Talk:Evolution/Archive 21

message: Archive created November 19 2006 Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Hi. That definite article "the" before "changes" in the first sentence has been driving me crazy for months. Don't you think it sounds better without it? Can I change it? Or is it necessary?--Ggbroad 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. What a pleasant change of pace. Yes, I agree the sentence would read better without it. I had wondered if it was one of those national variations like spelling, in which case we should follow the original usage. But if not, then the change sounds good. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sentence

message: Why are statements that are controversial being presented as fact? --Ezra Wax 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always seemed to me that most editors to this page feel that due to the lack of controversy among scientists concerning evolution, that it should not be presented in any form which questions any part of evolutionary theory. Homestarmy 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are scientific facts.  Evolution is as much a fact as gravity and the Theory of Evolution is as established as the Theory of Gravity.  You might want to read up on a recent discussion here: #1, #2, and #3.  Homestarmy, I hope you can see the huge logical fallacy in your rather backwards statement.--Roland Deschain 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements you question are not controversial in scientific fields, and this is a science article. There is no need to insert weasle words into factual representaions of current Theory. Thanks for trying to help, and for bringing your concerns to the talkpage, but the article is just fine as it stands. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 19:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial statements presented as fact 

message: I am going to vehemently protest the censorship I was just subjected to. How dare you delete what I have written before it was addressed? So what if you are afraid of "Trolls". This is an open subject and it is flagrantly biased, and instead of addressing serious problems with the article, you are summarily censoring criticism of it.
I looked back at votes pointed out by Roland and the subject was not addressed there either. It was summarily dismissed by a straw poll which was given very little time to come to a conclusion being that the results were near unanimous and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no near unanimity on this subject. --Ezra Wax 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments were not censored. They were archived because they were non-productive. This page is to be used for improving the article, not educating editors who lack familiarity with fundamental concepts in science. This is not intended as a personal attack, but as a basic statement of position. If and when you have constructive comments to make about this article, please feel free to post here again. Until then, this too will be archived. Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating the truth accurately about a topic is improvement. If you want to improve the article about evolution, you have to accurately state its degree of truth. Any discussion regarding that is germane, and should not be archived until it is finished. Otherwise I have the right to assume that the discussion was deleted because it might prove persuasive to some. --Ezra Wax 20:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ezra Wax, your basic arguments show a deep confusion both about the philosophy of science and science in general.  Your posts seem to miss the major point: there is a fundamental difference between evolution/gravity (fact) and theory of evolution/theory of gravity (theory).  This was my major point in my original post and you seem to have missed in entirely.  (Please keep in mind that I use the terms fact and theory as they are used in science and not how they are used in general language).  I beg you not to drum to the tune of the age old fallacious creationist idea that evolution is just a theory.  I try not to judge people by just one sentence, but anytime somebody utters that sentence I know for a fact that they know nothing about science and evolution.--Roland Deschain 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments on this page were just censored 

message: My comments have been deleted for a third time while I in the middle of having a conversation with someone. All three times it was by the same person. Is this policy generally supported over here? You can just go to history to see what I mean. --Ezra Wax 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your discussion is in the wrong place, as has been pointed out to you by way of the edit summaries, which you have read. You are not raising any points that haven't been refuted before, and since your contributions are thus not going to contribute to improving the article, we ask you to take your essays elsewhere. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been told that they are in the wrong place, but I don't agree. The issue is a wikipedia issue and not only a general issue, and should therefore be discussed on wikipedia. If we don't discuss what discussions are allowed on this page, then where should they be discussed? --Ezra Wax 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make specific objections to the article with specific examples of how you want certain sentences/paragraphs changed (provide the original material side by side with your changed material so it's easily accessible to people in the discussion).  Source all your statements, as this article's major points are already heavily cited.  Refrain from harping on such issues as Truth, as Wikipedia isn't about truth, but Verifiability.  Also, understand that this is a scientific article with scientific terminology.  So terms such a fact and theory (as explain in this section) have specific scientific meanings that are different from common language.  Debate is encouraged, but pointless absolutist discussion is deleted instantly.--Roland Deschain 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. What do you think about our discussion being deleted while we were in the middle of having it? For example I replied to you and my reply was deleted before you had a chance to reply. I don't agree with your scientific article idea. The article is one on evolution. That is the title of the article and that is what it is about. It should be accessible to the general public and use terms that are generally known or those terms should be immediately explained. --Ezra Wax 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In a somewhat related note, I had tried to reply to you Roland right before I left school, only to learn when I opened my laptop at home I had been edit conflicted :/. Maybe next time.... Homestarmy 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the deleted discussion. Sorry, your contribution is just the result of massive confusion, and to put it bluntly, ignorance. This sort of issue has been raised many many times previously and it is tedious to dismiss the result of huge misunderstandings over and over again. Often people who bring up these objections do not want to accept that they misunderstand, but just cause disruption and will not listen to reason. Your contribution gives evidence of not understanding the meaning of the following terms in a scientific context: science, scientific method, fact, theory, proof, truth. These all have very specific meanings and you need to learn about them in detail before you start pontificating. These terms have different definitions in science than they do in common usage.--Filll 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll: What you are saying is all very eloquent, but I don't think you are right. I believe that I have fairly good understanding of those terms, and if you wish your criticism to be constructive, you will have to be more specific about what is wrong with my understanding of those terms. --Ezra Wax 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ezra Wax, make your case about any changes you want to see in this article by succinct and verifiable arguments or stop wasting every bodies time.--Roland Deschain 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ezra Wax, regardless of whether your previous deleted discussion was in the right place, this discussion is certainly in the wrong place. If you have issue with somebody deleting your comments, you might want to discuss it on their user talk page. This discussion is not about the content of the article Evolution, and thus does not belong here. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schaefer: Oh but it is. This deletion seems to be policy over here. The rule is that any discussion of this type is immediately archived even if it is active. Even Roland didn't protest even though he was replying to me. --Ezra Wax 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Comments 

message: *This article is specifically about the scientific theory of evolution and can therefore silently assume that there is nothing supernatural and that it need not specifically state that it is a theory.
There must be an explicit or clearly implied statement at the beginning of the article that common descent over billions of years is only a theory and is not believed by many creationists. It should also be noted that clearly that universal common descent is not a fact.
In support of the distinction between theory and fact above here is a quote from the article:
'In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution"'
--Ezra Wax 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This article is about science, not the supernatural. --Michael Johnson 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not say something that is false, and to a creationist, it is false, and it is something that is easily rectifiable if not for the political agenda of evolutionists. It need merely somehow separate what is universally held to be true and what is only held to be true by scientists and then clearly label the two. This is done in most of the religion articles, and should be done here as well. --Ezra Wax 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well creationists will just have to live with it, because it is accepted science. There is plenty about the creationist controversity later in the article. --Michael Johnson 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? An encyclopedia should inform you of the facts not try to sneak in anti religious viewpoint. --Ezra Wax 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat this article is about science, not religion. If the subject is uncomfortable for people of some religious backgrounds, that may be unfortunate but of no real significance. Once again, this article is not anti-religious, it is simply about science. --Michael Johnson 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ezra, I'm sorry but you're slamming your head against a wall here by going over the same arguments that have been stated and restated so many times. Go find a peer-reviewed article questioning universal common descent or alleging that macroevolution (natural selection + beneficial mutations) is a rare occurence and then come back. standonbibleTalk! 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here it comes, the inevitable conspiracy theories about the "political agenda of evolutionists".  I will repeat a sentence I made at the beginning of the discussion: "Refrain from harping on such issues as Truth, as Wikipedia isn't about truth, but Verifiability".  If you can get your head around this, you'll be a much better contributor to Wikipedia.--Roland Deschain 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What is there to respond to? It seems a fair summary --Michael Johnson 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading above, it is fairly obvious you are a troll. I think I will leave things here. --Michael Johnson 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to make specific proposals to improve the article. Be sure to cite sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS. Unless you make specific proposals there's no point in continuing this line of discussion. Also bear in mind WP:NPOV and pay particular attention to the undue weight clause, since based on your current posting you appear to misunderstand it. --Davril2020 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of the evidence is actually with the current claim. Is there any reliable source that states that that evolution and historic claims based on evolution are proven facts beyond reasonable doubt? --Zero g 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. The article is currently fundamentalistic in its assumptions which isn't a good thing. Given the rather strict definition of what evolution is and what it did in the past it almost reads like the bible. However, the majority doesn't seem to wish to reach consensus. --Zero g 01:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the objective of this article is to explain the current status of science in this field. Your comments could equally be applied to any science subject. And it differs from a bible in one very important respect. As scientific knowledge changes, so this article would change. To effect a change all you have to do is produce a peer reviewed article. Bibles, as I understand it, are not changeable. --Michael Johnson 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what Zero g is trying to imply. The article is fundamentalistic in its assumptions? What does THAT mean???? The strict definition of what evolution is? The definition of evolution is what the biologists define it to be. It is the biologist's theory. And this article is to explain their theory. Period. The majority doesn't seem to wish to reach consensus? What does THAT mean? People writing about science do not want to change and write about magic instead. Well is that a surprise? Give me a break.--Filll 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxymoron much? "the majority doesn't seem to wish to reach consensus."??? The majority have achieved consensus and see no need to explain it again every second day. This topic appears in almost every single archive for this page. The result is always the same. Please read the archives. There is no need to rehash this discussion again, for the third time in a week. These sections will be archived shortly. Please use your personal talkpage for further discussion; this page is for article improvement, not soapboxing. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of disagreement

message: Bob drops different sized balls 1 million times from different heights. The balls fall 1 million times. Bob measures the speed of the falling balls, and the time the balls take to drop. This information Bob has about the falling balls is data or the "facts" of gravitation that Bob has observed. Bob can say there are gravitational facts to explain. 
Bob wants to understand why this is true and to predict how long it will take a ball dropped from a certain height. Bob develops some principles and rules, some of them in mathematical symbols and some not, to do this. This is Bob's gravitational "theory". Now Bob has a theory to explain his facts. 
Bob can now use his theory to predict what will happen when he drops another ball. And if it is a good theory, it will be useful in predicting what will happen. 
So the force of gravity is a fact. It is also a theory. It is also a prediction. It is even a scientific law. 
All of these statements are also true of evolution. Clear? --Filll 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are starting to understand, possibly. His theory is ONLY good as long as it makes good predictions. Of course, near big masses or whatever he needs a different theory. That is how science works. So Bob's theory will get replaced with Jane's that works in more cases. Bob's theory of gravity is not a "fact". Jane's theory of gravity is not a "fact". The observations are the "facts". The predictions are not "facts" of course. The law is not a "fact". Scientific laws (Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics that creationists are in love with) do not necessarily hold true everywhere and always. See? Look on your talk page.--Filll 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So now that we agree, you ought to agree with the changes I propose to the opening paragraph of the article. --Ezra Wax 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try something simple

message: Sorry Filll I didn't notice that you changed your original proposal. I originally saw that it said the theory of relativity and I assumed that you were simply making fun of my proposal. Your version is OK as well, except that I have an additional change to make to it.
Your version:
::The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Therefore evolution   explains the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record
Change:
::The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Therefore, the theory of evolution can explain the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record
:::Yes I slipped up because I was not paying attention and typed relativity like a dope instead. Your revision to mine looks fine to me. It is up to the biologists however. As long as they do not think it is too wordy to keep repeating theory theory theory over and over (because everyone in science KNOWS it is a theory; it is one of the most famous theories!!), then I suspect they will not have a problem with it. But I would check with a biologist to see.--Filll 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. It is therefore used to explain the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record
That's my current proposed version. --Ezra Wax 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm tired of bringing up the same counterarguments every single time a creationists tries to insert some kind of fallibility in this article.  The archives this month alone have at least two discussion of the consensus rejecting these types of changes.  The article represent correctly the sources it cites.  Ezra Wax has long ago stopped using any type of verifiable information to initiate this change and has rather used the same old arguments about how evolution is only a theory.  The proposed change is as fallacious as all the other changes proposed (and would require a huge amount of rewriting in every other scientific topic).--Roland Deschain 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but even Richard Dawkins would agree that what I've said is true, he just doesn't like it. A theory is fallible and that's life. You are correct that all of the scientific topics require rewriting, and I would like to start here. The fact that parts of evolution are a theory may be old, but at least once it is recognized it will allow poor university educated chumps to understand how a rational person could disagree with it. --Ezra Wax 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a very important reason for the change. The original version confuses fact with theory and this one doesn't. This version allows somebody who takes the opening sentence as the truth to recognize that some of evolution is a theory that he is free to disagree with. --Ezra Wax 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time.  This article is NOT about TRUTH.  It is about verifiable information.  Evolution is a fact and that statement is cited extensively.  It is up to you to provide verifiable information that contradicts this statement.--Roland Deschain 04:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed! I think the best thing to do is simply archive or delete these things while directing the editor to the Archives where it has been discussed so extensively already. Having this kind of nonsense pop up on the talkpage every day is totally counter-productive. With no offense meant to Filll (even though he is a physicist), I'm going to archive this as well. If there are further attempts to disrupt this page I will also seek sanctions against against the offender for violating WP:POINT. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can archive the conversation when all of the participants are done. You may not archive it before. That would be simple censorship. --Ezra Wax 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversation is done. It has been done to death. It is pointless to repeat the same arguments every other day. Please see your own talkpage for details. Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've told you several times Ezra Wax that you aren't going to get anywhere here unless you bring sources.  In fact, it's better that way.  Please don't continue this because it gives the creationist viewpoint a bad name.  I am in favor of archiving this conversation - the sooner the better. standonbibleTalk! 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Proposal

message: :In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. The theory of evolution holds that all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. It is therefore used to explain the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record
=== Issue of casting doubt on the truth of evolution ===
As Filll agrees the data about evolution is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the theory that explains the data is true, and therefore whether common descent is true. It is verifiable that that is the case. You will not be able to verify that the theory is correct because like all theories it cannot be proven correct.
=== wikipedia being about verifiablity ===
I don't understand those who say that wikipedia is about verifiability and not the truth. It makes no sense. The only reason for verifiablity is because otherwise there is no way of knowing whether something is true or not, and wikipedia is not in the business of stating things that might not be true.
:Ezra, you're stating the same thing over and over again.  Go get some sources and come back.  You aren't doing any good. WP is about verifiability and not truth because editors can agree on whether a statement can be verified - they can't agree whether it is true.  Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory.  This page is no place to argue about the merits of WP's policies.  standonbibleTalk! 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the first paragraph re separating fact and theory 

message: I don't understand those who say that wikipedia is about verifiability and not the truth. It makes no sense. The only reason for verifiablity is because otherwise there is no way of knowing whether something is true or not, and wikipedia is not in the business of stating things that might not be true.
:Ezra, you're stating the same thing over and over again.  Go get some sources and come back.  You aren't doing any good. WP is about verifiability and not truth because editors can agree on whether a statement can be verified - they can't agree whether it is true.  Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory.  This page is no place to argue about the merits of WP's policies.  standonbibleTalk! 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia being about verifiablity 

message: The discussion has once again been deleted unilaterally. I was in the middle of a discussion with two people and it was simply deleted. This is the third time. If you are so concerned about the same issues being discussed over and over then you ought to make a summary of those positions so that people can know. --Ezra Wax 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ezra, part of it has been copied to your talk page you know. Homestarmy 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. But I don't want to discuss the issue with myself. In any case the discussion belongs here. It is about this topic and should be available to anybody who wants to see discussion on this page.--Ezra Wax 05:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been engaged in this debate for more than 10 hours now, without gaining any support for your POV. Isn't it time for you to move on? --Michael Johnson 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ezra, there is no support for your proposed changes. At this point, I’m going to have to ask you not to continue bringing up the same points here repeatedly. You obviously have some ideas about how Wikipedia should work differently (using truth as a criterion, expanding the scope of article talk pages, and so on), but unfortunately they are not consistent with current Wikipedia policy or practice. If anyone wishes to continue discussing these matters with you, you may do so on your personal talk pages. Please refrain from further posting here unless you can back up your proposals with good evidence, preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that though in theory Wikipedia isn't a democracy (see: WP:What Wikipedia is not) it in practice is exactly that, a dictatorship of the majority, as can be clearly observed on this talk page. Having had the pleasure of observing more experienced Wikipedians, the proper way to go about this issue is finding (preferably) two dozen people (these must include at least 1 admin) supporting your views and amass them at this article to push your pov. Be careful what you say at all times, since everything you say can and will be used against you once things get ugly. --Zero g 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that there's a difference between a dictatorship of the majority, and observing preset rules for writing articles. The editors of this article are bound by policy, and since the more experienced editors realise that more fully, it may seem that they are a majority. In fact, its simply a matter of the majority adhering to established policy. -- Ec5618 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the proper way to go about this issue is finding (preferably) two dozen people (these must include at least 1 admin) supporting your views and amass them at this article to push your pov. " I find that statement terrifying. With that strategy, a planned invasion of the evolution article by a deluge of creationist could rewrite the article. Every editor should have a mantra of NPOV per subject, not "MY POV" per subject. GetAgrippa 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fear not, my friend, it ain't gonna happen. Not even if someone forces me to start using proper English :) --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the vast majority will not be able to change this article as long as there is no verifiable scientific data to support their claims.  Most objectors complain about the intro out of gut instinct (or creationist propaganda).  Once the time comes for them to provide verifiable information, it is quite obvious that there are no scientific sources to support their claims.--Roland Deschain 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It is like a coyote caught in a Bear trap, it would rather chew it's leg off than admit defeat. Lives to fight another day. Well, my thanks to the "Watchers of this Oracle" that prevent mayhem. There are also a great pool of editors who have contributed to this article. I know every single one if they had their ruthers would change something in this article, however to their credit they resisted and worked together to create this article with NPOV in mind. GetAgrippa 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: If you have not already seen it, you may wish to familiarise yourself with internal consistency and the Bible, or, for those who like it spiced with a little serendipity, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Har har. I'm sure many of us have seen these before. Fun as they are, they aren't relevent to the topic of Evolution. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're relevant with respect to the motivation for recent discussions here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages aren't a forum; this page is about improving the article, not about making fun of creationists and fundamentalists or trying to convince them that their beliefs are false. I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 07:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread would have never gotten any longer had you not replied to it. Too much time on your hands? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the friends of evolution 

message: Also, someone should add to the article a section on how the current theory of evolution accounts for the length of the giraffe’s neck and how in history it was an issue of contention, e.g. here is a related  talk discussion.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these proposals seem any more clear or more on topic than the current image, which is a very standard "common descent" sort of thing. I don't think we should monkey with it. --Fastfission 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rule #1 (in image use): Never use an image if you can't see the image or read the text on it.  An image that you can't see is pointless. --Sadi Carnot 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find it hard to read at all. --Fastfission 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me?  You have to use a magnifying glass to read the spelling of the small words in the branches. --Sadi Carnot 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you trying to read all of those words? The main branches are totally visible and one can understand the image perfectly. You can't see every scale on the armadillo either though if you wanted to you could click to enlarge it. In any case, I can read the words on the smaller branches; perhaps you use a higher screen resolution than I do. --Fastfission 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one, for example, can possibly read the word "T. celer" in the phylogenetic tree image (at 300px) without resorting to a click to the main image page. --Sadi Carnot 05:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, actually, I can.  (Although in all fairness, I should note that my eyesight is 20/10) •Jim62sch• 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody needs to read the fine print.  That is exactly the point that Fastfission is making.  It is the simple shape of the tree that is utterly important and unifying for this article.  The picture clearly shows the three branches of life and the fact that they all have a common ancestor(plus the classical tree shape divergence).  For the intro purpose, it doesn't even matter what organism belongs in which clade.  In addition, clicking on the picture makes all the labeling crystal clear (even when I used the highest resolution my monitor could handle).--Roland Deschain 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Really?  You looked at all of them? As Henry Ford learned, the public grew tired of being able to have any colour they wanted as long as it was black.  •Jim62sch• 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giraffe’s neck picture

message: I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but spelunking through the talk pages is pretty difficult on a page like this.  There already exists a pretty iconic image to represent evolution: the chimp evolving into man while walking.  A somewhat ironic example.  Thank you for your sense of humor, Google.  I couldn't find something like it in the commons, but it could be hidden somewhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adodge (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2006
:I don't really like that. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, and it connotes (for me at least) a simplistic view of evolutionary theory something like a creationist's, as your Google hit may show. I'd call it cliched, rather than iconic. Robin Johnson (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very ironic considering the book's by Jonathan Wells (creationist). There have been many variations on that theme, dating back to the 19th century, but they have the disadvantage of conveying the idea of creatures transforming rather than gradual evolution of their descendants through small changes in inherited characteristics. ... dave souza, talk 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution of Man Image

message: I like the idea of a tree of life, but agree the one we have isn't yet suitable. However, we've been going through a series of highly tangental pictures. There were objections to the unfortunate appearance of Darwin in his previous photo, so what about this one instead? We could use a good caption, though. Adam Cuerden talk 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like putting Darwin into the intro.  Yes, Darwin is the father of evolution, but you don't see Newton in the intro for gravity or Einstein in relativity.  People are important, yes, but they do not encapsulate the field of science.  Darwin no more deserves to be pictured in the intro than Newton deserves a picture in the gravity intro.  Let's try to find a conceptual picture (we keep coming back to the tree of life) that displays the concepts of evolution, rather than the picture of an old man that tells us nothing about evolution other than that is the face of the man who was smart enough to see it.  BTW, huge Darwin fan, so it hurts me to go against the suggestion.--Roland Deschain 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of using a tree of life image in general. In some ways, the lead image is as important as the written intro in terms of what it conveys and how it captures the reader's interest. Whatever image gets used will hopefully be colorful (to get attention) and interesting (to keep it). --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a tree of life image is useful, or perhaps an alternative image of the ascent of man, horse evolution, or an illustration of genetic change and speciation like the lateral plates on Stickleback fish and ectodysplasin alleles would demonstrate speciation and a structural modification from environmental change and reproductive success.GetAgrippa 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed opening picture

message: Why are so many of the links in the see also section redundant with the text and info boxes?  This section is way to big. David D. (Talk) 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I think that because Evolution is a "parent" article, it's considered both proper and necessary for it to link to all related sub-topics. The links within the article itself are generally more of a "quick ref" for the reader who stumbles on an unfamiliar word or concept. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I had not heard of the parent article concept. Is it possible that this role is being supercede by all these infoboxs and indexing templates? They seem to be popping up on many articles now. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen articles that seemed to replace the "See Also" section with an index template, and that might be a good idea here. They seem to be more efficient and look a bit more coherent, but I don't specifically recall seeing them used in science articles. A change like that should have discussion, and a consensus that it would improve the article. Then all you need is someone to do the dirty work :) --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you show some examples of articles using the index template? Maybe we should have a look. Delta Tango • Talk 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are two examples of what I am refering to. :Template:Biology-footer and   :Template:organelles. Evolution already has three similar templates that overlap with the see also section. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Custom seems to be placing them at the bottom, but I'm not aware of an official guideline. Popgen looks like tertiary rather than secondary info in the context of this article, but :Template:Evolution might be a good starting point. No doubt much discussion will follow :) --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a template in use in my other major interest: W. S. Gilbert, which uses (as do all other G&S atrticles) a template at the bottom. See also, for example, Venus, which uses a Solar System template. Adam Cuerden talk 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work! Eliminating the dupliation seems a natural (and hopefully, non-controversial) starting point. Personally, I would favor use of templates over such an extensive "See Also". The issue is largely aesthetic rather than content-oriented, but more input from other editors would be good. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just aesthetic. Templates give the opportunity to structure content much more than the bulleted list that is your typical "see also" section. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also section is redundant

message: What do you think of the idea of an illustrated tree of life, with sketches (or photographs) of representative species? I'd be willing to make one (based on the information contained in the old diagram) if there's interest. 	
It would probably be easier to do just the Eukaryotes: The Archaea and Bacteria have divisions hard to visually explain. Adam Cuerden talk 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How hard would it be to do a rough draft? I hate to ask you to do the work knowing it may be rejected, but a visual would be helpful. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a stick-figure tree, starting at the Bilateria, and saying what I propose to illustrate and where will suffice, I could probably do it in a couple hours. Adam Cuerden talk 23:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to see it, if you were willing to do the work. I have the same reservations as KC about possibly wasting your time, but if you're willing to try... Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second proposal for opening picture

message: Back to the topic of this section: theories and facts etc. Speaking as a scientist myself with multiple advanced degrees, albeit in a different discipline, there is no such thing in science as "proof". There is no such thing in science as a true theory, or a proven theory or a theory being a "fact". Proofs are found in mathematics, but not in science. In science the best one can hope for at any given point in time is an explanation that accounts for most of the data one has so far. That is why evolution is a theory and will never be a fact and never proven. The same is true of gravity, for example. Gravity is a theory and it will always be required to explain more and more complicated sets of data as they are available. Some people like to call the 
*data
*evidence
*observations
*experimental results
"facts", so one can have facts in science, but only sort of. Because even these "facts" are only really measurements, and statistics have to be considered to assess our confidence in these "facts". However, things like theories are not facts. They are slowly crafted to explain more and more of the data. When new data is available that the old theory cannot explain, it is usually replaced with a newer theory that does a better job. So the Aristotlean Theory of Gravity was replaced by the Galilean Theory of Gravity, which was replaced by the Newtonian Theory of Gravity, which was replaced by the Einsteinian Theory of Gravity, and that will undoubtably have to be replaced. This should not be seen as any defect of science. It is a self-correcting system and one of the strengths of the system, compared to other systems that are inflexible and unable to change (like the creationist worldview, for example). This is true of everything in science, even the  "laws" of thermodynamics. When encountering people who attack evolution, I usually find out very quickly that they 
#do not know what evolution is
#do not know what science is
#are repeating some poorly understood arguments that have often arisen and been dismissed conclusively repeatedly, sometimes for decades or even centuries. 
#often have only the vaguest understanding of what alternative theory they are proposing instead
#sometimes are not even aware the volume of scientific evidence they are trying to dispute; hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed publications, hundreds of thousands of scientists, dozens and dozens of scientific societies, veritable mountains of supporting evidence that would take litterally decades to even list.
Hopefully this can help clear up some confusion.--Filll 03:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without sounding trite, I think we know this. And so do the creationist editors. But the problem is they are really not interested. They have Faith, so they must be right. They will quote sources, never mind their sources are creationist websites. They will mine quotes, pull things way out of context. They claim scientists are conspiring against them, excluding important infomation, and excluding creationist papers from scientific literature. And they would like to paint "evolution" as another religion. When you do pull them up, point out their inconsistancies, they tell you to go away, they are not interested in talking to you. So I don't think there is much confusion. Just some editors trying to maintain an article at a high standard, and others trying to promote their religious POV. --Michael Johnson 04:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your additions to the text of the article seem to provide some excellent clarification. The info is so useful I wonder if it shouldn't be mentioned earlier in the main body? --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My view of theories and facts (hopefully clearer)

message: Since this article is featured, I feel justified in being nit-picky. The footnotes do not use a standard form of notation. There are full on citations with author, title, publisher, date, ISBN, etc, and then there are footnotes that are simply an external link to a PDF file or webpage. I would urge everyone with spare time to convert the weaker references to a more standardized, using Magnus' tool, or one of the many citation template, like template:cite web. What do others think?--Andrew c 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Andrew is absoultely right, the cites need some attention. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I've been looking at other articles for examples, and there is a certain lack of consistency. MOS seems to allow some leeway when formatting, but which method would be prefered in this article? --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 16:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree it would be a Good Thing to have standard refs, WP:WIAFA simply says an article should have refs, not a particular ref style. (Maybe it could be argued that what Andrew has brought up falls under consistency of referencing - which is a WIAFA requirement - but I think that part refers more to not mixing, say, Harvard with Chicago than having consistent Chicago). Anyway... Mikker (...) 16:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if I, (and any other editor) decided to convert some of the simple, one line external links to the citeweb template, would that be problematic? I personally thing it would only help, but if there is a downside, I won't touch the refs.--Andrew c 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no it would be great if you converted the simple links to proper citations, I was simply making the (perhaps Alexandrian) point that doing so has nothing to do with the article being an FA. I don't see a downside if it's done properly... Mikker (...) 19:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fictional tool. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to try using , but am unfamiliar with it and don't want to muck up the page. Can you explain briefly, or slip me a link to some directions on it's use? Thanks! --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 01:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be aware of this, but instructions can usually be found on the talk page, i.e. Template talk:Cite science, and examples of use can be found in the "what links here", i.e. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cite_science. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: I suggest that this article needs a more elementary and accessible introductory paragraph.--Filll 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I've had a go, saving the full original intro as "Technical introduction"... do with it what you will .Abtract 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I would support attempts to make this more accessible to laymen (and laywomen too, of course). As of now there is significant duplication between the 2 intros. I'm not willing to edit this myself, I lack the academic background to do it properly, but some kind of clean-up and rewording would be in order.  Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention was that someone else would edit the technical intro if we need one? My money would go on delete the old (technical) intro altogether but I may be biased cos I wrote the new one :) Abtract 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So is the new one OK or not? Abtract 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, it is easier to read and understand, but like Filll, I would prefer some input from subject-matter experts. Barring any objections from the local academic community, I think it is good. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.  It seems mostly the same to me; it just omits a few examples, and removes some technical language.  That said, to my mind this technical detail wasn't obscuring the points being made (sometimes being confined in brackets for instance), so I tend to favour the former as (slightly) more comprehensive.  That said, I'm a biologist (or was anyway), so might just like the big words.  One thing I would ask, however, is if we can get rid of/move that annoying panel on the modern and ancient armadillo.  It's totally in the way, messes up the format, and really isn't that exciting an example (apologies to all armadillos out there).  Anyway, please don't let the above put anyone off editing - as I've said, I'm probably not a good person to judge.  Cheers, --Plumbago 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted any changes made to the intro.  The intro of a FA article should not be edited extensively in the actual article.  A lot of changes have been made and I disagree with some of them.  Let's move the new intro into this talk page and discuss the changes one by one.  I know it is tedious, but consider that just recently we had a huge three part discussion about changing just the wording in one sentence of the intro.--Roland Deschain 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not opposed to the changes (see above) I think Roland has the right approach. Better to talk first and edit later...Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction suggestion 

message: Just so we don't get torn into various battles on the edges of our camp, I thought I should mention the doubting Thomases have moved to Roland's talk page for now. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offroad discussion 

message: I am not complaining about the introduction exactly. I just want us to think about how to make this article more accessible to more people. Or barring that, to provide a link to a more accessible article or primer so beginners can get up to speed. I do not want to discard any important science or distort it. I just want to provide a more gentle onramp for people, since this is so important and many people seem to be confused about the issue. Having a difficult introduction definitely does not help matters when dealing with anti-evolutionists.--Filll 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I have placed a comment on Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) about the methods applicable to these discussions. DGG 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: how to argue

message: I am using only the CRUDEST terms when I say that basically,to my understanding,evolution is many good birth defects. If it is not good for a human to have an extra thumb, the variation dies out, if it is, then it over comes the 2 thumbed variation.Is that basically the theory?
PS. I did not know the proper word,, so i used variation
:That's the basic idea, yes, and variation is one of several correct words to use in this context. Saying they are birth defects, however, is not quite right, because birth defects can come about from environmental abnormalities, in which case, they would not be perpetuated. Thalidomide would be an example of that. People with Thalidomide-induced birth defects will have perfectly normal children, all other things being the same. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  so... 

message: Despite many recent prunings, this page is evolving into a behemoth. Perhaps not literally, but it's extremely long at this point. There has been no recent activity in the sections on "Lamark" and "Dysgenics". If no one objects, I'll archive those. Also, the early discussion of images has moved down the page and is continued is several more recent sections. Can the earliest section of image discussion be archived, or should it remain (because that's where the images are actually visible)? --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please archive it. We may need to create an "FAQ section" at the top of this page, pointing to the places in the archives where various objections have been discussed to death. It's unclear to me whether it'll help, but it might be worth trying. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Your suggestion to produce a FAQ is excellent! I have created a new page to discuss that, and other issues (see below). --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I have created User talk:Doc Tropics/Evo talk to discuss issues regarding this talkpage. This is not an attempt to "hide" the discussions, but to keep the talkpage itself free for efforts to improve the article. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion page

message: Any talk about making clear that parts of evolution are theory is summarily archived. You will have to look into the history of the talk page to see it, because of course it's been archived. There is no addressing of the issues. --05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the issues have been addresed, repeatedly, and at great length. That is why further repetitive discussions are insta-archived unless they raise new points. The  editors who make regular contributions here are more than willing to discuss any valid new points which may be raised, but repeating duplicate arguments every single day is counter-productive.  Editors who merely wish to repeat their personal opinions ad nauseum really need to visit a forum, not this article. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree wholeheartedly. Doc nails it. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look at the 'points already discussed' section there are almost a dozen links to this exact same topic. And it really, really is the exact same topic. Over and over. And please bear in mind that when I made that list I only used the most extensive and notable discussions of the subject. This issue has been discussed over and over. Without new information, the result of a discussion can only be the same as it was the last time, making repetitive discussion pointless.--Davril2020 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also here from RFC, and agree with the above statement. - cohesion 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment November 22 2006 

message: It seemed to help at the Intelligent Design page so I've added a similar version here. Let me know what you think. I've gone through all the archives but I've only added meaty topics or discussions that have clear reference to Wiki-policy. It's not 100% comprehensive because there's a tendency on this page to delete absurd points (evolution not thoroughly supported by fossil records etc.) so I'd suggest that any creationist/ID talking point not already covered by the 'points already discussed' section should be allowed to run its course once. That way we can then add it to the list.
Comments very much appreciated. --Davril2020 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Crap! I had proposed something very similar to this. I had thought we would need a week to discuss it reasonably, 2 weeks to bicker with trolls about the contents, and another week to actually get it done. You seem to have accomplished the entire thing while I was refilling my coffee cup! I bow down before you in awe. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks pretty good to me: a minor quibble is that editors will rush past it and post anyway. So a couple of suggestions – move the red banner and it to above the index box, and make the headings sub-sections instead of a numbered list, so, for example, we can respond to a post with "You've evidently not yet read #Evolution is just a theory yet: your enquiry is fully covered there." Or something on those lines. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Davril2020 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, excellent work. Many thanks. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Too difficult to maintain. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say - thanks for putting the  tag in there.  But I don't understand what you mean by saying that it would be too difficult to maintain.  It is a simple matter to add another bullet or reorganize the cells for anyone who understands even a bit about tables (I knew practically nothing about tables when I created that but it was still pretty easy). standonbibleTalk! 00:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This table is more aesthetically pleasing (personal opinion there, subjective issue), and is significantly more space efficient than the present format. Furthermore, the intro under "It's already been said" is almost perfect. I might suggest changing "peruse" to "read" just so no one stumbles on the alliteration, but otherwise, I think it's great. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a distinct possibility, but the issue is there will be a lot more being added to it, and many of the points will only be discussed in the archives once or twice. Discussions of fossil evidence, conspiracy theories, dinosaurs, horses, atheism etc. should all be in the list, but right now they've only been discussed on connection with other issues rather than on their own and as such can't currently be picked out. Right now the table is good but I'm trying to visualise how effective it would be if we had 15-20 subsections on it. See for instance the Talk: Intelligent Design disclaimer - it currently has 21 subsections and I think that eventually this disclaimer will reach similar proportions. --Davril2020 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a lot cleaner than listing them out one-by-one; as it is the "already been discussed" section is a behemoth.  As the table grows, we can easily add another column and/or create subpages for the different types, but it will keep things much cleaner than the list that currently exists.  Not that I am attacking the current list - whoever compiled it did a GREAT job. standonbibleTalk! 01:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it would be tremendously hard to go back to the old system if it ever did become unwieldy, so it would be nice to use for now. --Davril2020 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it over - it looks pretty good if I do say so myself! standonbibleTalk! 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Davril2020's original work really was excellent, and standonbible's table gives us a well-polished final product. I think this is a good addition to the page; let's see how it works out. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 05:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The table is a bad idea - on my screen the archive box pushes it down, the two don't fit next to each other.  Guettarda 05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we do an expanable table?DGG 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would probably be a good idea to include links to articles as well as to the talk page archives. Many of the other related pages discuss these points, and this should be guided as well. The page to link to would be the page that discusses  that particular problem in the most non-Darwinian manner. The status of our arguements is much higher if we have confidence enough to link to the strongest statements against us, and even enough confidence that we can do so without answering them every time.  Everyone who might come here is aware of the general difference of opinion. Science can stand on it's own, and the proper attitude is: Read the Darwinian view, and read the views of those who oppose it. Then think for yourself. Not to introduce something more immediately contentious, but the best news sites on the Near East do this: they link to their opponents. It was Eisenhower who, in opposing censorship, is supposed to have said that the best argument against Soviet Communism would be to send each American household a copy of a book by Stalin. DGG 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried looking at it in lower resolutions after Guettarda's comment and he's right - with lower screen resolutions the whole thing does become very jerky. Also, if we're going to have the archives next to the table it will be difficult to expand the columns - the only place to go will be down, which will mean the box will dominate several page length anyway. Given how seriously this affects viewing dependong on your screen resolution I'm cautious again about using it. It would be extremely bad to make the page semi-unreadable for low-resolution users. I suggest we leave it another day or so for people to weigh in then do a quick poll on what people think. --Davril2020 13:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with Davril. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - maybe we should put an infobox over each linked discussions on the archive pages.  If we try to put absolutely everything on this page, it will soon become unmanageable.  As far as resolution is concerned, both Firefox and Safari view the page fine at any resolution.  I don't know how IE views it....  If it gets bigger we can always put another column in the box.  I just think that this is a lot better than listing them all out.  We will probably have to use a subpage eventually. standonbibleTalk! 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I've fixed it a little. Adam Cuerden talk 01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest to put the archives in two rows underneath the new box. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been tweaked a couple of times and it looks real good, at least on my monitor. If anyone is still having problems with display at this point, then moving the archives down as Samsara suggests should take care of it. Doc  Tropics 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points already discussed 

message: Can I beg some help over there? It's drifted seriously towards the creationist POV, to the point where it all but dismisses accusations of creationists quote mining: "Many critics argue that these are quote mines (lists of out of context or misleading quotations) that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it." Adam Cuerden talk 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a problem that many critics argue this? Homestarmy 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a problem that that is - well, was - the entire discussion of the scientific view of the Creationist quote mines. A wishy-washy statement about how it's claimed that, etc, when this is a point the scientific side has rock-solid proof of it being done. Adam Cuerden talk 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Creation-Evolution Controversy]]

message: This discussion on this page is ignoring the headnote:
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. 
Perhaps it is time for all such irrelevant comments to be deleted, and the page archived once more.DGG 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think people are willing to discuss things a bit, but when it becomes repetitious,  then it gets a bit tedious. That is the purpose of all the announcements at the top of the page. And many discussions have been summarily cut in the bud and archived, if you look at the history. Much to the annoyance of many I might add. --Filll 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: despite the warning