Talk:Evolution/Archive 26

message: This has been done in the past for similar editors. --Filll 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said you were? If you associate yourself with those poor deluded folk who ignore Filll's useful information, so be it. Evidently it's a good time to move things to a subpage before paranoia gets out of hand. .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?

message: You're claiming that Fill doesn't know scientific history and that the Greeks calculated the weight of Earth? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what is wrong with that.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not trolling.  It is off topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to make sure that noone misunderstood.
Weight is the gravitational force one object exerts on another.  Typically, because we are most concerned with how much things weigh on Earth, weight is the gravitational force Earth exerts on another object.  Weight is dependent on the mass of the object which is exerting the force on the object whose weight we want to know.  So, what does "the weight of the Earth" mean?  The gravitational force it exerts on itself?  You did NOT say "the weight of some part of the Earth on some other part".  "Does the weight of the Earth" refer to the gravitational force the Sun exerts on the Earth?  The moon?  "The weight of the Earth" is a phrase which has no meaning - its just babbling.  In the future, when you feel the urge to criticize someone (such as your insinuation that Fill is not up to speed on the history of science) take care that you are not, in the same post, showing your ignorance.-Psychohistorian 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weight of earth 

message: At  04:32 on 2 January 2007. 74.33.109.35 "Restructured and added evolutionary related articles to See Also list". By a remarkable coincidence the links I've looked at relate to creationist claims. The list appears to be excessively long anyway: surely it should be confined to major topics? . ... dave souza, talk 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An anonymous coincidence

message: In the subsection on lateral gene transfer, there is discussion that this can be caused by hybridization.  I'm confused as to how this is so.  By definition, lateral gene transfer is transfer of genetic material other than from parent to child.  Hybridization (per the linked article) has to do with interspecies (intergenus, etc) reproduction and the resulting children - nothing lateral there that I can see.  Also, the linked lateral gene transfer article doesn't mention hybrids as a method.  
I would recommend either clarifying HOW hybridization can contribute to lateral gene transfer or rewording the paragraph to remove the reference.  As it reads, I'm just confused trying to figure out how they relate.  
Muffinsmomusa 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lateral Gene Transmission and hybridization 

message: Feeling that it may be good to explain my every edit even when soooo small.
"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor. "
was rearranged. I hope it is clearer now and is a bit weightier to express that:
1. There was a single ancestor of all organisms. (NB I myself sometimes say "living organisms" when speaking but only in the context that I want to be precise and differentiate say from a biomass of dead organisms. Therefore I left the living out as it is superfluous although often used. I linked common descent and organism as well. The organism link is actually a nice article as it clearly shows some of the interesting debate about the definition of an organism and may get some people interested in reading this article. I'm certain though that the use in this contect makes it clear that it refers to all living things.)
and
2. We are all descendants of this original life due to the process of speciation (and therefore evolution). 
Candy 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearer, but is there any way to connect it to what came before? As it stands, it's making the right claim, but doesn't explain why evolution implies that. Adam Cuerden talk 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies then. Must be my blurry eyes or my disfunctional processing 8) Candy 13:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure of sentence 

message: For interested parties, FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor
Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC if you agree with the summary I've provided, or add your own. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User conduct RFC: Raspor 

message: raspor 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you'd better read the history of evolutionary thought article. Enjoy, .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dave, thanks for removing the link to haekel, as everyone knows he has nothing to do with evolution 

message: I've gone through the list and removed some items which were clearly too detailed, off topic or misleadingly piped – there's a lot more to Australopithecus than Lucy, and just what the United States Office of Research Integrity has to do with evolution isn't explained in that article. These, and a couple I've left, were added in this edit by an anon. In my opinion the list's already too long, and should be reviewed to reduce it as much as possible. .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also again

message: i noticed in the holocaust article there was a section on 'holocaust denial'
can we have a section on 'evolution denial' in the evolution article?
raspor 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  holocaust denial 

message: I think I am almost happy with the introduction. It seems clear enough without being over-technical. I just have one last issue with the sentence:
"This leads to the propagation of useful traits, and the weeding out of counterproductive ones"
Apart from the redundant comma I feel this doesn't sit correctly with the tone of the rest of the article? Perhaps it's the term "weeding out" which grates because it seems to imply and external force in the removal of traits. Then the term propagation which refers to reproduction where as I lean on the side of thinking of traits as being replicated. Anyway, I'm editing it to ......
This leads to the increase of useful traits and the reduction of counterproductive traits. Candy 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinks – how about "Over time this results in an increasing proportion of the organisms having useful traits, and fewer organisms with counterproductive traits." ... dave souza, talk 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good points. However, it still seems to me that "This leads to the increase of" could be misconstrued. How about "Thus, more of the offspring will have advantageous traits and fewer will have disadvantageous traits.[2][4][5] Given enough time, repetition of this passive process..." ,, dave souza, talk 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am really impressed with the first few sentences. They are beautiful.--Filll 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Excellent piece of work. --Guinnog 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, as now it reads "Given enough time, this passive process can result..." – didn't you like "Given enough time, repetition of this passive process can result..." ? .. just seemed a bit more explanatory to me.. dave souza, talk 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I see no reason to include general biological information about Gregor Mendel (or any other figure) in this article. That he was an abbot does not help anybody to understand evolution. Interested readers are free to follow the wikilink to his article if they wish to know more about him. N6 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[abbot]] [[Gregor Mendel]]"