the opening paragraph because a blanket statement was made without a source.  Then I scrolled down and saw that citations are given under the criticism and reviews section.  Is there something we can do about the sentence in the first paragraph (either remove it or include citations there too)?  It is adequately cited further down the page, but does that mean it can remain unreferenced near the top? Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is adequate. A lead simply summarises the the body of an article, so do not need separate citations for information already cited in the body, and do not typically have them (except occasionally as a belt & braces approach on particularly controversial articles). HrafnTalkStalk 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Does anybody, other than Inspectre, believe that the following is legitimately "rephrasing opening to eliminate inaccuracies":
HrafnTalkStalk 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously Inspectre fails to grasp WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. Thanks for changing it back to a reasonable version. .. dave souza, talk 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please study these Wikipedia policies with care. .. dave souza, talk 11:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing blatantly POV edits by Inspectre 

message: Is this statement of Wybrow to fellow ID-advocate Denyse O'Leary, quoted on her blog, relevant to the article:
I feel it is (at least parenthetically, in providing information as to Wybrow being a partisan, rather than a disinterested observer), but Inspectre seems to feel it isn't (hardly surprising, given that he's given us every reason to suspect that he is in fact Wybrow himself, and thus has a personal interest in suppressing it -- which would mean that he's WP:COIed on this topic). Any outside opinions? HrafnTalkStalk 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, Hrafn misses the point of my edit.  My point is not that the information he included is false, but that in no other case was the history of the publication of the book review gone into.  For example, The New Republic is a left-leaning, atheist-leaning magazine; why wasn't the possibility that The New Republic commissioned Coyne for his congeniality to its views investigated with the same assiduousness that the Philadelphia Inquirer review was?  Further, the way Hrafn's change was worded, "managed to get a review published", is vaguely insulting, and was rightly removed by Dave Souza along with a similar comment regarding Ruse' review.  Finally, the typical Wikipedia reader is not interested in trivial gossip about how these reviews came into existence, but only about their purport.  Along similar lines, silly amazon wars about whether Behe made a "sexist" comment (to a graduate student who repeatedly talked disrespectfully to him in a very public way) are irrelevant to informing the reader about Behe's book and the criticism of its ideas, and don't belong in the article.  The remark about sexism has been deliberately included (as has so much else in this article) to create an unsavory impression of Behe, and thus to weaken the appeal of his ideas through an association technique.  If that remark is relevant at all, it belongs in an article called:  "Sociological Aspects of the Intelligent Design Debate," where the various pathologies of all the combatants can be objectively reported.  So at some future point I think the remark about sexism should be removed.Inspectre (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be said that I did remove "managed to get a review published" after removing similar statements about other reviewers, as rather snarky. The point does seem valid, but without a more reliable source we don't need to give it great prominence. The amazon blogging and Behe's reputation have had wider coverage, and are more significant. .. dave souza, talk 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Dave you didn't remove my usage of that phrase. It was last removed by Inspectre here, before you started editing this article, and I have not reintroduced it since -- as there seemed to be more blatant issues of POV than this one of WP:DUE weight that needed settling first. HrafnTalkStalk 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: On the subject of sourcing, I would note that O'Leary blogs for the Access Research Network's official blog "The ID Report]", as well as several other official & semi-official ID blogs (including Dembski's Uncommon Descent]], and has co-authored the pro-ID book The Spiritual Brain. This makes her moderately prominent within the ID community. HrafnTalkStalk 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Cameron Wybrow's statement to Denyse O'Leary 

message: Hrafn, once again you have reverted a change of mine, reflexively, automatically, without considering it on its merits.  By now, even those editors who share your view of ID must be wondering about your objectivity.  
You demanded that I always provide sources.  For these changes, I have, including an institutional web-site which documents Tony Jelsma's teaching and research fields, a link to a Wikipedia article on Jonathan Wells which acknowledges his Ph.D. in biology, and a link to dozens of reviews of Denton's books, pro- and anti-, all of which acknowledge that Denton accepts evolution.  If you have specific reasons to doubt the accuracy of these sources, bring your reasons to the discussion pages before mindlessly reverting my researched additions.  Simply disliking the fact that I caught Gross and Myers with their pants down is an insufficient reason for a reversion.Inspectre (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um try to calm down. What I saw you were trying to push into the article did not look encyclopedic, frankly.--Filll (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't read the EOE article carefully.  I never said Jelsma made a dustcover endorsement.  I was speaking of his role as an advisor.  If you read Myers's comment, you will see that he was referring not to the people on the dustcover, but to the people on the acknowledgments page.  Jelsma is on that page.  Myers says that NONE of those people are biologists.  Even setting aside Wells, Jelsma is.  Myers is wrong.  Just for once, admit an appropriate correction.Inspectre (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I missed that, for which I apologise. However it would not be unreasonable for Myers to consider somebody whose PhD is in Biochemistry, not Biology, and who teaches in Dordt College, which appears to have a commitment to creationism, as not a "real biologist". HrafnTalkStalk 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In your accusations against Myers, you are indulging in WP:OR speculations. No WP:RS is accusing him, you are. As such it has no place in this article, and I can ignore your tendentious arguments in support of it. HrafnTalkStalk 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, Behe is a biochemist, and displays a woefully ignorance on all manner of subjects (e.g. virology, immunology, parasitology, evolutionary biology, population genetics) that have no immediate relationship to biochemistry, that he ignorantly bloviates upon in the book. Jelsma, also being a biochemist, lets him expose his ignorance. If Biochemists were experts on all these subjects, then why on earth would we need virologists, immunologists, parasitologists, evolutionary biologists, etc?
The argument about Dordt College is guilt by association, the usual sort of logically invalid  argument I encounter around here.  Besides, while he teaches there, he got his Ph.D. at a secular university, so apparently his "creationism" wasn't an issue for his supervisors.Inspectre (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is relevant because it is entirely possible that Dordt hired a non-biologist to teach biology because he would be more willing to teach Creationism than most biologists would be. HrafnTalkStalk 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The policies and guidelines, which I have recently read, make it clear that "consensus" of editors cannot overthrow them.  Myers's remark about Wells is inaccurate or at the very least debatable, and to leave it standing, merely because you guys don't like Wells, is a violation of the fundamental policy of NPOV.  That you guys have the power to ignore the Wikipedia policies (whereas apparently I don't), doesn't make it right.  You may think that Wells is a bad biologist, but to deny the existence of his Ph.D. in the context of Myers's claim is blatant slanting.  Maybe you can live with that kind of editorial dishonesty.  I'm challenging it.Inspectre (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that nobody can see this "overthrow" of policy except for yourself. We do not "deny the existence of his Ph.D.", but we most emphatically deny that, given Wells' circumstances, it automatically makes him a "real Biologist". HrafnTalkStalk 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me put it to you this way, Inspectre. I know the Greek alphabet very well. I can even puzzle out a few words. I was exposed to it plenty in many classes, many years ago. I have a bunch of graduate degrees. However, I have never used my Greek professionally for more than equations. I have not read any Greek books. I have not taught any Greek classes. Should I be allowed to demand that I be treated as someone with as much knowledge and background in Greek as you? I think not. And same with Wells. He is a smart guy; no question about it. But he never worked as a biologist, or at least not for a long time. No one would hire him to be a biologist. He makes statements that are completely nonsensical from the view of biology. Other biologists treat him as a loose canon who knows no biology. Wells is a theologian who acquired a little academic boilerplate. That does not mean he is competent to judge things as a biologist.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I would suggest you find some WP:RS where someone else is commenting on Myers' comment. Find someone else who says it, if it is so egregious, and quote them. That is what I would do.--Filll (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing Errors in Dustcover Endorsements 

message: I have a real problem with discussing the dust cover reviews at all.  I do not think dust cover reviews qualify as WP:Reliable sources.  Publishers will cherry pick positive comments to place on the dust cover of any book.  They do not include the entire review, however.  Thus, the comments quoted are taken out of context.  We have no way of knowing whether the comment appearing on the dust cover is accurately reflecting the full opinion of the reviewer.  In a wost case senario, it is possible for a review to be essentially negative, but for the publisher to pluck out the one positive comment and place it on the dust cover.  This sort of puffery can be a gross misrepresention of the review.  I am not saying that this has occured with The Edge of Evolution... only that it could happen, and that effects the reliability of dust jacket reviews in general.  If you are going to discuss the positive and negative reviews of this book, you should cite to the actual, original reviews, and not snippets quoted on the dust cover of the book or on Amazon.com.  
In addition... if you drop discussion of the dust jacket reviews... there is no longer any reason to discuss the qualifications of the reviewers. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problems with ditching them. HrafnTalkStalk 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... to be BOLD, I have removed the section about the dust jacket endorsements.  As stated above, if the endorsements are important to include, you should find the actual original reviews that the endorsements are quoted from, and cite to them... such discussion can be placed in context of other positive/negative reviews (which already have sections).  Good luck with the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone replaced them.  I removed them again.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dust cover reviews 

message: I think calling Behe's division of evolutionary theory into three parts his "primary assertion" is poorly worded in that it misrepresents the magnitude of the issue at hand. 
It is the thesis of his book which should be seen as the "primary assertion" whilst his threefold division should be considered a rather uncontentious observation.
In support, consider Richard Dawkins review of the Edge in the NY Times: "Behe correctly dissects the Darwinian theory into three parts: descent with modification, natural selection and mutation." 
I don't think it's necessary to footnote Dawkins remark in the article itself, but did want to offer justification for the alteration in wording.
Thanks,
Muzhogg (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behe's primary assertion 

message: I object to this edit by Dave Souza. It is perfectly normal and conventional to say that a book argues something. It's not relevant that it's not true in a literal sense - anyone would understands what it means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The book contains or presents an argument, which is Behe's argument. No need to understand poor grammar. . dave souza, talk 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you don't understand the difference between a figurative expression and poor grammar? (To contain or to present an argument is the same thing as to argue, of course). Perhaps someone else would like to comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Why is there a specifically demarcated blue block containing criticism of this work that instantly jumps out of the article?
Is it fair to give that amount of weight to a blog post? Would this be done to any other scientists work, or does wikipedia only stay neutral towards people who reflect their beliefs?--Ordessa (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be done to the work any other scientist who has similarly published on Dembski's pseudoscience: Musgrave is a good source, and PT is accepted as a science blog source of expert opinion. Do you have another source in mind? As for the need to clearly show mainstream views of the topic, see wp:weight and wp:psci. . . dave souza, talk 07:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I've read the entire exchange between Musgrave, Behe, Abbie Smith, and the various other commentors who took part in that massive debate.  Musgrave was right that HIV had evolved new binding cites and Behe admitted that on his blog.  But he was wrong to calculate HIV's reproducing population size based on the effective population size--a term that can mean many different things in population genetics.  Likewise Behe was wrong to use the census population size instead of the reproducing population size of HIV that is about 100 times smaller (not 100,000 times smaller as Musgrave argues).  Regardless, even if you were to replace every number in Behe's book with those that Musgrave proposes (including the erroneous ones), Behe's point that it takes huge populations to evolve very modest gains still stands.  Populations larger than the number of humans since a chimp divergence. 74.132.164.237 (talk) 5 May 2014   — Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads like an attack article 

message: Amusing attempt to enlist  in support of Behe, when in fact it shows two pathways for evolution of the transport – no gods required! Pure SYN claiming this has anything to do with Behe, though no doubt the usual Disco Toot crew will try. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: SYN re saturable chloroquine transport