Changes

"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."

"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" ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).

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"'' ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]

::::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. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

::::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. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." It could also include,   "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote.'' "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."'' It could also include, ''  "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." ''(page 830)

    "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

''"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

    "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)

''"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." ''(page 832)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html