nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Eva Jablonka

Eva Jablonka is a geneticist known for her work in epigenetic inheritance.
Born in 1952 in Poland, she emigrated to Israel in 1957. She is a professor at the Cohn Institute for the History of Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University.Eva Jablonka, Cohn Institute Jablonka has called for an extended evolutionary synthesis.
She has written two books with Marion Lamb Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: the Lamarckian Dimension (1995) and Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (2005).
In her paper Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis (2008) she came to the conclusion that epigenetic Lamarckian and saltational processes have a role in evolution and neo-Darwinism does not offer a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology as it does not acknowledge the evidence for these evolutionary processes.Jablonka, Eva and Lamb, Marion. (2008). Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis. Genet. Mol. Biol. vol. 31, n.2. pp. 389-395 Jablonka accepts natural selection and is not an anti-Darwinist; rather, she believes both Darwinian and Lamarckian evolutionary mechanisms have a place in evolution to be incorporated into an extended evolutionary synthesis.
==Publications==
*Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. (1995). Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: the Lamarckian Dimension. 
*Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. (2005). Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life.
==External links==
*Epigenetics in Evolution with Dr Eva Jablonka
==References==
Category:Authors
Category:Biologists
Category:Living people
Event Horizon Telescope

The Event Horizon Telescope project is an international collaboration which captured the first direct visual image of a black hole. The project used a synchronized array of eight telescopes, to create a virtual Earth-size telescope which was used to capture the image.
== Participating telescopes ==
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
== External links ==
* Astronomers Capture First Image of a Black Hole (eso1907)
Evidence for God's existence

On August 15, 2009, Philip J. Rayment, founder of the creationist wiki a Storehouse of Knowledge, responded to extensive and persistent questioning from non-creationist editors at the wiki for evidence for God's existence, the existence of which he had consistently maintained. This response came in the form of a major rewrite to aSK's article on "Evidence for God's existence."
The following is a review and response to this major rewrite. The specific article version analysed here was the copy dated 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC).Evidence for God's existence - A Storehouse of Knowledge (Archived)
__TOC__
The annotated aSK article
Fair use: copied for purposes of criticism and/or mockery.
The text of the article is on the left; our comments are on the right.
==Introduction==
== The need for evidence ==
== Evidence in creation ==
=== The existence of the universe ===
=== Fine-tuned universe ===
=== Complexity of life ===
== Jesus Christ ==
== The Bible ==
== Christianity ==
== Testimonial evidence ==
== Bibliography ==
* Batten, Don, et al., Does God exist?, chapter 1 of the Creation Answers Book.
* Creation Ministries International (CMI) The universe is finely tuned for life
* Folger, Tim, Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory, Discover, December 2008.
* Gefter, Amanda, , New Scientist 2685, 4 December 2008. original article (requires subscription) Text of article.
* Holding, James Patrick, The Impossible Faith
== Note ==
==References==
(References refer to publications in the Bibliography, above.)
== Further reading ==
* Testimony Share Christian testimonies.
==See also==
*Scientific evidence for God's existence
== References ==
Category:Side-by-side articles
Category:Creationism
Category:Apologetics and counter-apologetics
Category:Refutations
Category:Existence of gods
Evidence linking abortion to breast cancer

The following is a review of the peer-reviewed literature on the subject of abortion and breast cancer:
==List of studies showing that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer==
# Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, October 1996, 50, 481-96
==List of studies showing no link between abortion and breast cancer==
# British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
# American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
# American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
# American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
# British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
# British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
# International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
# International Journal of Cancer 1993, 53, 215-9
# Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
# International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
# New England Journal of Medicine 1997, 336, 81
# Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
# Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
# International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
# European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
# American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
# British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
# Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
# Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
# Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
# International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
# Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
# Lancet 2004, 363, 1007–16
# Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
==List of studies showing that abortion decreases the risk of breast cancer==
#Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". Lancet 363 (9414): 1007–16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15835-2. PMID 15051280.
#Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral V (2005). "Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study". Journal of epidemiology and community health 59 (4): 283–7. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.026393. PMC 1733063. PMID 15767381.
#Harris BM, Eklund G, Meirik O, Rutqvist LE, Wiklund K (1989). "Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study". BMJ 299 (6713): 1430–2. doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6713.1430. PMC 1838310. PMID 2514825.
#Tumori. 2013 Jul-Aug;99(4):452-7. doi: 10.1700/1361.15093. Abortion and breast cancer: case-control study. Ilic M, Vlajinac H, Marinkovic J, Sipetic-Grujicic S.
==See also==
*Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: One of the few "medical" associations that continues to promote the "ABC" link in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
*Circumventing Roe v. Wade‎
*Fœtus
*Pro-choice
*"Pro-life"
Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy

The Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy (ELSC) is an imagined group that would need to exist for some crank beliefs to be true. Notable examples are characterised by their political angles and include global warming denialism and creationism. However, this does not include conspiracies that blame Big Oil, Big Pharma, or other similar organisations, as these are characterised by distrust of corporations and capitalism rather than of science itself.
Beliefs requiring the ELSC tend to have as one of their core axioms that some commonly-held scientific theories are utterly, totally wrong, and that a secretive, world-spanning cult of "scientist-priests" are suppressing this knowledge for their own evil ends. This belief generally stems from the conflict between ingrained ideological positions and reality, and any manufactroversy is simply the most convenient "handle" for the theorist to latch onto to confirm their a priori convictions.Yes, it sadly is far easier for many people to dive into madness than to modify their worldview.
Most people with any understanding of how science is supposed to work find the ELSC highly unlikely at best, and more probably delusional.
==Scientist conspiracy==
There is apparently a conspiracy among thousands of scientists to withhold the truth from the public, which is especially apparent in regard to the theory of evolution. Since creationists disagree with the conclusions of biologists, they must either claim that scientists are incompetent or that scientists support evolution despite the knowledge that it is an unsound theory.
In Icons of Evolution, author Jonathan Wells attempts to demonstrate that scientists promote evolution by presenting a handful of proofs that they know are fraudulent. Further, Wells claims that scientists are pressured not to reveal the truth about evolution. In the introduction to the book, Wells notes:
The scientist conspiracy idea is effectively countered by ScienceBlogs’ "What is denialism":What is Denialism, ScienceBlogs
ScienceBlogs further explains:
Well said.
==See also==
*Michael Mann
*Moon landing hoax
*Tom Bethell
*Vaccine hysteria
==External links==
*Ben Stein's being persecuted by the Conspiracy! (This domain, "ExpelledTheMovie.com" is just a parking page with advertisements.)
*Michael Fumento exposes the conspiracy (Link now 404)
*The atheist conspiracy behind the National Academy of Sciences exposed!
==References==
==Notes==
Category:Science
Category:Woo
Category:Conspiracy theories
EvoWiki/Database dump

The EvoWiki uses the mySQL database software, which runs on many platforms with many frontends (e.g. the web). In theory the EvoWiki can therefore be ported to a different frontend, or, using the WikiMedia software and PHP engine it could be mirrored, or distributed on CD ROM.
Due to time constraints, not all database dumps are made available, if you want a more recent database contact [[user:Steinsky]]. The latest database dump is:
* 2007-Sep-06 (89.9 MB gzip)
EvoWiki/Taxonomy

This page is a guide to writing pages about taxonomic groups.
== "Taxobox" ==
Human
*Domain: Eukarya
*Kingdom: Animalia
*Phylum: Chordata
*Subphylum: Vertebrata
*Class: Mammalia
*Order: Primates
*Family: Hominidae
*Genus: Homo
*Species: sapiens
Dromaeosauridae
*Domain: Eukarya
*Kingdom: Animalia
*Phylum: Chordata
*Subphylum: Vertebrata
*Class: Archosauria
*Order: Saurischia
*Infraorder: Coelurosauria
*Superfamily: Maniraptoriformes
*Family: Dromaeosauridae
Genera:
*Achillobator
*
*Sinornithosaurus
*
*
*Adasaurus
*Dromaeosaurus
*Saurornitholestes
*Elopteryx
We have found that a useful way to present the taxonomy of groups is with a small table (e.g. the ones right for Homo sapiens and Dromaeosauridae).
A "taxobox" can be added to pages to for any level of taxonomic group, following the styles shown in the examples.
This is the code you need to modify for a taxobox:
'''Group Name
*[[Domain]]: [[Edit this]]
*[[Kingdom]]: [[Edit this]]
*etc, down to the group name
Subgroups (to one taxon level below the taxon being described)
* [[Edit this]]
* etc
Minimally a Taxobox should contain the Linnaean ranks to which a species or clade belongs, each one nested inside the other. Where applicable, it may also contain phylogenetically defined groups.
Some notes:
* The group name should be the common name where there is one, as the latin name will be included elsewhere in the box
==Phylogenetic Shorthand==
The abbreviations for phylogenetically defined clades should follow the recommendations of the 2003 draft of the PhyloCode.
Node-based names are represented as [A: X and Y], or, the most recent common ancestor of X and Y and all its descendants. For example:
Aves: Archaeopteryx and Neornithes
Thus Aves refers to the most inclusive clade containing Archaeopteryx and Neornithes and all of its descendants. Stem-based names should be represented as [A: X not Y], or, all forms sharing more recent common ancestry with X than with Y. For example:
Maniraptora: Neornithes not Ornithomimus
Thus Maniraptora refers to the most inclusive clade containing all forms sharing more recent common ancestry with Neornithes than with Ornithomimus. Apomorphy-based names should take the form [A: X in Y], or, the clade stemming from the first form with character X homologous (synapomorphic) with the same character in Y. For example:
Avifilopluma: Feathers in Neornithes
Avifilopluma consequently refers to the clade stemming from the first form with feathers homologous with feathers in Neornithes. Stem-modified node-based definitions should take the form {A: crown clade [X and (X not Y)]}, or the common ancestor of X and all extant forms sharing more recent common ancestry with it than with Y. For example:
Neognathae: crown clade [Charadrius and (Charadrius not Struthio, Tetrao)]
So defined, Neognathae refers to the most inclusive clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of Charadrius and all extant birds that share a more recent common ancestor with Charadrius than with Struthio or Tetrao.
Evobabble

Evobabble is a term used by some creationists to refer to scientific language and terms that they don't understand. This includes any discussion of transitional fossils, rock strata, and radiometric dating methods. This is most likely because very few creationists have either any post-homeschooling education (not counting diploma mills)Yes, Kent Hovind, we're talking to you. or can grasp even the most basic science. Unfortunately, most creationists do not understand that the term "evobabble" epitomizes their ignorance.An example of the usage of evobabble, oddly not about Evolution, but there you go
==Pseudoscientific use of evolution==
Evobabble can be used in another sense, though, parallel to psychobabble. Some people, even those who are apparently otherwise sane and intelligent, pick up poorly-understood concepts of evolutionary science and swing them about wildly in defense of this or that position. When you read a man arguing online that his three girlfriends, who have just caught on to each others' existence, should be understanding about and amenable to the arrangement because he is a male human and male humans are evolutionarily predisposed to mate with as many females as possible, you are reading evobabble in this second sense.
==See also==
*Evolutionism - another snarl word
*Technobabble - presumably what the creationists are trying to draw an analogy to
==Notes==
==References==
__NOTOC__
Category:Creationism
Category:Language
Category:Evolution
Category:Neologisms
Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution

Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution () is an intelligent design book written by British environmental scientist David Swift, it was published by Leighton Academic Press in 2002.
==Overview==
The book claims to have no political or religious agenda and to be a critique of Darwinian evolution independent of the American ID movement. The main argument of the book is that research in biochemistry has revealed complexity at the molecular level, posing fundamental challenges to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution by David Swift The book accepts natural selection and the scientific age of the earth.Evolution under the microscope
==Leighton Academic Press==
The book was published by Leighton Academic Press owned by Swift who has written:
==Reception==
Swift is well educated in his own field as he obtained an MSc in Water Resources Technology from the University of Birmingham, but is not qualified in biology or biochemistry, which are the main topics of his book. The book has not been reviewed by the scientific community; however, Swift has published other articles on intelligent design which have been accused of using creationist arguments and misunderstanding biology.Lack of understanding does not equal evidence for design
Creationists have supported the book and are even selling it on their own Christian websites,Christian Review also see Christian Website which doesn't bode well for the book's "non-religious" line.
==See also==
*Adam and Evolution: A Scientific Critique of Neo-Darwinism
*The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories
==References==
Category:Intelligent design creationism
Category:Books
Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution

Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution () is a theistic evolution book written in 2008 by Denis O. Lamoureux.
==Overview==
Lamoureux has doctoral degrees in dentistry, theology, and in biology. He is the professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, Canada. He also used to be a Young Earth Creationist.Denis O. Lamoureux Biography 
Lamoureux in the book presents a model of "Evolutionary creation" which is a form of theistic evolution. In the book, he accepts and gives evidence for common descent and rejects creationism.Review: Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution According to Lamoureux, his model of Evolutionary creation shows that the Bible is not a book of science, but a God-inspired book that offers messages of faith.
==Reception==
The book was written in an attempt to wake up the Christian anti-evolution audience in America to accepting the scientific evidence for evolution whilst also giving support to the Christian faith.Review: Evolutionary Creation by Stephen J. Godfrey The book has received positive reviews from theists.Book Review by Bethany Sollereder It is still a religious book and has not been reviewed by many scientists.
==References==
Category:Christianity
Category:Religious books
Category:Theistic evolution
Evolutionary biology

Evolutionary biology is the study of the origin and evolution of species. Evolutionary biologists research the processes and causes of evolution and biodiversity, determine relationships between species, and document the history of evolution. Thus evolutionary biology includes the fields of cladistics, phylogenetics, and molecular evolution. Additionally population geneticists study the causes of genetic variation and ecolological geneticists consider the effects of the environment on species.
This scientific field is related to other areas of biology. To learn about past evolution paleontologists examine the fossil record, embryologists study developmental processes, and zoologists learn how various animals work. Evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote an essay titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), The American Biology Teacher
Evolutionary biology became a recognized field of study in the 1930's when it was realized that evolution could be explained by Mendelian genetics, in a model of evolution termed the modern synthesis. Many universities have evolutionary biology departments. Evolutionary biology has a practical application in species conservation.
Evolutionary Biology is the name of an influential textbook on the subject written by biologist Douglas Futuyma in 1942.
==Significant evolutionary biologists==
* Charles Darwin
* Richard Dawkins
* Theodosius Dobzhansky
* Niles Eldredge
* Douglas Futuyma
* Stephen Jay Gould
* Julian Huxley
* Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
* Richard Lenski
* Richard Lewontin
* Ernst Mayr
* George Gaylord Simpson
* Steven M. Stanley
* G. Ledyard Stebbins
==External links==
* 
* Introduction to Evolutionary Biology on Talk Origins, Chris Colby, 1/7/96
* Evolutionary Biology, BioMed Central
* European Society for Evolutionary Biology
==References==
Category:Evolution
Category:Biology
Evolutionary developmental biology

Evolutionary developmental biology (also known as evo-devo) is a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different organisms to determine the ancestral relationship between them, and to discover how developmental processes evolved.
==Overview==
The developmental approach to evolution was excluded from the modern synthesis, as it was thought that population genetics could explain evolution, whilst morphology and development were seen to play little role in modern evolutionary theory. This, however, has in recent years been challenged, as research has shown how developmental processes are important in evolution.Developmental Biology. 6th edition by Scott F. Gilbert
According to evo-devo scientists, population genetics and the developmental genetics accounts are both required to explain evolution. Some evo-devo researchers have pointed out limitations of classic neo-Darwinism, see themselves as extending and enhancing the modern synthesis, and have also challenged certain tenets of neo-Darwinism and taken evolutionary theory beyond the boundaries of the modern synthesis.Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis by Gerd B. Müller Thus the field of evo-devo has been incorporated into the extended evolutionary synthesis. 
Developmental biology is one of the fastest growing fields in biology, creating a framework that integrates molecular biology, physiology, cell biology, anatomy, neurobiology, immunology, ecology, and evolutionary biology.
A classic example of evo-devo would be treatise on the comparative anatomy of the embryos of animal species. While Haeckel exaggerated some of the data, he did more or less accurately portray the developmental similarities of the embryos of related taxa.Haeckel's embryo pictures - Talk.origins Haeckel noted that each of the embryos of the vertebrates, for instance, developed a The evolutionary predecessor of the spine. pharyngeal gill slits, and a tail. Funnily enough, human embryos reabsorb their tail later on in development (because we're apes).How humans lost their tail (twice) - Live Science
==Debunking creationism==
According to evo-devo scientists, by leaving developmental biology out of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, it has left evolutionary biology open to attacks by creationists. According to creationists, population genetics cannot explain the origin of complex structures such as the eye, so evolution must be false. Creationists have questioned how complicated structures have emerged by a collection of random mutations.
In response to these creationist claims, Scott F. Gilbert has written:Scott F. Gilbert Developmental Biology Sinauer Associates; 6th edition, 2000 ISBN 0878932437
==External links==
*The Origins of Form by Sean B. Carroll
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Evolution
Category:Biology