Talk:Evolution

From Conservapedia

Student Panel's Decision

After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at User talk:CPanel, and we will do our best to resolve them.

Sincerely,
The Conservapedia Student Panel --User:CPanel

The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:

The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ CPanel 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Set 2 of Archives

Set 1 of Archives

Contents 1 Student Panel's Decision 2 Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct 3 Quick Question... 4 Irrational? 5 Article appears to be non-neutral 6 Some links need to be updated 7 A bit misleading 8 a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article 9 A request for permission to use this article 10 United States point of view 11 Question on Transitional Forms

Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct

Given that there is no real evidence for evolution, I have decided to put together material for an upcoming Conservapedia article some of which will be incorporated into the evolution article which will partly reveal why there are so many Theories of evolution. The material I have gathered so far and am in the midst of fact checking is here: User:Conservative/EvolutionAsSocialConstruct The article will be given the title: Evolution as a Social Construct. I thought it would be a complementary article for Conservapedia's article: Causes of Atheism. conservative 01:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually there is real evidence for evolution. You greatly underestimate the scientific method to propose that something without evidence could be considered a scientific theory under those rules.Riddles 23:36, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Quick Question...

I understand other points of view on evolution, and I've looked at the archive of this talk page, so before I open my mouth, I have a question: This article, as well every other article on this wiki, is supposed to represent THE conservative point of view on evolution? We all must acknowledge that different conservatives may know more or less than others, but their collective opinion is supposed to be presented in this article. Am I correct? Rustyfence 00:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Please show us that the evolutionary position is a conservative position. You can start with the early church fathers and Moses.  :) conservative 03:17, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, "THE" evolutionary position ISN'T a conservative position, all the conservatives I know and this page make that pretty clear. You know what, now that I think about it, I think this page is all good and representative of that standard, then. The numerous improvements I would suggest would not be appropriate for this wiki, because most conservatives don't know about them. I think the best thing I can do is support public knowledge of such topics elsewhere. If conservatives know about said suggestions, then said suggestions and conservative commentary would be appropriate. I have nothing to add to this article. Good luck on the article and God bless. Rustyfence 16:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Irrational?

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[242]"

This isn't irrational, it's actually a valid comment on the scientific method. Science by definition searches for naturalistic explanations, if someone was able to propose a supernatural explanation (even if it were true) it would be outside the domain of Science. Again, this has nothing to do with "true vs. false" ie, "god created life" may be true, but if it can't be verified naturally it isn't science. Cheers Tim111 22:03, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Tim, please give a fairly exhaustive listing of definitions of science with the attending sources. Second, please do elaborate on why a valid definition of science would result in all physical data pointing to conclusion being ignored as I rightfully believe that claims should be adequately supported. conservative 03:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

The non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Since the god of the bible is apparently unrestrained by natural laws he is supernatural and therefore unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation of natural phenomena. Jamesmackenzie 17:07, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Article appears to be non-neutral

I'm a conservative in most ways- but I do have a quick question- why does this article take God and Evolution and make them mutually exclusive? Evolution says nothing about God not existing- indeed- I cannot imagine a way that we could form without god's intervention. I support a theory known as guided evolution- where that while species did evolve and change overtime- god oversaw the whole process, guiding it into new directions. Just a thought. God bless! --Rockstone 22:17, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Rockstone, you failed to provide any evidence for your hypothesis of guided evolution. conservative 03:11, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

This ought to be enough evidence, methinks. Cheers, Trustworthiness 03:11, 18 August 2009

That only talks about the beginning of life, evolution is the genetic change in populations over generations via environmental factors and random mutations and in the case of theistic evolution, by a god Riddles 23:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Some links need to be updated

Many in the "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position" section. They currently go to redirect pages. Jinx McHue 21:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

A bit misleading

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."

The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in Lamarck's article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: "Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned" ([1]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [2]

This is only one of several deliberating misleading comments present throughout; perhaps sites such as "medterms.com" are not the best choices as cogent sources.

Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of Pi. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. conservative 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article

Incorporate in article, A study: Morals decline and evolution: http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution conservative 01:31, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Correlation does not imply causation. If that were the case then the decline of pirates would be causing global warming Riddles 23:42, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

A request for permission to use this article

Hello, I found this page and the counter examples page whilst searching for material to help our children to get a balanced view of the topic. Here in Norway (and all of Scandinavia) the education system is VERY left-wing and atheist, and there is very little non-evolutionist information in Norwegian. Would it be OK if I translated some of your articles to pass on to the our young? By the time kids here have learned good English many have been indoctrinated in to the evolutionist world-view, so I would like to give them both sides of the arguement when they are still young.

I hope I can help you with other things on your excellent site. Trond Eirik TESvestad 16:22, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes, please do translate and use freely. Thanks for your interest and open-mindedness. I particularly like the Counterexamples to evolution and find it to be a good educational presentation.--Andy Schlafly 16:29, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Hopefully you will give your young a balanced education and allow them the question both sources for and against evolution. Remind them that they should not make up their mind until they hear everything and that, no offense, even you could be wrong here. Riddles 23:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Or you could be wrong. All I've seen from you is not just a severe lack of proving evolution, but your constant talking of it in riddles. Karajou 19:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

United States point of view

Dear co-workers. I'm not sure if I understood well, but I think it's a pity this article only gives an American poinst of view. According to the logo of this site this is logical, but I would appreciate it when is was also written in a more general point of view. Now there are a lot of data which only represent the situation in the USA, but maybe we can consider to add data of other countries. E.g. if the article mentions that 40% of the Americans see the Evolution theorue as true, why not also mention that 27% of the Turkish and 50% of the Rumanian does the same? Thanks Zenschaatser 08:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

The article mentions the UK as well. If you have data from other countries as well about how Darwinism is losing public support, please feel free to share this information. I do know that the Darwinism is appearing to lose public support in Australia since 1990 and that it has lost a considerable amount of public support in Turkey in recent times as well. conservative 19:01, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Question on Transitional Forms

It seems to me that if the theory of evolution were correct, then nearly every animal would be some kind of transitional form (apart from species that die out). Supposedly, I am a transitional form between my parents and my children. Theoretically, evidence of a lack of transitional forms could, and seems to often be taken to the extreme of requiring every minute change in an organism, or it is dismissed as incomplete. 1000 years from now, if one were to dig up my parents and my children, and conclude they inherited certain genetic variations from evolutionary pressure, someone with the "conservative point of view" would claim there was no transitional form, thus the two organisms were obviously not evidence of evolution. This article seems to lack any questioning of the extremes the idea of transitional forms is taken to by most religious scholars, nor does it show the increasing amount of evidence of actual transitional forms. I fear conservative thought buries itself in a hole when ardently supporting or opposing ideas because they have disagreements with small parts of the bible. The bible was written by men, and as the Bible clearly states, men are not perfect.

I noticed you did not have any actual evidence of evolutionary transitional forms supposedly created by macroevolution. By the way, the word Bible is is supposed to be capitalized (I am sure that this was a mere oversight by a scholar such as yourself). :) conservative 14:16, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Macro evolution is merely a label for species evolving into other species (which is basically "micro" evolution given enough time) Like the above poster stated, all creatures are transitional forms and the evidence is the actual creatures itself. If you were to look at a high definition digital picture of a rainbow, looking at a pixel and the one right next to it you wouldn't be able to notice the difference easily at all. However it is clear that as you go on a noticeable change begins to occur. This is evolution and "macro evolution" is when those creatures go from being red to noticeably orange.

Always happy to educate people on evolution Riddles 23:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Riddles, I believe you are mistaken and if you check the Conservapedia evolution article you will find that creation scientists believe in speciation. I don't believe speciation could be considered large scale changes. conservative 10:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)