Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 25

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Doctors poll results

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --JeremyK 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --JeremyK 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off

News item: Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off

Rocket.jpg
Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. RachelW 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Factual error

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at Counterexamples to Evolution --PhilipN 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. Scottma
He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --HarryPagett 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
Oh--Sorry. Hmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. Scottma
The agnostic Carl Sagan, who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) Conservative 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. Scottma 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Hate to say it, but Factcheck was right. It's been proven as fact multiple times...it's actually better understood and more of a fact than gravity. Kicple 18:15, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

Unlike gravity, macroevolution has never been observed. According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." :) [2] Dawkins reminds me of Bill Clinton. It depends on how you define the word "is". Conservative 18:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
Using that logic, you can't prove Creation, either. Sure, it's been well-recorded and well-documented, but no one alive now actually saw it happen. Same goes for evolution; difference is, one has a book backing it up, the other has actual research to back it up.
I'd also like to say, in order to get it out of the way, that my opinion of the Bible is the same as Thomas Jefferson's...great role model, not so great a textbook. Kicple 01:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Evolution vs. gravity

"Although Darwin's theory is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicist have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid." (Berlinski, [3] Devil's delusion, p.191)

Evolution as a "fact"

Q (Edge Foundation): What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? A (Dawkins): I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all “design” anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. (What we believe but cannot prove)--AK 17:08, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Evolution as a theory or hypothesis

Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. NickP 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk Scottma 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the evolution page. Give me a few minutes. Conservative 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
Here are some articles that could be created: Evolution as hypothesis,Evolution is a religion, Evolution disproved, Disproving evolution, Evolution and Karl Popper, Evolution is a lie and Evolution is a deception Conservative 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. NickP 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. Conservative 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks

Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a Mechanisms of Evolution page or something like that. I guess you could even create a Why some people might believe in Evolution page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. Scottma 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
A well done Mechanisms of microevolution article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.Conservative 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
Yes good point. The article should be Mechanisms of microevolution. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a Natural selection article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. Scottma 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

A supporter of the Question evolution! campaign writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[1]

(photo obtained from Flickr, Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: license agreement)

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

Your failure to accept evolution

Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --Jackmondoo23 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Jackmondoo, you seem frustrated that Darwinism hasn't gained far better traction in the world in terms of public acceptance - despite having 150 plus years to do so. Given that global atheism is shrinking and is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate, the explosive growth of global Christianity and the inability of Darwinists such as yourself to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists things are not going to go better for Darwinism in terms of public acceptance and likely to grow much worse. In addition, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Conservative 17:47, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
By the way, the Journal of Creation and the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal are both peer reviewed journals. You failure to mention them despite them being listed at this website is indicative of you engaging in sloppy due diligence or deceit (see: Atheism and deception). Also, last time I checked the bulk of academia failed to predict the 2008 global economic crises, yet you want the public to take their evolutionism which supposedly happened millions of years ago as gospel truth - it is not going to happen (especially in the light of the fact that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists). Lastly, given that Darwinists do not believe in open science and engage in repressive tactics and have "trade secrets" they keep from the public, I find your 98% figure rather amusing. Conservative 18:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

this is all quite disturbing...Clarkbc 19:19, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

It is quite disturbing that some liberals cling to liberal consensus in the absence of proof and evidence. What I want to know is: If liberal scientists are such masters of understanding of the natural world, then why praytell did they schedule 'global warming' conferences during bone chilling weather? On the other hand, the biblical creationist and prophet Moses was an excellent predictor when it came to plagues, hail and other phenomena. Conservative

What does scheduling a global warming conference during cold weather have to do with anything? Are all scientists liberals? Clarkbc 19:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

As far as I know, the scientists involved in the Journal of Creation and the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal are not liberals. Also, I do find your reluctance to concede my point about the 'global warming' conferences to be quite telling. Cold weather indeed - try snow filled and/or bone chilling weather! Congratulations, you win the Conservapedia understatement of the day award. Conservative 20:05, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
As far as you know? Does that mean that some of these scientists still might be liberals? Or that there might be other non-liberal scientists? The fact that it still snows does not mean that the average temperature of earth is not rising. Hotter summers can cause a dramatic change in weather patterns. I can see the vast amount of intellect you have put into this. Perhaps you should cite some creationist websites to support your argument. Clarkbc

There are liberals/atheists/evolutionists who are greatly puzzled that I am capable of showing an inexplicable amount of clarity in areas of outside atheism/evolutionism. I will now solve this puzzle without Occam's razor being violated (Let's not forget the fact that William of Ockham was a theist). Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are false.

Do you see the sheer beauty of this simple, yet powerful solution? It elegantly explains why evolutionism violates the tenets of open science, does it not? Namely, evolutionism displays these characteristics: evolutionists have "trade secrets" that they attempt to keep from the public and evolutionists futilely attempting to crush dissent in unethical ways. Of course, those who attempt to crush anti-evolutionary dissent are no match for: the growing grassroots Question evolution! campaign and its 15 questions for evolutionists, global atheism shrinking and its expected accelerated shrinking which is going to impact Western atheism, the 10 factors which are going to negatively affect American atheism and the explosive growth of global Christianity. Conservative 00:24, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

By the way, two reservoirs of creation scientists' insight on the global warming controversy can be found HERE and HERE. Conservative 00:46, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

No I do not see how that explains anything. What you just said makes absolutely no sense. I'm puzzled that you can actually read or write, because you certainly do not show any clarity. It seems like the only arguments you have are you declaring atheism is coming to and end and citing Christian websites. Clarkbc 01:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Clarkbc, setting aside the Book of Revelation which certainly speaks of "the end" which I have never mentioned in relation to atheism, where did I ever say that atheism would come to an end and what sources did I employ? Did I not rather provide resources concerning the Decline of atheism? Are you engaging in sloppy thinking and "argumentation" and/or deceit (see: Atheism and deception). Second, are you familiar with the genetic fallacy and are you once again engaging in sloppy thinking and argumentation? By the way, deep down we know that atheism is already intellectually dead and that is why the ex-militant atheist and agnostic Richard Dawkins (we know the so called weak atheism is dressed up covert agnosticism and also intellectually dead), has a cowardice problem when it comes to debating conservative Christianity. Feel free to engage in last wordism at this point. Conservative 04:15, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
Wow--just checking this thread again. Clarkbc doesn't seem to want to engage in an actual discussion about the facts. I fear for the future of our country when debates digress into name-calling. I can see now why this page is locked: many who might edit it have no interest in advancing the discussion for the greater good. Although I do disagree that, "those who attempt to crush anti-evolutionary dissent are no match for the growing grassroots." You should never underestimate the strength of a theory that had been around for 150 years. Scottma 15:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
FYI: "There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. It deserves to be heard." "Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." (Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University)
95 Theses against Evolution--AK 17:19, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
Add. "These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence " - I'm afraid that's something we can agree on, just see this.--AK 09:14, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

Sadly, this is true. I suggest this quote: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", (Michael Behe, creation scientist). And please don't accuse me of being liberal. I'm not. I find that rather disturbing that conservatism is often combined with anti-science creationism nonsense. PB 17:00, 27 May 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools