Talk:Evolution/Archive 28

message: For some unexplained reason the insertion of Darwin's own complaints about misunderstandings of his theory has been reverted without explanation and it is suggested that it might be controversal.  The full text is here . If anyone can explain why this is or might be problematic I'm happy to address the issue, but if we can't quote Darwin on Evolution then who on earth can we quote? NBeale 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the goal is to focus this article down to try to reach FA status. So a lot of things like that will have to get farmed out to other articles. It is a bit like going to the dentist.--Filll 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: NBeale's desired edits can be seen in the left pane here. Please note the removal of some content and the addition of other content, the removal of one ref and the addition of another ref. This is not a simple "addition". Nbeale, you are approaching this from the wrong end. Please make a case here for why this should be changed, don't ask others to argue why not. You want the change, you make the case for the change. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, this article is already a featured article. The review is to ensure it still meets FA standards. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Holy cow, you are right, it already is FA. Ok then, to keep it as FA, because a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then I bet.--Filll 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure about the pertinence of NBeale's edits, but the whole misunderstanding section doesn't seem quite right.  If the article was well written, and it is getting there, you do not need to clear up any misunderstandings, the article will provide an understanding.  Is this an article on scientific theories and how the general public just doesn't get them, or an article on biological evolution?  I'd contribute if I thought I could; but for now, I guess my comments on the misunderstanding section are all that I have to offer.  
StudyAndBeWise 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the difference between the theory of evolution, and say, the theory of optical refraction or quantum mechanics, is that there are a horde of blood thirsty luddites who are frantic to have the article destroyed and object to it even being on Wikipedia in the first place. Just look at the material of the top of this page if you doubt that. It is a concession in a small way that this sort of trouble exists in this field, for a variety of reasons. Basically, this is the modern version of the objections to a spherical earth, or the objections to heliocentric theory.--Filll 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nbeale, the text you want to include might be better in Misunderstandings about evolution and/or evolution (term).--Filll 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From his talk page it seems that User:Silence intended to move the bit about Darwin objecting to misrepresentations to the end of the section, but I don't think he did. We must try to get away from an undue emphasis on the extremists on both sides of the Evolutionism debate - Darwin was a model of clarity and sanity here. NBeale 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my understanding that you are invited to be bold on wikipedia, but that in doing so, you should also prepare yourself emotionally to have your boldness edited, modified, or even deleted by others.  The hope is that those who edit, modify, and delete some or all of your work are doing so for the right reasons.  StudyAndBeWise 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstandings from Darwin's day 

message: The pseudogene statement is an oversimplification. It varies as there are dead and resurrected pseudogenes. Humans display many processed transcribed pseudogenes, flies have few pseudogenes, within a species one organism may have an active gene and another a pseudogene, ,most prokaryote pseudogenes are related to processes losing function like in pathogenic bacteria. Seems pseudogenes are a reservoir of genomic elements that can be resurrected and used in adaptive evolution. I don't think junk DNA is a very accurate statement either nowadays Science 23 May 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5623, pp. 1246 - 1247 Not Junk After All. Wojciech Makalowski*  GetAgrippa 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Evidence section and Speciation sections