From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Once again, it would be helpful to have actual evidence to back up the creationist ideas here. Evidence does not mean quoting an opinion from creationist books, but actual physical, observable evidence. Thanks. Palmd001 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting to note that Reference 4 does not in any way support the assertion that it is supposed to be verifying - that there was a land bridge between Australia and Europe. Chrysogonus 05:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've provided a different reference. Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution of the wombat

If anyone has proof that the wombat evolved, please present it. Merely saying that some scientists "asserts" or "speculates" something tells our readers nothing.

I've heard speculation that the earth is hollow and we're all walking around on the inner surface of a sphere, with gravity pulling us outward. But without a theoretical explanation (which is falsifiable), I would dismiss such a notion as pseudoscience. --Ed Poor 11:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, so under that logic why did you leave in the creationist section? Heck, we should remove any mention of origins related issues from all articles. I'm not going to do that since I appreciate the point of a WP:POINT sort of guideline even if we dont have one here. JoshuaZ 11:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Joshua, I appreciate your respect of the golden rule ("do as you would be done by"). In general, you can follow Wikipedia rules here, and "using disruption to make a point" is pretty much frowned upon here (as there). I'm glad you stopped your disruption after only one article.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel the creationist section should be deleted. That is the usual "wiki" thing to do: explain one's intent or rationale, rather than engaging in an edit war. --Ed Poor 11:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I have to ask, Did you question the falsifiability of the theory of evolution? Also I do see where Josh is going with this. What proof is there for the creationist's claims that trumps the proof over the evolutionist claims?--TimS 11:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The reasoning was (as Tim seems to have understood) was that if you consider the evolution section to be too speculative than a fortiori so is the creationist section. (Incidentally, it appears that CP agrees with me. See his recent edits restoring both). (I'll ignore your unfounded implication that I was "disruptive") JoshuaZ 11:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Mitochondrial and fossil evidence

JoshuaZ has inserted the line, "This hypothesis is supported by mitochondrial genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence". Not having access to his source, could he or someone please explain how the evidence support this? Thanks in anticipation. Philip J. Rayment 11:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT) (P.S. I hadn't see the section above when I posted this.)

The mitochondrial DNA divergence matches the expected phylogentic tree (actually, the ref shows slightly more, since there has been some controversy about certain details of the major marsupial evolution and the ref supports one version over another, what's known as the Marsupionta hypothesis). JoshuaZ 11:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I was hoping for a little bit more detail than that (but not too much). Specifically, one of the things that anti-creationists so often overlook is that if both creation and evolution make similar predictions, then the evolutionary prediction being fulfilled does not support evolution over creation. Can you explain how the evidence supports the evolutionary view over the creationary view? If not, I don't think that bit should be in there. Philip J. Rayment 11:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Well that paper and others give times of divergence based on the molecular evidence and neutral mutation rate that are close to the standard times from the fossil record. For example, the genetic evidence given in the paper gives a divergence time of around 70 million years between the Australian marsupials and the South American marsupials. This is consistent with that derived from the fossil record, which is generally put at between 60 and 90 million years or so(those numbers may be slightly, off I haven't look at some of this material in a while, but they are roughly correct). JoshuaZ 11:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

This little animal!!

This little animal is getting far to much attention... I mean like come on. People don't argue whether it it has evolved or not, if you can find the link then thats great. Joshua stop being so combative. Ed you always take a beating and I am glad you are stiking to your "guns". 2 or 3 of you work on this, or peacefully discuss this. Thats all folks.--Will N. 11:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I would think…

that a rear-facing pouch is inconclusive at best. Here's a hypothetical evolutionary sequence:

  1. Wombat is born with a mutation causing the pouch to face backwards
  2. Now, at least one of at least two scenarios can occur:

  3. Wombat is now able to dig w/o killing young, thus conferring an advantage
  4. or

  5. Wombat's young have a greater incidence of survival, thus also conferring a benefit.

Hypothetically, we could also imagine a scenario where the wombat's young better survived because predators were acclimated to forward-facing pouches. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 13:03, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

True, it is not conclusive. Very few arguments taken in isolation are. However, this is just another example of an evolutionary just so story—pure speculation without any evidence and almost certainly requiring multiple interdependent biological changes, not the sort of thing that would come about "with a mutation". Philip J. Rayment 19:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you talking about the scientific understanding of evolution of a backward facing pouch? I have never seen an evolutionary argument that says the wombat's pouch did a 180 degree rotation from front facing to backwards facing over a long period of time, rather that koalas and wombats are more closely related, and developed pouches that face backward, while other marsupials developed pouches that faced forward. It is not necessary to start from the position of a fully formed pouch: take monotremes: platypuses don't have a pouch, and an echidna has a temporary pouch. For live births with very small young, a pouch confers benefits. The direction would be less important.Myrtle 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you could tell us what the evolutionary understanding is? Proposing that pouches evolved separately twice is just making the evolutionary story even more incredible. Have you ever seen a pouch that is incomplete (not fully-formed/fully-evolved)? I'd suggest that such a thing is more evolutionary story-telling. Philip J. Rayment 08:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
The echidna has a not-fully-formed pouch. I have seen it.
As far as the evolutionary view goes, I understand that there are great variations in individuals. The heritable variations, over lots of time, end up resulting in huge differences. Genome analysis provides evidence of this.
Pouches are almost essential to marsupials, since the young are born so underdeveloped, and so it wouldn't really be a surprise if the pouch were found to have evolved multiple times.
The marsupials with backward facing pouches all use four legs to move (on two legs, a backwards facing pouch wouldn't work too well). These animals are: koala, wombat, marsupial mole, and the thylacine. The thylacine (tassie tiger) is the odd one out in this list, since it isn't (wasn't) heavily built like the other three. As for convergent evolution (similar features evolving more than once), even the eye is thought to have evolved more than once: [1]. Apparently, the octopus design is slightly better than ours.

Evolution describes the mechanics of how things came to be, not who did it or why. What you and I think about evolution is nowhere near as important as ensuring that conservapedia is trustworthy. I don't see how evolution is necessarily non-Christian, as the denominations of the majority of Christians accept evolution. As Pope Benedict says: "Truth does not speak against truth". Taking the line that most Christians follow would seem to be the conservative way to go, I think, unless by conservative you mean YE Creationist.Myrtle 21:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
What's "not-fully-formed" about the pouch of the echidna? In what respect is the pouch deficient in a way that is disadvantageous to the echidna?
Genome analysis is a very new area of research. It can show differences between creatures, but cannot show how those differences came about over time, because they haven't been observed over time.
Computers are almost essential to modern business, so it wouldn't really be a surprise if computers were found to have evolved (read: developed by chance processes with no intelligent input) multiple times. See how ridiculous that reasoning is?
Yes, "convergent evolution" is rife, but "convergent evolution" is nothing more than a label for things that don't fit the evolutionary pattern of common features having evolved in a common ancestor. That is, it is an ad hoc "explanation" for evidence that contradicts the hypothesis.
Evolution was designed as an explanation for how things came to be without a Designer; it implicitly says that there was not a "who". Evolution is anti-Christian because it is anti-biblical because it is contrary to the clear biblical account of all life being created in a period of six days. That many Christians accept this theory that was designed to explain things without God is something that should be taken up with them, because it is clearly contrary to the Bible
Philip J. Rayment 00:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Fine, let's agree to differ on our Biblical views.
As for evolution, I never said the pouch was disadvantageous to the echidna, but it does give a hint that pouches may not have started with the full, deep pouch that a kangaroo has.
No, convergent evolution is not a fudge regarding common ancestors. It means that selective pressures can produce similar results on different branches of the tree. You get the same thing in human cultures and ideas: different cultures developed different number systems independently, because being able to count is a useful thing.
I maintain that conservative values embrace non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but even if that's wrong, it shouldn't necessarily impact on an article about wombats. You will notice that I am trying to improve the article, in a fair and balance way in accord with conservative principles. I am not a YEC, but I am not attacking those who are. Please accord me the same courtesy.Myrtle 03:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
You "differ" that the six days of creation are contradictory to evolution?
If the pouch is not disadvantageous, in what sense can it be described as "not fully formed"? If it has everything that the echidna needs, then surely it is a fully-formed echidna-type pouch? So I repeat, have you seen a pouch that is not fully formed?
The only reason it gives a hint as to how the pouch may have started is if one first assumes evolution. So a "not-fully-formed" pouch is not evidence for the evolutionary development of pouches if this "evidence" assumes evolution to start with. That's a circular argument.
Different cultures developed number systems by applying intelligence; this is rejected for evolution because it is supposed to be naturalistic, so that analogy doesn't apply. Apart from that, you have done nothing to support that convergent evolution is anything but an ad hoc explanation to explain evidence that is otherwise inconsistent with the evolutionary idea that features common to two or more creatures originated with the common ancestors of those creatures.
I do recognise and appreciate that you are being fair in the article. I'm only disagreeing with your comments on this talk page. I'm not attacking you or your edits to the article. Sorry if I'm coming over as being too abrupt.
Philip J. Rayment 04:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I differ that "6 days" is the only Christian way to interpret the Bible. Of course "6 days" won't fit with evolution, this is one of the reasons Pope Benedict said "Truth does not speak against truth". Way back on this page, you asked me for the evolutionist view. I did some research, and tried to answer you as best I could, but I must say I wish I hadn't. Myrtle 06:02, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't know of any Christian who understands the six days to mean anything other than six ordinary days except as a result of trying to make it fit with the secular view. (See Old Earth Creationism#Criticism.) The point is, the Bible is very clear about it being six days, and linguistically it can't mean anything else.
As for the quote from Pope Benedict, if truth doesn't speak against truth, and one says six days and the other says millions of years, why is it that you (and so many others) take the millions of years literally rather than the six days?
I asked you for the evolutionist view because you were trying to defend it. If you are unable to, that's fine, I don't expect you to do the impossible.
Philip J. Rayment 06:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
How can anyone explain anything to you? You are right, it is impossible.Myrtle 07:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Now, now, be nice. I've been reading and responding to everything you've said here. Philip J. Rayment 08:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip, I have to say that it is refereshing to witness this conversation. You were patient and reasonable, and, of course, right. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 14:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)