Talk:Evolution/Archive 13

message: Partly because sections have been moved around recently, the evolution article's pics are a bit out of sync. Specifically, there are no pictures for a huge section between "Misconceptions" and "Speciation and extinction". Can anyone think of pics we can put in the intervening part? Mikkerpikker ... 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic problems 

message: There's a new reference format floating about that's much superior to what's being used on this page.  By using <ref> tags, a list of references can be automatically created at the bottom by using .  You no longer have to make sure the count or order of everything line up.  See here for an example of where it is used.  --Cyde Weys 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing references 

message: Is it "wikappropriate" to leave comments on article discussion pages?  I simply had to - this has become one of the most comprehensive articles I have seen on wikipedia in a while.  Objective, eloquent and emphatic - and respectable even from an Intelligent Design advocate like me!!!!  Thank you!  Thank you!  Thank you!  =) Salva 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am more of a spectator here, I'm glad you approve of the article—it's good to know that it's well written. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just had to drop in 

message: There's a dangling quote at the end of this section in the article.  It's about horizontal gene transfer, but comes from nowhere.  Has it been orphaned by text changes?  --Plumbago 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of evolutionary thought 

message: Just my feeling last night. There is a continuous stream of people that comes to the talk pages to convince the regular editors (I am not including myself yet in that category) that they have it all wrong, and spew the usual flawed creationist/ID arguments such as the statistical impossibility (while conviently ignoring the non-random natural selection part), many scientists believe evolutio is wrong (where are those?) etc. So, would it be handy to make a template ( that we can add to user talk pages (and at top of this page) that provides some standard answers, a like to talk.origins for discussion, and some guidlines what is needed to convince the regular editors of including a dissident fact. If than the regular editors would just go the the user talk page and provide that template there, avoiding extensive discussion over and over again on non-arguments, it would cut down considerable in the chatter at this page. --KimvdLinde 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me... Mikker ... 16:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a bad idea, certainly. In the end, there is really no difinitive answer, but by confronting such editors with this template, we will at least be able to get a clue to their biases. It's not impossible that a new editor will have a point we haven't though of yet, but this template should help weed out the chaff. -- Ec5618 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I like it as it is now. We probably will think about new additions or changes, but for now, lets roll with it. --KimvdLinde 19:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evoltalk discussion template? 

message: I've meant to do this for a while now, but only now got round to it. I'm changing all the instances of "theory of evolution" to (depending on context) "theory of natural selection" or "evolution" (or whatever seems correct for the sentence in question). Why? Because the term "theory of evolution" is highly misleading and widely misunderstood. Natural selection is the theory that explains the occurrence of evolution - evolution is not properly speaking a theory itself. 
See: 
# Evolution#Distinctions between theory and fact
# Talk:Charles_Darwin#Evolution_is_a_fact_and_a_theory & 
# Evolution as Fact and Theory - J.S. Gould
See also:
#Changes to the Charles Darwin article
#Changes to the intelligent design article
Mikker ... 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is broader than natural selection, since it includes nonselective processes such as genetic drift. You may want to use the term "evolutionary biology" in places to describe the study of evolutionary processes. --FOo 20:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, drift causes evolutionary change but it cannot cause adaption so I'm not sure how important it is. (Moreover, drift is constrained by selection processes, and not vice versa). That said, please do review my changes & alter them if you deem it necessary. Mikker ... 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drift can be very important. Random walk models to explain variation in a trait across the phylogenetic tree test whether drift is sufficient to explain the variation in the current taxa. So, I agree with others that evolution is much more than natural selection and mutation alone. However, it is the basics and even that is not really understood by many Creation/ID proponents. --KimvdLinde 20:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I stand corrected; but my point wasn't really about drift it was about how the term "theory of evolution" is misleading. Do you agree with the changes? Mikker ... 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologise for not waiting but I didn't think this would elicit opposition... Revert if you really want (pending discussion) but I'd prefer it if you make changes to the inaccurate edits you refer to. I'm now going to create a list of my changes in the talk; so you'll have an opportunity to comment on them individually. Mikker ... 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Primarily ok. I think 3 is incorrect limiting to much. I would word 5 different, but change in itself is ok. In 6, I would change understandings to knowledge --KimvdLinde 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 3: how about "one of the great strengths of evolutionary theory science"? On 5: I have no problem with you re-wording it (indeed, I encourage it), I just want to get rid of "theory of...". On 6: what about "not supported by the science of evolution"? ... Mikker ... 22:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with 3. I misread 6 apparently, support your change. 5: I think the whole sentence is wacky, and could be inproved, let me think about that.... --KimvdLinde 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just to be clear, with 3 & 6 do you support the original change or my subsequent amendment? On 5: I agree with you, it's clear what the sentence tries to convey, but it doesn't do it very well. Will give it some thought too... Mikker ... 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, indeed. --KimvdLinde 23:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but do you think I am incorrect in saying that "theory of evolution" is widely misunderstood and misused? (I read a brilliant article about it recently but can't find the damn think now). Anyway, the only instance where I changed "theory of evolution" to "theory of natural selection" is in 1 - where the usage seems perfectly fine with me. Wallace is credited with comming up with natural selection to explain evolution independently from Darwin. What do you think about the other changes? Mikker ... 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humph. I never left out the natural selection part, Redhead. Natural selection is included in random chance. It's not like it was designed to happen that way, right? Scorpionman 15:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural selection is NOT included in the random chance. I stop this discussion here and I suggest you get first a better understanding about how evolution works. I do not feel the need to educate you at this page about the mechanism of evolution, if you want we can discuss by e-mal about this. But representing evoluton as one big random process is incorrect, and a very general misconception among anti-evolutionists. --KimvdLinde 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  And you do know that nat seln isn't random, right? - "a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability" ? — Dunc|☺ 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory, or of science in general." That's nonsense! Ken Ham, who I have mentioned before, understands science very well, understands evolution very well, but he still supports creation! Don't even mention Kent Hovind; he's not one bit like Ham. Also, "one of the great strengths of the evolutionary theory are that it has no need of a supernatural intelligence or intelligent design." I find this quite humorous. In fact, this is one of the "weaknesses" of evolution. If you throw a bunch of scrap metal and other garbage into a furnace, do you think that a space shuttle will come out? Indeed, this lack of a supernatural intelligence is one of evolution's weaknesses! Scorpionman 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scorpionman, if you believe that the space shuttle analogy is similar to the process of evolution, to me that indicates a lack of comprehension of evolution. Throwing the raw materials into a furnace is an essentially random process, and does not include any method for repeatedly selecting subtle improvements over billions of years. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Knowledge Seeker, Scorpionman, from what you've posted you don't seem to understand evolution. If I can be so impertinent as to make a suggestion: read "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer (see ). Great book, easy to follow & presents everything clearly. If you still don't accept evolution after that, fine but at least then you'll understand it. :-) Mikker ... 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry, WP is not a discussion forum about whether evolution is correct or not.--KimvdLinde 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  quite, but couldn't help myself! :) Mikker ... 22:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, I want to remain civil but I'm getting angry. You paid no attention at all to what I said. I most certainly do understand evolution. The space shuttle analogy is an example of random chance, which is essentially what evolution revolves around. If you throw a bunch of metal into a furnace is it going to produce a space shuttle? No. Now, what evolution is saying is that the solar system formed from a big ring of gas that by chance gathered in the Milky Way. A bunch of matter collided to form planets, and Earth was the only one that could sustain life. Just how is it that the Earth is just the right distance from the sun? If it were a little closer, it would be too hot for life. If it were a little farther, it would be too cold. Saying that the Earth formed from stray matter and that life evolved out of that stray matter is exactly like saying that throwing a bunch of scrap metal into a furnace is going to produce a space shuttle. There's no better way I can put it. Scorpionman 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you getting angry? This talk page is not the place to discuss your personal objections to evolution or affront to your religious convictions. This article discusses biological evolution from the earliest organism, and your doubts about the formation of the solar system are not relevant here. The current scientific theory is that the solar nebula contracted due to gravity, not chance (why would you think that?), perhaps triggered by a nearby supernova. Rotation would cause it to flatten out. It is entirely possible that there are billions of planets scattered throughout the universe, and on the tiny fraction where life originates and evolves intelligence, beings look at the inhospitable planets around them and marvel that only their planet developed life. This, however, is not relevant to this article. Biological evolution produces complexity by repeated selection of subtle improvements over billions of years, and your scrap metal analogy does not even closely resemble this process. If that's the best way you can put it, then please stop restating it, as it is not an effective comparison. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Scorpionman, you just showed that you do NOT understand evolution, because you left out the natural selection aspect and focussed ONLY on the random aspect. If you do not get the point that evolution is incomplete without natural selection, there is no discussing on the merrits. --Redhead 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologise if you found what I wrote offensive Scorpionman, but as several people have now pointed out your understanding of evolution can be improved. I'll leave it at that and again suggest you have a look at the book I suggested. Mikker ... 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Cyde, I would go to Talk:Origins, but I have to have an account and I don't want to waste time doing that. I don't want to give away personal information or stuff like that, so why can't they let you make a comment there without having to have a stupid account? Scorpionman 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes a minute to create an account; that's hardly a waste of time.  Heck, just look at how much time you've "wasted" already discussing evolution in an inappropriate venue (Wikipedia).  And the only "personal information" you need to give away is your email address, but if you can't trust Google with that you can't trust anyone with it.  And you don't need to use Google Groups to post to talk.origins ... your ISP probably has a newsgroup server that you can post to using your login and password with your ISP.  So you won't even have to create a new account or anything.  Just a warning though, Google Groups is probably easier to use for the novice.  --Cyde Weys 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Scorpionman has proposed changes just as he was asked by Guettarda.  He's not blowing anyone off.  In fact, it looks to me like it's quite the opposite.  Inconspicuous comments like that hidden in the article are meant to depreciate ID and/or Creationism, not to educate people about evolution.  Shouldn't NPOV be applicable here just like everywhere else on Wikipedia?  Salva 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salva, what are the proposed changes according to you, and what is the source to back it up with? --KimvdLinde 05:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. If you are talking about the paragraph above, he proposed nothing. He complained. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with KC; I didn't see the proposed changes either. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, that the misunderstanding of evolution does not neccesarily imply a misunderstanding of science. However, it can and does go together at times. So, I do not see the incorrectness of that sentence. On the second statement, you assume the need for a intelligent source to start stuff, which is a believe, and as such,not science. --KimvdLinde 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not assume that. Do not try to force things on me that I do not do. --KimvdLinde 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with KimvdLinde, most of the common objections to evolution bespeak a wider ignorance of science. In this context the sentence makes perfect sense. Mikker ... 19:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going that far, as I think just leaving natural selection out of evolution is not equal to misunderstanding science. Just more convinient.--KimvdLinde 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The first sentence says many, not all. I don't think this is untrue in the slightest, and one can surely cite plenty of articles and books by notable authors who believe this is a key component. As for the second sentence, it should be tempered as to not making a value statement. "Many scientists think..." tacked onto the front of it would be more NPOV. --Fastfission 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction of an inteligent designer to evolution would change the theory so fundamantally that it would not be the currently known theory of evolution. As such, I think the statement described adequatly a key requisite of evolution in its current form. --KimvdLinde 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point of the sentence -- it says the benefit of the theory is that it doesn't require supernatural intervention. I think that's a true benefit of any scientific theory, of course, but saying that it is a good thing is clearly a value judgment, and we should attribute value judgments. --Fastfission 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the pure phylosphical level, you are right. However, if you extrapolate this, there are no facts, only believes. Personally, I do not think this is the way to go with something that has been seen as a major benefit of the scientific method since the enlightment. I consider that a valid value judgement that does not require a subsentence such as "99 % of all scientists think...". --KimvdLinde 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, this is a statement about the theological implications of the theory. This is an aspect of things -- unlike the scientific content of the page -- where the opinion attributed does not necessarily default to be scientists. As such, it should be noted whose opinion it is. I'm not sure I understand the reason you object to attributing such a statement even in such a vague way? I don't think it does any harm to do so. --Fastfission 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I disagree, it has nothing to do with theology. --Redhead 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a key misunderstanding here is that the sentence on "one of the benefits of the theory" assumes the reader understands that we are talking about its benefit in terms of being a good scientific theory, ie it requires the assumption of the fewest things. Not requiring the assumption of an omnipotent being (with all the complexity entailed) makes it a simpler (in terms of assumptions), and thus better, theory. Note also that not requiring the assumption of an omnipotent being is not the same as assuming the absence of the same. We're not talking about the moral value. Skittle 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excising "theory" of evolution 

message: 1
Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of evolution.
Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of natural selection.
2
Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by genetics.
Today, the occurrence of evolution has been strongly confirmed by genetics. 
3
Indeed, one of the great strengths of the theory of evolution is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design.
Indeed, one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent design. 
4
Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general.
Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern evolutionary thought involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general.
5
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines and subdisciplines document the fact of evolution, and contribute to the theory of evolution.
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines and subdisciplines document the fact of evolution, and contribute to explaining its occurrence.
6
The belief in a telelogical evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific theory of evolution.
The belief in a telelogical evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific understandings of evolution.
3 more changes: to an external link & two changes to avoid a redirect & correct the theory issue Social implications of the theory of evolution --> Social effect of evolutionary theory. 
Please indicate which changes are deemed inaccurate or liable to cause confusion. Mikker ... 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primarily ok. I think 3 is incorrect limiting to much. I would word 5 different, but change in itself is ok. In 6, I would change understandings to knowledge --KimvdLinde 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 3: how about "one of the great strengths of evolutionary theory science"? On 5: I have no problem with you re-wording it (indeed, I encourage it), I just want to get rid of "theory of...". On 6: what about "not supported by the science of evolution"? ... Mikker ... 22:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with 3. I misread 6 apparently, support your change. 5: I think the whole sentence is wacky, and could be inproved, let me think about that.... --KimvdLinde 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just to be clear, with 3 & 6 do you support the original change or my subsequent amendment? On 5: I agree with you, it's clear what the sentence tries to convey, but it doesn't do it very well. Will give it some thought too... Mikker ... 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, indeed. --KimvdLinde 23:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but do you think I am incorrect in saying that "theory of evolution" is widely misunderstood and misused? (I read a brilliant article about it recently but can't find the damn think now). Anyway, the only instance where I changed "theory of evolution" to "theory of natural selection" is in 1 - where the usage seems perfectly fine with me. Wallace is credited with comming up with natural selection to explain evolution independently from Darwin. What do you think about the other changes? Mikker ... 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humph. I never left out the natural selection part, Redhead. Natural selection is included in random chance. It's not like it was designed to happen that way, right? Scorpionman 15:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural selection is NOT included in the random chance. I stop this discussion here and I suggest you get first a better understanding about how evolution works. I do not feel the need to educate you at this page about the mechanism of evolution, if you want we can discuss by e-mal about this. But representing evoluton as one big random process is incorrect, and a very general misconception among anti-evolutionists. --KimvdLinde 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  And you do know that nat seln isn't random, right? - "a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability" ? — Dunc|☺ 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: :"Many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory, or of science in general." That's nonsense! Ken Ham, who I have mentioned before, understands science very well, understands evolution very well, but he still supports creation! Don't even mention Kent Hovind; he's not one bit like Ham. Also, "one of the great strengths of the evolutionary theory are that it has no need of a supernatural intelligence or intelligent design." I find this quite humorous. In fact, this is one of the "weaknesses" of evolution. If you throw a bunch of scrap metal and other garbage into a furnace, do you think that a space shuttle will come out? Indeed, this lack of a supernatural intelligence is one of evolution's weaknesses! Scorpionman 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scorpionman, if you believe that the space shuttle analogy is similar to the process of evolution, to me that indicates a lack of comprehension of evolution. Throwing the raw materials into a furnace is an essentially random process, and does not include any method for repeatedly selecting subtle improvements over billions of years. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Knowledge Seeker, Scorpionman, from what you've posted you don't seem to understand evolution. If I can be so impertinent as to make a suggestion: read "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer (see ). Great book, easy to follow & presents everything clearly. If you still don't accept evolution after that, fine but at least then you'll understand it. :-) Mikker ... 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry, WP is not a discussion forum about whether evolution is correct or not.--KimvdLinde 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  quite, but couldn't help myself! :) Mikker ... 22:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, I want to remain civil but I'm getting angry. You paid no attention at all to what I said. I most certainly do understand evolution. The space shuttle analogy is an example of random chance, which is essentially what evolution revolves around. If you throw a bunch of metal into a furnace is it going to produce a space shuttle? No. Now, what evolution is saying is that the solar system formed from a big ring of gas that by chance gathered in the Milky Way. A bunch of matter collided to form planets, and Earth was the only one that could sustain life. Just how is it that the Earth is just the right distance from the sun? If it were a little closer, it would be too hot for life. If it were a little farther, it would be too cold. Saying that the Earth formed from stray matter and that life evolved out of that stray matter is exactly like saying that throwing a bunch of scrap metal into a furnace is going to produce a space shuttle. There's no better way I can put it. Scorpionman 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you getting angry? This talk page is not the place to discuss your personal objections to evolution or affront to your religious convictions. This article discusses biological evolution from the earliest organism, and your doubts about the formation of the solar system are not relevant here. The current scientific theory is that the solar nebula contracted due to gravity, not chance (why would you think that?), perhaps triggered by a nearby supernova. Rotation would cause it to flatten out. It is entirely possible that there are billions of planets scattered throughout the universe, and on the tiny fraction where life originates and evolves intelligence, beings look at the inhospitable planets around them and marvel that only their planet developed life. This, however, is not relevant to this article. Biological evolution produces complexity by repeated selection of subtle improvements over billions of years, and your scrap metal analogy does not even closely resemble this process. If that's the best way you can put it, then please stop restating it, as it is not an effective comparison. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Scorpionman, you just showed that you do NOT understand evolution, because you left out the natural selection aspect and focussed ONLY on the random aspect. If you do not get the point that evolution is incomplete without natural selection, there is no discussing on the merrits. --Redhead 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologise if you found what I wrote offensive Scorpionman, but as several people have now pointed out your understanding of evolution can be improved. I'll leave it at that and again suggest you have a look at the book I suggested. Mikker ... 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Cyde, I would go to Talk:Origins, but I have to have an account and I don't want to waste time doing that. I don't want to give away personal information or stuff like that, so why can't they let you make a comment there without having to have a stupid account? Scorpionman 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes a minute to create an account; that's hardly a waste of time.  Heck, just look at how much time you've "wasted" already discussing evolution in an inappropriate venue (Wikipedia).  And the only "personal information" you need to give away is your email address, but if you can't trust Google with that you can't trust anyone with it.  And you don't need to use Google Groups to post to talk.origins ... your ISP probably has a newsgroup server that you can post to using your login and password with your ISP.  So you won't even have to create a new account or anything.  Just a warning though, Google Groups is probably easier to use for the novice.  --Cyde Weys 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Scorpionman has proposed changes just as he was asked by Guettarda.  He's not blowing anyone off.  In fact, it looks to me like it's quite the opposite.  Inconspicuous comments like that hidden in the article are meant to depreciate ID and/or Creationism, not to educate people about evolution.  Shouldn't NPOV be applicable here just like everywhere else on Wikipedia?  Salva 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salva, what are the proposed changes according to you, and what is the source to back it up with? --KimvdLinde 05:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. If you are talking about the paragraph above, he proposed nothing. He complained. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with KC; I didn't see the proposed changes either. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, that the misunderstanding of evolution does not neccesarily imply a misunderstanding of science. However, it can and does go together at times. So, I do not see the incorrectness of that sentence. On the second statement, you assume the need for a intelligent source to start stuff, which is a believe, and as such,not science. --KimvdLinde 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not assume that. Do not try to force things on me that I do not do. --KimvdLinde 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with KimvdLinde, most of the common objections to evolution bespeak a wider ignorance of science. In this context the sentence makes perfect sense. Mikker ... 19:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going that far, as I think just leaving natural selection out of evolution is not equal to misunderstanding science. Just more convinient.--KimvdLinde 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The first sentence says many, not all. I don't think this is untrue in the slightest, and one can surely cite plenty of articles and books by notable authors who believe this is a key component. As for the second sentence, it should be tempered as to not making a value statement. "Many scientists think..." tacked onto the front of it would be more NPOV. --Fastfission 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction of an inteligent designer to evolution would change the theory so fundamantally that it would not be the currently known theory of evolution. As such, I think the statement described adequatly a key requisite of evolution in its current form. --KimvdLinde 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point of the sentence -- it says the benefit of the theory is that it doesn't require supernatural intervention. I think that's a true benefit of any scientific theory, of course, but saying that it is a good thing is clearly a value judgment, and we should attribute value judgments. --Fastfission 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the pure phylosphical level, you are right. However, if you extrapolate this, there are no facts, only believes. Personally, I do not think this is the way to go with something that has been seen as a major benefit of the scientific method since the enlightment. I consider that a valid value judgement that does not require a subsentence such as "99 % of all scientists think...". --KimvdLinde 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, this is a statement about the theological implications of the theory. This is an aspect of things -- unlike the scientific content of the page -- where the opinion attributed does not necessarily default to be scientists. As such, it should be noted whose opinion it is. I'm not sure I understand the reason you object to attributing such a statement even in such a vague way? I don't think it does any harm to do so. --Fastfission 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I disagree, it has nothing to do with theology. --Redhead 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a key misunderstanding here is that the sentence on "one of the benefits of the theory" assumes the reader understands that we are talking about its benefit in terms of being a good scientific theory, ie it requires the assumption of the fewest things. Not requiring the assumption of an omnipotent being (with all the complexity entailed) makes it a simpler (in terms of assumptions), and thus better, theory. Note also that not requiring the assumption of an omnipotent being is not the same as assuming the absence of the same. We're not talking about the moral value. Skittle 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scorpionman continued

message: I am not conviced that "why" is an appropriate question for science; it depends on what you mean by "why", of course, but "why" is often seen as a metaphysical question.  Guettarda 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -Forgive me, but I don't quite understand the relevance to a discussion of evolution. Could you elaborate? Friedgreenkillertomatoes 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has to do with this diff. Mikker ... 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure... Science is fulfilling exactly because it answers our 'why' questions. Why is the sky blue? Why did that darn apple fall on my head? Why does evolution occur? Why can planes fly? etc. etc. Science is far more than just description it is explanation - i.e. science answers why questions. That said, there are (sometimes) metaphysical implications, but that's hardly a reason to get excited. Philosophers aren't lepers! :) Mikker ... 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It relates to a change by an anon which Mikker reverted. At least one of my mentors was adamant that "why" was not a scientific question. I think it's especially apt in EB, because "why" implies a purpose, an intent. "Why is the sky blue" is actually "what causes the sky to be blue" and not "for what purpose was the sky made to be blue". I'm not sure that "why" really adds terribly much in that sentence, and it does take away, at least in some people's eyes. Guettarda 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Why" of science 

message: Reading through the complete page it seemed to me that two diametrically opposed POVs were being proposed about Darwin's contribution to our modern understanding of evolution.  In one section his work seems to is presented as though he proceeded on thoroughly scientific lines, complete with statistical analysis of his results, so that Mendel's work on inheritable characteristics was merely icing on the cake.  In another section, however, there is what seems to me to be the more realistic implication that Darwin got the ball rolling, in a fairly amateurish way, after which a great deal of further work was required in order to get us to where we are today.  (As a matter of interest, I understand that Darwin was actually shown a copy of Mendel's 1866 paper but had too little scientific training to appreciate its importance.  Fact or fiction?)
Anyway, if my perception is correct, may I respectfully suggest that someone who has a sufficiently neutral POV should standardise the depiction of Darwin's role.
Thank you for your attention.
Eric 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I didn't perceive these two views, but I'll take a look at it. Darwin was not amateurish though he was not working in the mode of what we now call "modern biology" (towards the end of his life he started using quantitative research methods, but they were not really his interest). To my knowledge Darwin never saw Mendel's paper, but even if he had been he would not have seen its importance from a modern point of view. Even Mendel himself didn't see it as being important in the way it is now seen (our article on Mendelian inheritance discusses this a bit), and neither did any of the 19th century biologists. --Fastfission 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fastfission will know more than me, but my understanding is that Darwin had as complete and up to the minute scientific training and background as anyone in Britain at that time, and was already an eminent geologist and distinguished biologist who had done a massive work on barnacles before publishing his theory. He was also an amateur and gentleman in that he was self financing and part of the Cambridge set who dominated natural history as amateurs and clergymen, as well as being a friend and supporter of the new professional scientists such as Huxley who were trying to take over the system. When they succeeded, Darwin was their honoured mentor, though still self financing. His work included statistical analysis with the assistance of Galton.. As he was the first to say, it left an enormous amount to be done, and while he speculated about the mechanism of inheritance, Mendel's work was of the utmost importance in taking this further. ...dave souza, talk 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We watched a movie about Darwin last year in history class, he certainly was very well-respected in his field when he lived, and had indeed done some work on other projects I think before publishing his Origin of the Species book. Just my 2 cents if it matters :/. Homestarmy 23:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glancing at Charles Darwin, it's notable that his work on geology was honoured in 1839 when he was elected as Fellow of the Royal Society, and his work on barnacles earned him the Royal Society's Royal Medal in 1853, establishing his reputation as a biologist. He had two distinguished careers at the top level of science before even announcing his theory in 1858. The linked biographical articles give more detail, including how he continued to make innovative studies, such as his work on orchids and worms. ...dave souza, talk 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's Contribution 

message: We can tell people who question the modern synthesis to screw off now?  Finally. --Ignignot 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That settles the discussion. See Godwin's law :) Wyss 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * First of all, I didn't delete it -- learn to read the edit histories.  As JoshuaZ has pointed out, there is already a big article on the creation-evolution controversy, which covers this stuff in detail.  Now, dispite your personal attacks, I did in fact skim through the first page you posted (the correct link is here, and it is truly unscientific: it's just unfounded numeracy, and not remotely convincing.  The numbers are mostly made up and silly; the part about language is truly ridiculous.  Much better claims against evolution have been discussed elsewhere.  (The second page you posted, as JoshuaZ points out, is essentially anti-creation.)  bikeable (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So 

message: Alienus, While a second glance shows that the link is interesting. It is a) a personal website and b) simply not relevant to this webpage. It might make sense on the evolution-creationism controversy page, and I would not object to it being moved there. In the meantime, I am removing it. JoshuaZ 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  charles petzold. 

message: Despite a link to the article on the endosymbiotic theory, there is no discussion of this theory here. I think that it has a place in a discussion about evolution as it tries to explain the significant transition from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life. There is also evidence that the mitochondrial genome, in plants at least, is still being exchanged with the nuclear genome, . Finally in their book "Accquiring genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species", Lynn Margullis and Dorion Sagan discuss how symbiosis may continue to play an important role in speciation. I think this would fall nicely under the heading of Mechanisms of Evolution. I wanted to get some feedback before writing a paragraph on this though. Does anybody have any objections to this being included here? Does anybody have suggestions about what should be included in it if I go ahead? Friedgreenkillertomatoes 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful to distinguish speculation from hypotheses with empirical support.  Guettarda 08:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see this as part of the larger issue of "What is evolving?" RNA or DNA (genes or whole molecules or groups of genes in orgenells or entire cells), populations within a species, whole species, groups of species (e.g. humans and the bacteria in our gut evolving as a whole), local ecosystems, or the whole world's ecosystem. I think biological evolution occurs at all these levels and simplifying assumptions can be both useful and misleading. Mechanisms of evolution can look different at each of these tighly interrelated levels. One question is how in the world to do justice to this in a single short wiki article. I wouldn't know where to begin. (Friedgreenkillertomatoes raises his hand and says, "I know! Let's start with Endosymbiotic Theory!) WAS 4.250 11:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endosymbiotic Theory