Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article was just a pile of falsehoods before the last two edits. I've added references to put paid to the arguments presented (common descent is not 'asummed' by scientists) and deleted the bit about unguided/guided evolution which doesn't relate to the topic on this page (add it to the appropriate page if you think conservapedia really needs it) --Igor nz 20:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If you would like to improve it try to adopt a more nuteral tone. I realize that there is not a particularly nuteral tone at the moment, but please if you are going to change try to lessen the bias instead of just changing the direction thereof. --Ben Talk 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

No, the earlier article contains statemetents that are false (breaking the 1st commandment). This article is referenced and based on reality. If people want to edit it they can but surely a well referenced article dealing with these claims is better than one which is simply wrong --Igor nz 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
You must be new here, or you'd know that Reality has an obviously Liberal bias, which is why nobody here relies on it. --Gulik3 21:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


This article would probably be better off in the essay section of Conservapedia. --Sulgran 21:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

The title would certainly fit better with it being an essay, but perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Igor nz's bit about AiG's view is valid, but apart from that I'm not sure that his version is much better than the original. I'll try to remember to come back and have a go at it myself sometime. I've already written some stuff (not in article space) about evolution not being falsifiable, which may be able to go in here. Philip J. Rayment 23:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Spelling and Grammar - Signs of Quality Home-Schooling

Ummmmm...should that not read "Evolution is an UNPROVEN theory?" Sevenstring 00:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Mischaracterization of source

I removed the a statement ("and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis") and its source (Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).) because it is apparantly an inaccurate representation of the source. Specifically, according to this site, Popper stated: "The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." Also, in 1980, Popper hedged in his letter to New Scientist. The assertion that Popper deemed "evolution a falsifiable hypopthesis" is not backed up by Popper's 1980 works, as well as respected authors like Numbers. HeartOfGoldtalk 01:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really care to much now the inane link from the front page of the evolution page is gone but Popper (1978) does say that particular parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable (which is whats at question, not whether neo-darwinism completely explains evolution which your quote is about). To my mind the interesting bit is evolution is such a broad theory that finding an individual observation that would bring it all down is hard (in fact the sorts of observations that would are going against things that are just taken as facts; some organisms have more offspring that others, there is some mode of inheritence of traits from parent to offspring...). Instead lots of little hypotheses can be proposed and tested for different parts of the theory. We couldn't deal with those sorts of ideas here without introducing Lakatos' and Kuhne's philosophies of science and that becomes a very big task. --Igor nz 20:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
He also says that in the 1980 work. However, asserting that parts are falsifiable and asserting "that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis" are two different things. I have not read the 1978 work though. If you have, and you were the person who added the statement "and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis", I strongly encourage you to accurately summarize sources. I assume that whomever added this statement did so in haste, and I encourage that person to take more time in making contributions to hot-button articles. HGHeartOfGold talk 22:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Do we need this article

Simple question, does this article have any reason to exist? If it is really going to be about the title then all it needs is a description of why calling a 'theory' 'unproved' betrays a lack of understanding of either word in scientific discourse (which AiG attests to).

If we want a big piece on falsification and whether evolutionary theory is falsifiable then it shouldn't be on this page (it should probably be on the main evolution page but us plebs can't edit that one). Thoughts? --Igor nz 21:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the article is salvagable. HGHeartOfGold talk 22:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Question about an edit Igor nz made

I do want to point out that this edit introduced this sentence:


In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref>"

Several problems with this particular sentence:

1. Have you read this article? Is it fairly characterized? I do not think so. [In the interest of disclosure, I have very good reason to believe that the article actually states: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." p. 23

So, my question is, have you read the article in question? No, don't answer if you don't want to. I don't want to make allegations that push you into a corner. In the interest of intellectual honesty, it would be good to have an evolutionist (read: Somebody who supports the "scientific theory of evolution") help make such conservapedia articles better. But based on the information I have regarding the Newsweek article, your summary of it was less than accurate, and exaggerated, and leads me to suspect you may have simply cut and paste it from an evolutionist website. Again, please don't take this suspicion as an attack against you personally. Rather, either just deny it, or, if true, let's not let it happen again. HGHeartOfGold talk 22:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, thisi was a mistake, IMO

No? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Can someone name a "proved" theory?

If so, please do so. State the name of the "proven" theory, state what observations this theory explains, state the mechanisms that this theory claims to be responsible for the observations and cite the relevant "proof". --Dimensio 11:43, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Agreed with the above, the current theory of gravity is unproven, the theory of light is not only unproven but in some cases contradictory (dual wave/particle model), even our understanding of how volcanoes work is just a theory, to the best of my knowledge we have never actually observed the convection of the mantle. But we accept these theories, why? Because they are the ones which best fit the observations. The same with evolution, it is the best theory which fits the observations, while it does make postulations this is simply a fact of science, Galileo made assumptions about the uniformity of acceleration due to gravity while investigating the principle of relativity and projectiles, assumptions which were only proven correct after his theories was presented and assumptions which were only made because they fitted the observations that were made. EQ 19:57, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools